HCHS? [The first RHS]

[el cid again]

I am getting tired of being told "you want too many changes" and "adding ships (whatever) that were historically planned and under construction is not historical."

I am unwilling to play WITP OR CHS until gross errors are corrected. If there is not a consensus in support of modification of all clearly identified errors in CHS immediately - I propose to take whatever fixes ARE incorporated and then produce a HCHS mod - the first H being Historical - in honor of really using the historical data. As far as I am concerned, it is wrong to have fictional bombs on zeros or night fighters, no hidden 16 inch (and smaller) CD at critical Japanese straits, no radar on Japanese radar planes, no Japanese Shinshu Maru and other significant amphibs and aircraft ships, exaggerated ship ranges from database errors putting fuel in the range fields, exaggerated (or understated) aircraft ranges because of database errors in endurance fields, Japanese LCUs with several times too many heavy weapons, those same heavy weapons then often DUPLICATED somewhere else in a detached unit form, etc.

[DuckofTindalos]

Well get cracking, then![8D]

[Sardaukar]

Good part with one-member-design team is that there is not much arguments about data issues...unless real multi-personality ! [:D]
Bad part is that one can do all the work by himself..[8D]

[Captain Cruft]

If you have not played the game yet I would advise holding off on any mass editing project until you have done so. It's possible you may decide it's not worth it. Frustrations with the game engine usually far outweigh those with respect to the OOB data.

Just a thought ...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

If there is not a consensus in support of modification of all clearly identified errors in CHS immediately - I propose to take whatever fixes ARE incorporated and then produce a HCHS mod - the first H being Historical - in honor of really using the historical data.

The perils of naming a scenario..."Historical"

Problem is....most everyone has a differing view of just what "historical" means.

[Blackhorse]

HCHS = Historical Combined Historical Scenario

sounds like Monty Python's "Department of Redundancy Department" [;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

Tee-hee...[:D]

[Nikademus]

Monty!!!!!!! yeah baby....YEAH. I think the gang could create a really good skit out of this. Similar to the Judaien People's Front. "We hate those gits.....we're the Peoples front for the liberation of the Judaien people!"

"oh.....sorry!"

hee hee.

[el cid again]

If you have not played the game yet I would advise holding off on any mass editing project until you have done so. It's possible you may decide it's not worth it. Frustrations with the game engine usually far outweigh those with respect to the OOB data.

Just a thought ...

Thanks. I actually do play against the AI. I find the OB way too frustrating - and I am NOT one of those upset with the engine itself (mostly). I have been around since UV days, and I won't ask my serious gamer friends to try WITP until it is fixed. I regard Andrew Brown's map as the biggest step in that direction, and CHS as a serious second step in that direction. But there turn out to still be issues I regard as significant -and since I really am interested in a better product - I will do whatever has not been done to make it so. I am one of those who works around the clock - Edison was my first hero.

[el cid again]

HCHS = Historical Combined Historical Scenario

sounds like Monty Python's "Department of Redundancy Department"

_____________________________

Yes it does. And since I hate Monty Python, and since it has been suggested I use RHS, I will go that way instead:

Real Historical Scenario.

[Speedysteve]

I'm sensing a world of hurt could be near........

[Tankerace]

I'm just curious, are you starting from scratch with your interpretation, or building off other's work by using CHS as a base? Either way, best of luck (you'll need it).

[Ron Saueracker]

Too bad El Cid is so late to the party. He could have saved everyone a lot of grief and time. Had no idea we was all retarded...[8D][:D]

Seriously, good luck with that.

[el cid again]

I'm just curious, are you starting from scratch with your interpretation, or building off other's work by using CHS as a base? Either way, best of luck (you'll need it).

Let me be clear:

WITP is almost a dream come true. I have spent decades on this, done several WITPs in a mechanical sense, and tried several others, as well as Gary Grigsby's first effort (which is too abstract for me to comprehend).

I began this project proposing to reform WITP - and several people said "hey, why reinvent the wheel, join CHS" - so I did.

CHS is a significant improvement on WITPs flaws. I joined the CHS team- and continue to research for it - because it is open to some additional reform.

Since CHS is apparently not really open to comprehensive reform - and unwilling at this time to honor the plain English meaning of "historical" -

I will do whatever they do not do. It is not the same thing as starting from scratch and doing everything. It is more like standing on the shoulders of giants. A better place to go up from.

At the moment I am just interested in fixing bad data - then I want to PLAY for a while - before coming up with radical new ideas. I have my own campaign as I would have run the war - and you can't do it in CHS or stock - but you won't be able to do it in RHS either. Because it means units have to be available to invade Hawaii on day one. Well day two. Right now all I want to do is put in things that are missing, fix things that are broken, and saddle commanders with EXISTING plans to build things on Dec 8 (Tokyo Time) 1941. And if they are missing, add Kimmel and Short back in to the game. I think - for a sim- that is more historical than "you must convert Shinano to a carrier" which no one intended to do before Midway. So in RHS the last two Iowas are still going to be built (except anyone who does not want them I will kill them for - possibly in a RHS Light variant).

I am a prodigious researcher and worker, and I know how to take advice and help. I have already been given a set of files from another person interested in fixing the bad data, and I will shamelessly integrate any and all useful ideas - rather than surpress them. After all, this is Real Historical Scenario, and so, IF it is documented, it is real and we will use it.

[el cid again]

Too bad El Cid is so late to the party. He could have saved everyone a lot of grief and time. Had no idea we was all retarded...

For the record, let me be clear:

I never said, and do not believe, anyone is retarded. I see evidence of a great deal of sloppy data entry at Matrix originally, and inadequate (and maybe misleading) Manual documentation. I think, in part, that was due to a successful organization's efforts to limit its costs - without which Matrix would not exist, survive and grow. I see CHS as a laudable reform effort by volunteer labor. IF it has the slightest flaw, it is that no one ever looked at every bit of data, field by field, and tried to understand it as a whole - something only a fanatic like me might do anyway. But CHS is not peopled by "retarded" people and, in fact, it is a mixed bag: not everyone at CHS is unwilling to use honest data. Being a group, it does as it must contain a range of opinion. People want to PLAY, not revise ad infinatum - and with that I completely sympathize. I just wish to play with as good a data set - and as many options - as possible. I think it is a violation of CHS very name NOT to use real historical data, but if the consensus is "we don't want that many changes" - so be it. I don't own it and I do not outrank anybody (at least not anybody above the rank of Captain) - so I won't tell a group of fine volunteers what to do. But I don't have to like an unwillingness to be as accurate as possible - and I don't.

Thank you for the good wishes.

I fear I must do all the Allied planes to insure they are not riddled with as many errors as the Japanese ones. And I want to fix the SHIPS too! This is going to take a few hours.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Too bad El Cid is so late to the party. He could have saved everyone a lot of grief and time. Had no idea we was all retarded...

For the record, let me be clear:

I never said, and do not believe, anyone is retarded. I see evidence of a great deal of sloppy data entry at Matrix originally, and inadequate (and maybe misleading) Manual documentation. I think, in part, that was due to a successful organization's efforts to limit its costs - without which Matrix would not exist, survive and grow. I see CHS as a laudable reform effort by volunteer labor. IF it has the slightest flaw, it is that no one ever looked at every bit of data, field by field, and tried to understand it as a whole - something only a fanatic like me might do anyway. But CHS is not peopled by "retarded" people and, in fact, it is a mixed bag: not everyone at CHS is unwilling to use honest data. Being a group, it does as it must contain a range of opinion. People want to PLAY, not revise ad infinatum - and with that I completely sympathize. I just wish to play with as good a data set - and as many options - as possible. I think it is a violation of CHS very name NOT to use real historical data, but if the consensus is "we don't want that many changes" - so be it. I don't own it and I do not outrank anybody (at least not anybody above the rank of Captain) - so I won't tell a group of fine volunteers what to do. But I don't have to like an unwillingness to be as accurate as possible - and I don't.

Thank you for the good wishes.

I fear I must do all the Allied planes to insure they are not riddled with as many errors as the Japanese ones. And I want to fix the SHIPS too! This is going to take a few hours.

LOL, I was just being a wiseass.[:)] Anyway, I don't think the CHS team has any less desire for accuracy than you state you have. But one thing is certain, this game was and is not exactly the best template from which to have started a CHS type project as is well illustrated. This project has been going on for about 8 months now, on and off, and with all the modifications to the map, logistics model, OOBs, etc, nobody has had time to play it for any length of time to see if the changes actually have the desired effect. What is wrong with tying up the current loose ends (ie the IJ OOB needs some work to balance the effort made with the Allied OOB and JK is on it) and taking a break so that the project can be given a thorough test? It is in dire need of just this very thing. This does not mean that research on the minute details can't continue. But those changes need not be added until the proof within the puddin' is in. I figure 3-6 months is a reasonable shakedown.

There is also another potential issue. Mike Wood is taking a well deserved break and has other more pressing stuff to do. From the tone of his last comments on ASW, I say he is still willing to refine the game within reason at a later date. The one thing this game has not been the beneficiary of is adequate test and development time. Nobody can argue this given the state the product revealed itself to be in immediately upon release and continuaously since. So, why not use this time that Mike is unavailable to test the game, specifically the CHS with some of the other mods like Nik's. Once the six months are up, maybe we will have zeroed in on the key problems and come up with reasonable solutions.

[Andrew Brown]

Speaking as a CHS contributor (and a minor one as far as volume of additions is concerned), I say go for it. And as far as I am concerned, I don't have any problem with you using the CHS data - I don't think it is meant to be "private" or "restricted" in any way. CHS borrows from other mods in any case, and will probably continue to do so.

I think the main limiting factor of revision in CHS is time. We are all volunteers, and some us - definitely me - do not have a lot of free time. So there is a limit to what we can achieve.

I think we are close to knowing exactly what we want to add to the next release of CHS, and it definitely is time for a break, and a chance to PLAY the scenario properly to see how it performs. That is what I intend to do once the next revision is completed (and hopefully debugged).

Andrew

[el cid again]

time to play it for any length of time to see if the changes actually have the desired effect. What is wrong with tying up the current loose ends (ie the IJ OOB needs some work to balance the effort made with the Allied OOB and JK is on it) and taking a break so that the project can be given a thorough test?

Fair question:

1) Units are missing. Significant devices and aircraft and ships are missing.

2) Existing ships have massive data errors with respect to range, cruising speed and fuel required. It grossly distorts the costs of movement in a negative sense (it is too cheap to move too far too fast).

3) Existing aircraft has massive data errors and inconsistencies.

4) Existing land combat units are grossly misdefined in terms of heavy weapons and often other factors.

I find it frustrating you wish to freeze everything just at the moment I came along to fix the gross errors. Seems to me that the reform should not stop until the easily identified gross errors are mended. THEN we have a basis to test something.

[el cid again]

The one thing this game has not been the beneficiary of is adequate test and development time. Nobody can argue this given the state the product revealed itself to be in immediately upon release and continuaously since. So, why not use this time that Mike is unavailable to test the game, specifically the CHS with some of the other mods like Nik's. Once the six months are up, maybe we will have zeroed in on the key problems and come up with reasonable solutions.

Amen to your leading point above - Matrix is not good at testing - which I find surprising since it has some talent on board and this is an axiom of software and system development.

Why not wait? Because I don't want to wait. Because I find it frustrating I cannot use Shinshu Maru, or (fill in the blank), and I think it is very wrong to have Zeros with ahistoric bomb loads (or night fighters or fill in the blank). I think it is fairly straitforward and easy to fix documented errors - and then test. Since YOU don't have to do the work - why object??????

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

time to play it for any length of time to see if the changes actually have the desired effect. What is wrong with tying up the current loose ends (ie the IJ OOB needs some work to balance the effort made with the Allied OOB and JK is on it) and taking a break so that the project can be given a thorough test?

Fair question:

1) Units are missing. Significant devices and aircraft and ships are missing.

2) Existing ships have massive data errors with respect to range, cruising speed and fuel required. It grossly distorts the costs of movement in a negative sense (it is too cheap to move too far too fast).

3) Existing aircraft has massive data errors and inconsistencies.

4) Existing land combat units are grossly misdefined in terms of heavy weapons and often other factors.

I find it frustrating you wish to freeze everything just at the moment I came along to fix the gross errors. Seems to me that the reform should not stop until the easily identified gross errors are mended. THEN we have a basis to test something.

You just came along, most of these guys have been involved on and off with this for over a year! People get burnt. JK is going to need some time to finalize the IJ OOB. Can't see why you can't isolate the errors with the endurance of ships ( I knew there was a problem as did Don and many others but alot of data on this is questionable and contradictory) and aircraft, but certain things like AA, new what ifs, kaitens and midgets which may not work within system and become fairy tales etc can wait in my opinion.

Anyway, my opinion is simply that...I can't speak for the CHS as the main guys like Don, Andrew, Lemurs etc are in charge. I was just in on the initial stuff and it got too big even for me (having to move did not help). I was just making my concerns over constant and never ending tweaking be known. Hey, like model railroading, when do ya start running the trains and stop buying boxcar kits?[;)]