Did someone pork the CHS data?

[el cid again]

I totally agree but I adamantly believe the mechanics cause these critical hits overly often. Just my opinion, but during surface combat at close range (another thing which is laughable are the endless 2000 yard blast fests between BBs LOL!) MGs hit so often that if the penetrate they get more whacks at the criticals and basically become more effective than larger shells. This is a result of the mechanics and this is why Lemurs initially did this to DDs (5mm max armour) and CHS applied it univesally...exception non stell hulled vessels.

Turns out CHS did not apply it "universally." Or even "mostly." So that is illusion: perhaps it was plan? Perhaps it was done but someone lost the mod file? Whatever, it isn't there. I am not seeing 2000 yard engagements between BBs often, and only at night - and night combat is very very confusing. We felt we could do it with modern radar and STILL ended up confused! We may have been firing on towed decoys with radar reflectors more than we fired on real targets! Or even just bouys with reflectors on them. I do not see any evidence the game has excessive numbers of critical hits due to mg's - and I am not sure how to test that? Ah- I (a trained test technician) have it - I will do battles with ONLY mgs on both sides! Then we will know.

[el cid again]

There are three "critical" hits in WitP.

1. Magazine explosion
2. Fuel storage explosion
3. Ammo storage explosion

#1 will sink your ship every time

Numbers 2 and 3 add additional SYS and FIRE levels to the normal damage/fire/flt roll. The "damage messages" displayed after a penetration are just descriptors.

I had the impression there is - and there ought to be - a flooding hit.
You made a breech between a structural bulkhead separating watertight compartments. In any case, critical hits clearly do not sink you every time, and I often get them. Sometimes it seems they have almost no effect - hence my theory they were flooding hits. I have seen US CVs take a critical hit and show NO damage at all at the end - and it is common for them to have only a 1% increase to the damage level.

[el cid again]

What's a 'log wizzard'?

Sort of a loggie doggie (US Army terminology).

A logistics oriented person. FOR FUN I plan things YEARS out, and set up possible operations by where I put/send what. If you don't learn to do that, the vast majority of ops become impossible. That is, you may get intel that you theoretically could exploit if you went there fast, but in fact you don't have AOs in position, nor bases with stocks, nor any way to refuel that fast task group, so you cannot really do it. ONLY when you lay a logistic foundation are MOST operations feasible. The rest are risky if you didn't lay the foundation (like Yamashita in Malaya- depending on captured supplies - which they called "churchill supplies"). Yamashita was within about a day and a half of suspending offensive ops when the British surrendered! He was almost out of ammunition - which in real life are is not found on Malay rubber planations! [He didn't mention this at the surrender negotiations]. Effective military leaders need to be logistically focused - and any simulation needs to reward those who are.
JF Dunnigan once wrote (in S&T) "nobody would play a logistic game' - and he is quite wrong! Later he did one - called War in the Pacific! Joe says "it was a game of moving supplies - interrupted by an occasional battle - after which you went back to business - moving supplies."

[Nikademus]

thats because #2 and #3 while defined as "critical" in that they add extra damage and fire levels in addition to the normal damage roll, will not sink your ships. Only #1 will do that.

Regrettably FIREs in the game are underrepresented. They will always go down (in exchange for more SYS) and never burn out of control (go up) so an "Ammo" or "Fuel" explosion aboard a CV will not produce a Kaga, Akagi or Wasp....just additional damage.

[witpqs]

I'm pretty sure that I've seen fires increase. Rarely, but I've only played Allies with Allied Damage Control = On. I assume it happens more with the IJN.

You've never seen it?

[Nikademus]

nope. FL's don't increase. Only go down though the degree of the decrease is variable.

[el cid again]

Regrettably FIREs in the game are underrepresented. They will always go down (in exchange for more SYS) and never burn out of control (go up) so an "Ammo" or "Fuel" explosion aboard a CV will not produce a Kaga, Akagi or Wasp....just additional damage.

]

Fire is the real enemy of warships. I was forced to go to a Navy Damage Control School after about 120 pilots were killed in a fire - a fire ignored by many sailors for over 20 minutes! 1/3 of the Navy had to go to school! I got to wade into tanks of gasoline - burning gasoline - protected by WATER spray! Fun.

I am not sure this criticism is entirely correct: I have seen fires burn out ships in UV and WITP. But I agree it does not seem as bad as it should be. If we do a WITP II, we can fix that. Right now, I can't fix that.

[el cid again]

FL's don't increase. Only go down though the degree of the decrease is variable.

For Japan they can go up. If you are damaged, exhausted, and have other issues, it is more likely.

[Nikademus]

I have never had a Japanese warship's fire levels go up (unless struck by more devices) Didn't you say in the future development thread that you've never played WitP?

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I began by pointing all this out. I intend to fix it all too - probably starting today - whenever I stop getting CHS assignments. I have no clue why this is tolerated - and I have no intention of playing while ships have fictional armor.

I believe that a lot of ships were given some thin armour where they didn't have historically because if you have armour 0 and you are shot at with, say, a machinegun, you can sink in the game engine. Especially true of destroyers. You shouldn't rake a DD with a 0.50 cal and f*ck it up bad, thats just silly.

[el cid again]

I have never had a Japanese warship's fire levels go up (unless struck by more devices) Didn't you say in the future development thread that you've never played WitP?

I owned one of the very first copies of WITP to ship. I was very upset by the product and continued to play UV in preference. But after learning about Andrew Brown's map, I began to use WITP. In order to understand it, I played the AI and both sides against myself - scenario 15 stock. I concluded there were major issues besides the map and set out to change them - and was referred to CHS. Which is a proper reform movement, but one that is not easy to get to fix things fast. So I helped them where they permitted - and now will use the next release as a foundation to move on and fix what they would not allow at this time.
In the course of fixing things I play - what you might call mini-games - test games - because I need to know how this change works when code gets it? This is nothing like PBEM against another person - but UNTIL we have a correct OB or ships with accurate armor (and a dozen other things) I won't PBEM. I find it irritating I cannot have a Shinshu Maru that transports planes (and eventually operates as a carrier - landing them too) - or whatever. Even the planes in stock and CHS were too restricted for my taste - and the good news is they let me redo the planes for CHS.
I know these planes almost as personal friends, and I did a lot of work (up to 18 hours a day for several weeks) to get it right. Which, of course, you can see, since I posted the notes. 30,000 words of them.

[el cid again]

I believe that a lot of ships were given some thin armour where they didn't have historically because if you have armour 0 and you are shot at with, say, a machinegun, you can sink in the game engine. Especially true of destroyers. You shouldn't rake a DD with a 0.50 cal and f*ck it up bad, thats just silly.

I suppose it seems that way to an observer! Destroyers LOOK like warships. And they are warships in an offensive sense. But note that naval historians call them "eggshells armed with hammers." They are fantastic at dishing it out, and versitile - I prefer to kill battleships with destroyers by the way - because they have torpedoes and are more likely to reach firing position than PT boats. But I regret to inform you that the "armor" of a destroyer is its speed and maneuverability - it is not too easy to hit. IF you can get close enough to hit with rifles even, the destroyer is in trouble. There is a modern Congressional Budget Office study that outlined this as a major issue even for our modern "destroyers" - much bigger ships than WWII era destroyers.
I myself served on a destroyer halfway in between in size - Charles F Adams class- and even took her up the Mekong - where she never should go - and also she led a division of WWII era destroyers in surface battle with junks - mostly armed with mgs but also land artillery. Now I admit that a post war Czech MG is not exactly a .30 Vickers - it was deliberately made more dangerous than a Browning .50 - but you don't want to be on a DD that gets shot up by any of them. At least an Adams class ship has a hull that is more than an inch thick of HY80 steel. But above the main deck there is no steel at all - the superstructure is aluminum - and there is so much explosive that the chances of blowing up the ship are far worse than you would like if you knew what they were and you were on board. There is a reason modern USN doctrine is "shoot first - shoot enough" - we don't shoot first we gonna get hurt - no matter what they have! A .30 rifle is dangerous - sorry - I can actually blow up the ship on purpose with one. The only question is "did you hit the right point?" No armor at all on those depth charges or torpedoes (of a WWII era DD - or the ASROC or SAM mountings of an Adams - the magazines are ABOVE the main deck!)

[Lemurs!]

El Cid,

I really do not enjoy you trashing my work... I guess i was not around when you were given permission to redo aircraft, and your data is incorrect.

Also, on ships, if you are doing Japanese ships then no one should get a version you have redone. 'No Jap CA had greater than 25mm armour on turrets!'
Tone had 76mm turrets and 85mm casemates. And on armour, do you mean face, roof, sides what?
Guess, what this is a strategic game, we have one rating for everything. We have to have intelligent discussions about the ships actual armour, then it's history in battle, then come up with ratings that will reflect the ship in the game.

In the future when you are finding innaccuracies in the mod please list all innaccuracies in a 'bugs' thread and actually list them, do not just say 'some of the data is wrong!'. That kind of answer does not help us, and it might not be 'wrong', this is just your opinion until we look it over.

The later upgrades of ships that had old endurance, armour etc are mine and Don's errors. We tried getting all of this on earlier builds but obviously missed a few.

Japanese destroyers, unlike pre Fletcher class Americans were armoured with more than splinter protection. Armoured turrets for destroyers were a Japanese first. This was on Fubukis and forward but not earlier ships. Some great war relics are not given this armour to help reflect the technology difference between classes. There is often no way to reflect the technology shift in the stock game so i used this as a simple method.

Michael

[el cid again]

I really do not enjoy you trashing my work... I guess i was not around when you were given permission to redo aircraft, and your data is incorrect.

For the record:

I did not ask to redo Japanese aircraft. I had no idea there were problems. I was asked to do them. Later I also was asked to fix Allied heavy bomber ranges. I noted other issues with Allied planes, but didn't get permission to fix them - so I didn't (for CHS). I was very surprised at the extent of the errors I found - but since the vast majority of data is identical with CHS and stock I don't think it can be said they are your fault.

I did not trash your work. I found the vast majority of errors originated in stock. In any case, I exhaustively documented my work - and while there are points of interpretation - there is no way my "data is incorrect" as a body. Because I have materials which are new, this effort may be the most accurate model ever created of both JNAF and JAAF (within the limits imposed by the system, which for example does not permit unit name changes - some of which I managed to do anyway). Even to the extent there was incorrect data in CHS, I am not at all certain how it got there, and I never have said it was your fault.

Now in CHS documentation you wrote there are points at which you challenge the accepted data on a specific aircraft or two. I neither accepted nor rejected your contentions on those cases. I simply went to the best sources and compared the data in the fields with the raw data, modifying only if it appeared incorrect, without considering who had done that field for that plane before. I concluded a comprehensive review of every field was required because it was a rare record that was completely correct in all respects. I didn't take the time to go to your notes for any aircraft though - I just worked from the stated sources.

Now I am done. But CHS is NOT released. You may for cause challenge any data point you like. Not to me either. I would LOVE some hard data I do not have - I collect original archival and other documents on Japanese technology. But it is up to the coordinator now. However, I will go one step farther:

IF you have ANY problem with data in ANY field or record, AND IF you send me a description of why you know it is "wrong" - I will (a) change that data for RHS and (b) recommend it be changed for CHS. All I want is to see an image of the source page with a proper cite of where it is from. I admit I prefer to use a common source for as much data as possible - standards and terminology differs between authors and this causes inconsistencies. But I also like original documents, and I was trained to give them preference over secondary documents. In the case secondary authors disagree, I will use analytical methods to determine which is the most likely to be correct. But I will NOT begin with the assumption your source is not better than mine. I am a trained technical analyst, noted for pointing out my own errors when they come to my attention. I want right data and I am shameless about accepting it! You think I am wrong? Where? Why? I am listening. Even if it is "too late" to fix for the next release of CHS I will release it anyway for anyone who wants it - and for RHS.

[el cid again]

Also, on ships, if you are doing Japanese ships then no one should get a version you have redone. 'No Jap CA had greater than 25mm armour on turrets!'
Tone had 76mm turrets and 85mm casemates. And on armour, do you mean face, roof, sides what?

First, you are confused: I have not modified ships because it is not part of this mod. I WANT to modify them - but I have not done - with the technical exception of air group size - when that was assigned to me by my project manager.

I have no clue why you believe this, since you have not given any source. However, the data is conclusive. The difinitive work on IJN cruisers is Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, about 1200 large pages which the authors spend most of their lives compiling - from archives - including many plans and photographs. The data on turret armor is not new - you always could find the correct data in Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships for example. And the data is confirmed by ordnance references in a complete different context: See for example Naval Weapons of World War II. Here it is not listed by ship - but by weapon. Which classes get the weapon is stated - but you can see that the ordnance itself was made this way. There is only a single exception - a very odd one - Katori has 50 mm of turret armor - and it is otherwise NOT an armored ship at all! Then we have the hand printed notes of Cdr Fukui, written in 1945, an IJN naval architect, published by USNI as Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of World War II. [That book is a combination of his report to occupation authorities and a photographic section.] Now you may or may not like the data. I am not responsible for your choices. I am only responsible for getting the best possible data. I collect materials of this sort - so please do not think I make it up or trust some esoteric and unreliable source - at least not when there are numerous reputable sources available. I would not do that.

[el cid again]

In the future when you are finding innaccuracies in the mod please list all innaccuracies in a 'bugs' thread and actually list them, do not just say 'some of the data is wrong!'.

For the record I tried that. I was referred to CHS, and told "we are not going to fix it, no matter how bad it is, because it is not in the current plan to deal with ships." So I began to work on it when I was asked to do other things - Japanese planes - the Soviet Fleet - radar - etc. I did what was ASKED - INSTEAD of what I wanted to do. NOW I will fix the ships.
Since virtually every ship has grossly wrong endurance, cruising speed, fuel, armor and/or weapons errors, I am reluctant to attempt to list them all. I want to play sometime this century! But not with fictional armor.
Conning tower armor is the worst. Where zero it is often shown as up to six inches. Where several inches it is often shown as zero. Where several inches it appears as a different value. It is as if it were fictional - made up - the vast majority of the time (almost all the time). I don't understand this, unless it is because it is hard to find the real data. Since conning tower armor has no real effect on critical hits, I see no point in listing it wrongly. And why go BOTH ways with the errors - say there is none when it is 150 mm and 150mm when it is none? I really have no clue who did that - or why? But it is clear it was done by Matrix. These errors are in stock.

[Nikademus]

Otay....so you've barely played the game. Take it from someone who's played hundreds of hours of UV and WitP both....in tests and in regular game play......FL's do not go up by themselves.

[Black Mamba 1942]

I for one, appreciate elcids effort.

Just because he is adapting CHS into another version doesn't mean it's a personal attack on any of the games former designers.
All this means is that it gives ALL of us players another option to go with.
Options are good, right?[;)]

I like that he's going after a strictly PBEM scenario.

The AI players already have their padded game to help the AI.
That's one of the reasons that the PBEM games are whacked.
Padding the AI's assets, then turning them into human controled assets, really messed up the PBEM's.
A lot of the design decisions were made to help the AI.

It's too bad for a few of us that a strictly PBEM scenario wasn't included in the original package.
That's all history now.[;)]

Keep it up cid!!![:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I for one, appreciate elcids effort.

Just because he is adapting CHS into another version doesn't mean it's a personal attack on any of the games former designers.
All this means is that it gives ALL of us players another option to go with.
Options are good, right?[;)]

I like that he's going after a strictly PBEM scenario.

The AI players already have their padded game to help the AI.
That's one of the reasons that the PBEM games are whacked.
Padding the AI's assets, then turning them into human controled assets, really messed up the PBEM's.
A lot of the design decisions were made to help the AI.

It's too bad for a few of us that a strictly PBEM scenario wasn't included in the original package.
That's all history now.[;)]

Keep it up cid!!![:D]

Pretty moot unless the 1 supply: 1.25 resource ratio is left tied together.

[Black Mamba 1942]

He's working on supply "sink holes" though.
That would help to gobble up the supplies being created at resource centers.
That's a step in the right direction, anyway.

I hope![:D]