Did someone pork the CHS data?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Mike Tremblay

I have been reading all of this with a sense of Deja-vu. I am intensely interested in historical OOB's and with this in mind I decided to tackle the OOB's in Steel Panthers.

Does this mean you'd like to help with the Soviet OOB in WitP?

[Wallymanowar]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Mike Tremblay

I have been reading all of this with a sense of Deja-vu. I am intensely interested in historical OOB's and with this in mind I decided to tackle the OOB's in Steel Panthers.

Does this mean you'd like to help with the Soviet OOB in WitP?

I'd love to if I could find enough info. It seems to be a very 'obscure' area that I have trouble with. Other things have to be taken into consideration as well - like what forces the Societs 'could' have had available, and whether or not you want to overbalance the Soviets in order to prevent a player from taking advantage of the known Soviet dispositions, etc. I can provide you with all the reliable information that I can - what people would like to do with it is up to them.

Send me a PM or E-mail via Matrix if you're interested in what i can find.

[el cid again]

Second is balance. Are the changes that you are making going to unbalance the game and make it unwinnable as one side or the other. This is something that can only be determined through extensive play-testing.

The perception is that the "CHS public" is uninterested in balance. For what it is worth, so am I. Since I want to simulate real events, and since the real events were not balanced, I see little point in caring if the game is 'winnable' or not? Anyway, after decades of playing (and designing) WITP games in a mechanical sense, I can say that those who think Japan cannot win have never played me. No matter how much we design in unbalanced things - one factor is decisive and structural: geography. Japan has an inherant logistical advantage in the Western Pacific, it has interior lines, and (quoting a 1943 US Army intel document) "it uses those lines well." IF you are logistically oriented, the inherant advantages involved in sheer geography are sufficient to offset technical and material imbalance.

[el cid again]

Pubs...as in publications.

Now you know why I hate abbreviations and jargon - even if I use em some.

[Wallymanowar]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Second is balance. Are the changes that you are making going to unbalance the game and make it unwinnable as one side or the other. This is something that can only be determined through extensive play-testing.

The perception is that the "CHS public" is uninterested in balance. For what it is worth, so am I. Since I want to simulate real events, and since the real events were not balanced, I see little point in caring if the game is 'winnable' or not? Anyway, after decades of playing (and designing) WITP games in a mechanical sense, I can say that those who think Japan cannot win have never played me. No matter how much we design in unbalanced things - one factor is decisive and structural: geography. Japan has an inherant logistical advantage in the Western Pacific, it has interior lines, and (quoting a 1943 US Army intel document) "it uses those lines well." IF you are logistically oriented, the inherant advantages involved in sheer geography are sufficient to offset technical and material imbalance.

I have no idea where you get that perception from. My perception about the 'CHS Public' is that they are very interested in 'Balance', historical balance to be precise. In order for a game to achieve historical balance it must be capable of achieving the same historical results most of the time given two opponents of equal competence. Any result that ends with the Japanese surviving beyond their historical date or being defeated prior to their historical date would be a victory for the relevent side, any result which comes close to the historical results would be considered a draw. If a more competent player plays as the Allies and consistently loses based on historical criteria, then there is an obvious imbalance in the game.

What I am saying about making sure the changes you make don't unbalance the game is that if you make it more historically realistic (as an example) in the beginning by providing the historical OOB's, vehicle performance etc, you may be making it impossible for the Japanese Player to have a chance of winning unless you change the victory conditions in the game. Any game that doesn't give both sides a fair chance to win, based on the victory conditions, isn't worth playing.

[Tankerace]

Turthfully, and this isn't meant as a slight to the CHS team, but I think part of the problems I'm seeing you guys argue about is you have (to use a saying from my grandmother) "too many hands in the cookie jar." There are so many people throwing data around, changing this, changing that, that instead of advancing the mod, you are all grinding it to a standstill. It took me 13 months to do WPO, and that was from the ground up. CHS is approaching that same time marker, yet things are being perpetually changed. Data that was added is being overwritten, then overwritten again, then overwritten again.

I think what you guys need to do is hash out a team of no more than a few people. Who does what, and that is it. I just purused this thread, and the impression I am getting is one guy reccommends a change, Andrew says "I'll consider it", and then the guy goes full fury, interpretting that to "do it and it gets in." Not trying to say anyone is doing a poor job or anything, but it seems to me for a large project, you have too many people working on it, adding what they feel should be in, or you have UserA adding his changes, then UserB overwriting said changes with new ones, and then UserC tossing in his input as to why both are wrong.

Now, before I go on I am not trying to tell you guys how to do it. I think CHS has come a long way, and is incredible (I myself prefer my own modded scenarios, but that is a preference). But it does seem that the old timers (Such as Ron and Lemurs) are getting POed at the new guy's, and it can't be to anyone's benefit.

It seems to me you need a base CHS, which is what the original team envisioned. Then you need separate mods based on new work that potentially conflict with work added in, such as the DD armor (which I agree with El Cid on, should not be added), such as say "El Cid's Mod". Having several versions of CHS is going to be problematic, as instead of getting the changes you want into one version, people may tend to try and push it into all versions.

I am not saying anyone is guilty of anything, but doing something like this would seem to be the best way to preserve the original teams work (such as Lemurs original changes, or my art which to my knowledge was replaced by Cobra's, for example), yet allow various members to have whatever changes they wish that may conflict with other members.

Just making a (what I consider to be) impartial observation, as my own involvement in CHS was over a year and a half ago. But as I read these threads, instead of a sense of cooperation, I get a sense of friction. And I for one would hate to see this mod fall apart. I know how stressful doing one can be, but sometimes sharing the load can be more stressful than doing it by yourself. What I reccommend is setting a clear guideline for what you want to acheive. Frankly, as of the past few months, I can't tell exactly what CHS's aims are. Is it what CHS originally shot for? Is it geared more to the HCHS mod? Or is it something different. Is it a more accurate, yet still playable mod? Or is it history only, playability be damned? And based on some comments in this very thread, it seems the active people doing the mod aren't fully sure either.



I'm not trying to rant or give a "Holier than thou" speech, all I am trying to say is maybe change up a few things, as this mod has come a long way, and I would hate to see it crumble because of team disagreements and friction. Frankly, I think you guys have a harder job than I did, because working with a team is one of the most challenging things to do. I just hope that the team continues produce a great mod, without friction between its members (be they the new ones or the vets).

[Andrew Brown]

You are largely correct, Tankerace. If there is disagreement between contributors, it is better that it be discussed and worked out in private, then the agreed change published for input from others.

As for this CHS update, here ia a quick and dirty list of what it encompasses. Note that the list has been expanding as the anticipated completion date has been receding:

• Comprehensive review Japanese land OOB
• Comprehensive review Japanese land TO&E
• Comprehensive review Japanese air OOB
• Comprehensive review Japanese aircraft data
• Compremensive review of Soviet land OOB
• Adding a few Soviet ships
• Review radar for Japanese ships and subs, and for Allied subs (including schnorkels where appropriate).
• Review base data for bases in China, Japan, India, Australia (again), USA (again), Manchukuo, Pacific (again) and SU
• Add a few new bases here and there
• Update for version 5 of my map
• Add a few new Allied aircraft and do some tweaks here and there
• Update ship and air art as appropriate
• Fix as many errors as possible in the time before release

A large part of this work is complete or mostly complete, but there is still a way to go before it is done.

I will be posting some more details when I get a copy of the latest "build" of the scenario (hopefully with notes).

Andrew

PS: As to why the release date has been receding - a large part of the reason is that I have been waiting for the next official patch to be relased, and the timeframe for that release has been receding as well. I am still hoping and waiting for the leader bug and disappearing unit bug to be squashed more thoroughly...

[witpqs]

I put this post in the CHS OOB Errata thread Ron started. Reposting it here in case that wasn't the correct place.

_______________________

I've noticed that certain Commonwealth LCU's have Indian Light Squads in the place you might expect to find CW Rifle Squads. Is this correct?

Examples are 11th East African Div, and 3rd West African BDE. There might be others - I will look if you tell me this condition is incorrect.

[el cid again]

My perception about the 'CHS Public' is that they are very interested in 'Balance', historical balance to be precise. In order for a game to achieve historical balance it must be capable of achieving the same historical results most of the time given two opponents of equal competence. Any result that ends with the Japanese surviving beyond their historical date or being defeated prior to their historical date would be a victory for the relevent side, any result which comes close to the historical results would be considered a draw. If a more competent player plays as the Allies and consistently loses based on historical criteria, then there is an obvious imbalance in the game.

This is not a term I have ever heard in any sort of game design. It is also not a definition easy to understand, much less implement. How could one rate players to determine who has "average competence?" It is always wrong to rate a single outcome as a statistical indicator in any case: theory says the minimum statistical number is 30. It would be a nightmare to try to rate games for "historical balance" - whatever it means. I never try. I think a game of this sort is best left to the players to decide. I can see how both sides might claim victory, and even how both might be right.

What I am saying about making sure the changes you make don't unbalance the game is that if you make it more historically realistic (as an example) in the beginning by providing the historical OOB's, vehicle performance etc, you may be making it impossible for the Japanese Player to have a chance of winning unless you change the victory conditions in the game. Any game that doesn't give both sides a fair chance to win, based on the victory conditions, isn't worth playing.

Here we completely disagree. I find great value in playing a game that is historically accurate, and I don't care a whit if it is "possible" for the Japanese to win in a strategic sense. I am not sure it WAS possible for Japan to win? While it may have been possible in some theoretical operational sense, it is hard to imagine a Japan that is united enough or politically astute enough to make the kinds of strategic decisions that would make it possible. Japan failed in fundamental ways: its wartime programs were divided with rare exceptions; it kept secrets between the Army and Navy; it failed to implement existing plans for things like escorts or a Grand Escort Command in a timely way; it failed to implement properly exploit genuine anti-colonial feeling in East and South Asia by actually respecting the peoples of those nations (until far too late to win), etc. I prefer to play Japan because it is such a great challenge. It may be Japan has a "chance" to win - but what if that chance is only 5% ? or 1% In that case the statement "Japan cannot win" is false, yet the chances of winning are very low indeed. Would you still not play as Japan? Fine - you be the allies - and I wll be Japan.

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

You are largely correct, Tankerace. If there is disagreement between contributors, it is better that it be discussed and worked out in private, then the agreed change published for input from others.

As for this CHS update, here ia a quick and dirty list of what it encompasses. Note that the list has been expanding as the anticipated completion date has been receding:

• Comprehensive review Japanese land OOB
• Comprehensive review Japanese land TO&E
• Comprehensive review Japanese air OOB
• Comprehensive review Japanese aircraft data
• Compremensive review of Soviet land OOB
• Adding a few Soviet ships
• Review radar for Japanese ships and subs, and for Allied subs (including schnorkels where appropriate).
• Review base data for bases in China, Japan, India, Australia (again), USA (again), Manchukuo, Pacific (again) and SU
• Add a few new bases here and there
• Update for version 5 of my map
• Add a few new Allied aircraft and do some tweaks here and there
• Update ship and air art as appropriate
• Fix as many errors as possible in the time before release

A large part of this work is complete or mostly complete, but there is still a way to go before it is done.

I will be posting some more details when I get a copy of the latest "build" of the scenario (hopefully with notes).

Andrew

PS: As to why the release date has been receding - a large part of the reason is that I have been waiting for the next official patch to be relased, and the timeframe for that release has been receding as well. I am still hoping and waiting for the leader bug and disappearing unit bug to be squashed more thoroughly...

Go man go!!![:D][:D][:D]

Your map mods and revisions to the CHS are the only thing keeping me here.[;)]

The silence from Matrix on a "real" fix is unbearable.[:@]

[el cid again]

What I am saying about making sure the changes you make don't unbalance the game is that if you make it more historically realistic (as an example) in the beginning by providing the historical OOB's, vehicle performance etc, you may be making it impossible for the Japanese Player to have a chance of winning unless you change the victory conditions in the game.

I think you misunderstand what I am doing. Adding radar to airplanes and ships that did have them, but don't in the game, is not a disadvantage for Japan! After decades of study of IJN I am not going to miss things that work to its advantage, even if they are so esoteric that no one knew to put them in. On the other hand, if there is something that should be on the Allied side, I won't fail to add that either. But I am not out to hurt the Japanese side - the more historical the mod the better the Japanese chances will be. Japan had all the technical and economic and geographic things it needed to win. It lacked a proper strategy - something players can provide.

[Wallymanowar]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that you understand the point I am making. In the game system it doesn't matter if you make everything historically accurate for both sides, there are (or may be) things that are hard-coded into the game that compensate for the ahistorical values put into the database. Thus, if you change the values in the database to historical values you run the risk of unbalancing the game because the hard-coding will adjust the values to give an ahistorical result - especially since we don't know what advantages are (or may be) hard-coded.

[el cid again]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that you understand the point I am making. In the game system it doesn't matter if you make everything historically accurate for both sides, there are (or may be) things that are hard-coded into the game that compensate for the ahistorical values put into the database. Thus, if you change the values in the database to historical values you run the risk of unbalancing the game because the hard-coding will adjust the values to give an ahistorical result - especially since we don't know what advantages are (or may be) hard-coded.

Wow. I can stop working already!! This is a great reason to say "we don't know what they did - so we should not try to make things better." If only I didn't mind ships with too much endurance, DP guns rated so they are surface only, aircraft guns with five times their effective ranges, I could play and be happy. Unfortunatly, I am not happy with such errors - so I will address them as best I can. I do expect some of my changes won't be as effective as I would like. Look for me to address them when I see the code. Until then, I will do the best I can with the editor. It is a technician's solution, I know - but I was first of all a technician (US Navy type).

[witpqs]

Bump...

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I put this post in the CHS OOB Errata thread Ron started. Reposting it here in case that wasn't the correct place.

_______________________

I've noticed that certain Commonwealth LCU's have Indian Light Squads in the place you might expect to find CW Rifle Squads. Is this correct?

Examples are 11th East African Div, and 3rd West African BDE. There might be others - I will look if you tell me this condition is incorrect.

[witpqs]

Typo:

The P-47N Thunderbolt is incorrectly spelled "Thuderbolt" ('n' is missing). The P-47C and D models are fine.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Bump...

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I put this post in the CHS OOB Errata thread Ron started. Reposting it here in case that wasn't the correct place.

_______________________

I've noticed that certain Commonwealth LCU's have Indian Light Squads in the place you might expect to find CW Rifle Squads. Is this correct?

Examples are 11th East African Div, and 3rd West African BDE. There might be others - I will look if you tell me this condition is incorrect.

I checked stadard scenario 15 - the African units have CW Rifle squads. I'm assuming that the Indian Light Squads in CHS are an error.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I put this post in the CHS OOB Errata thread Ron started. Reposting it here in case that wasn't the correct place.

_______________________

I've noticed that certain Commonwealth LCU's have Indian Light Squads in the place you might expect to find CW Rifle Squads. Is this correct?

Examples are 11th East African Div, and 3rd West African BDE. There might be others - I will look if you tell me this condition is incorrect.

In my copy of CHS, these units do have Commonwealth rifle squads, not Indian ones. Which version of the scenario are you looking at?

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I put this post in the CHS OOB Errata thread Ron started. Reposting it here in case that wasn't the correct place.

_______________________

I've noticed that certain Commonwealth LCU's have Indian Light Squads in the place you might expect to find CW Rifle Squads. Is this correct?

Examples are 11th East African Div, and 3rd West African BDE. There might be others - I will look if you tell me this condition is incorrect.

In my copy of CHS, these units do have Commonwealth rifle squads, not Indian ones. Which version of the scenario are you looking at?

In CHS 1.6 CW rifle squads upgrade to indian squads. 360 to 356. I believe this is what he's referring to.

[Pascal_slith]

Deleted

[witpqs]

Thanks bstarr.

Andrew - if this is correct then of course I'm happy with it. It sure sounds wierd though.