CHS questions, comments & feedback

[Tankerace]

Don, on any of the spawning ships, did you move their slots in the class section? Certain classes, to quote a previous thread, "Thou shalt not moveth."

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Don, on any of the spawning ships, did you move their slots in the class section? Certain classes, to quote a previous thread, "Thou shalt not moveth."

Justin

I did move a bunch of Ships (many, many, many), I am not aware of any problems other than the Chitose/Chiyoda. Thought the problem was in classes. I also did the same thing in my V1.2 scenario and have not noticed any problems.

In checking, I notice that I DID move Chitose and Chiyoda - Mizuho and Nisshin are in their spots. I'll switch them back in the first round of corrections.

The minesweeeper that mis-spawned was a minesweeper in Scenario 15 (of a different class). The Sea Truck slot held a cargo ship.

Any others??

Don

[Tankerace]

Not sure.... truth be told I myself don't fully understand the spawning system. I beleive its class related, but I can't say for sure.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: bstarr

I've got a Jap MSW arriving in the Allied OOB. It's an MSW that was sunk early in the war, so it's probably a spawning issue. I checked the database and nothing seems wrong there. I also sank one of the new SD-type AGs and the Allies recieved an LCVP. I've lost about a half dozen standard-type AGs and they seemed to have spawned normally.

By the way, the ship is 613 Choun Maru #18, and I think the AG was SD-5. They both look fine in the database.
bs


ps. I've been out for a couple of days so someone may have already found this.

pps. I haven't been posting but I've been playing like mad. I'm at 2/19/41 and plan on posting a lengthy rundown as soon as Java falls.

This is a new one - I've not seen it before. As you say, both ships look fine in the Database. I wonder if we hit one of those "if you change something the game will have problems" things that Pry has spoken about??

Yeah, pry said he suspected we may have porked a few things but would not elaborate. Found that kind of odd since it has nothing to do with NDA as it is an editor issue.

[bstarr]

It keeps getting weirder. The Japs have lost two MSWs. The second one, the Takasago Maru, reappeared on the Jap list like it was supposed to. I then checked all 7 allied MSWs and they are spawning as normal. I've lost three cruisers, Boise, St Louis, and Houston. All three spawned.

I then did a little more searching in the database and Choun #18 (the MSW appearing in the allied OOB) is located in the slot normally used by W.23, another MSW. If it's a question of moving ships in the database I would have expected her to be in spot normally occupied by a vessel of a different class. And I don't think it can be an issue of moving the class since Takasago and Choun18 are both W.1 class.

[&:]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

It keeps getting weirder. The Japs have lost two MSWs. The second one, the Takasago Maru, reappeared on the Jap list like it was supposed to. I then checked all 7 allied MSWs and they are spawning as normal. I've lost three cruisers, Boise, St Louis, and Houston. All three spawned.

I then did a little more searching in the database and Choun #18 (the MSW appearing in the allied OOB) is located in the slot normally used by W.23, another MSW. If it's a question of moving ships in the database I would have expected her to be in spot normally occupied by a vessel of a different class. And I don't think it can be an issue of moving the class since Takasago and Choun18 are both W.1 class.

[&:]

No ideas on this one. The mixture of "good" and "bad" spawning is troubling... I agree it can not be a "slot" problem - at least not all of it. I think I'll set a computer-vs-computer game going this evening and see what it looks like come the morrow.

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yeah, pry said he suspected we may have porked a few things but would not elaborate. Found that kind of odd since it has nothing to do with NDA as it is an editor issue.

and I will elaborate as I have time, between work and other commitments my plate is quite full right now....

BTW-Ron it is not an editor issue rather it is the data you put into the editor that is at issue... [;)] the game will do exactly what you tell it to do. Need I remind you of the problems you created while using the insert button in the wrong manner early on!!! [:-]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yeah, pry said he suspected we may have porked a few things but would not elaborate. Found that kind of odd since it has nothing to do with NDA as it is an editor issue.

and I will elaborate as I have time, between work and other commitments my plate is quite full right now....

BTW-Ron it is not an editor issue rather it is the data you put into the editor that is at issue... [;)] the game will do exactly what you tell it to do. Need I remind you of the problems you created while using the insert button in the wrong manner early on!!! [:-]

Nooooo![X(] Yeah, I'm still smarting from that. Big skull and crossbones next to fields which can explode if touched in the editor would have come in handy, eh?[:D]

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yeah, pry said he suspected we may have porked a few things but would not elaborate. Found that kind of odd since it has nothing to do with NDA as it is an editor issue.

and I will elaborate as I have time, between work and other commitments my plate is quite full right now....

BTW-Ron it is not an editor issue rather it is the data you put into the editor that is at issue... [;)] the game will do exactly what you tell it to do. Need I remind you of the problems you created while using the insert button in the wrong manner early on!!! [:-]

Nooooo![X(] Yeah, I'm still smarting from that. Big skull and crossbones next to fields which can explode if touched in the editor would have come in handy, eh?[:D]

Yeah it would be real helpful at that [&o] I'll see if I can find a problem with the MSW issue above and let you know..

[michaelm75au]

IIRC, the Ise and Hyunga must stay in slots 51 and 52. These are the two ship slots which can be specially converted to class #514. (I tested this out and found it does not convert based on class type, but on actual ship slot).
The same with the Chitose and Chiyoda in ship slot 37 and 38 to class #560.
====
Looking at scenarion 155:
I think the way it stands at the moment, when the conversion comes into play (1 Jan 1943 in Osaka), the BB Kirishima (slot 51) and BB Nagato(slot 52) will auto convert to the BB hybrid class.
Same with the Mizuho (slot 37) and Nisshin (slot 38) for the Chitose conversion.

Tested scenario:
The new BB Nagato after 31 Dec 42.[:D] Looks like the Ise conversion[:@]
Michael



BTW I remember posting a warning about these conversions sometime last year before work was begun on CHS. I am sure no-one noticed the post as I was a "trainee" player.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: pry




and I will elaborate as I have time, between work and other commitments my plate is quite full right now....

BTW-Ron it is not an editor issue rather it is the data you put into the editor that is at issue... [;)] the game will do exactly what you tell it to do. Need I remind you of the problems you created while using the insert button in the wrong manner early on!!! [:-]

Nooooo![X(] Yeah, I'm still smarting from that. Big skull and crossbones next to fields which can explode if touched in the editor would have come in handy, eh?[:D]

Yeah it would be real helpful at that [&o] I'll see if I can find a problem with the MSW issue above and let you know..

Thanks kindly Paul. You Texans are decent folks! That civilian list on the Navsource page of yours is new is it not?

[bstarr]

quote from the editor manual -

"While units may point to any TO&E, we strongly recommend that the TO&E’s weapon slots match up with the weapon slots of the unit. If these slots do not match up at least with similar device types, unexpected results may occur."

Now check out Jap 5th Division (Location #1447). Now look at it's TO&E (Location #931).

I'm not sure what the "unexpected results" are, though. I do know that when I accepted replacements for this baby it drained everything from Singapore to Rangoon down to pink. I was accepting replacements for a lot of units, though, so it may be a red herring.

This may or may not be a biggie, but it looks like it may be easy to fix for the next version.
bs

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thanks kindly Paul. You Texans are decent folks! That civilian list on the Navsource page of yours is new is it not?

Yep [:D], and The Civillian section is new.

I need to redownload your whole scenario again, every time I try to fire it up it locks up my system stone dead, I never had that happen with any scenario must be something missing...

As Michael pointed out above and i'll confirm here there are some slot (NOT CLASS) specific Japanese upgrades and those ships should not be moved under any circumstances but the MSW respawing as an Allied should not happen unless over the 3000 slot range... not sure what if anything can be done about that... The MSW was not sunk in a port was it???

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

IIRC, the Ise and Hyunga must stay in slots 51 and 52. These are the two ship slots which can be specially converted to class #514. (I tested this out and found it does not convert based on class type, but on actual ship slot).
The same with the Chitose and Chiyoda in ship slot 37 and 38 to class #560.
====
Looking at scenarion 155:
I think the way it stands at the moment, when the conversion comes into play (1 Jan 1943 in Osaka), the BB Kirishima (slot 51) and BB Nagato(slot 52) will auto convert to the BB hybrid class.
Same with the Mizuho (slot 37) and Nisshin (slot 38) for the Chitose conversion.

Tested scenario:
The new BB Nagato after 31 Dec 42.[:D] Looks like the Ise conversion[:@]
Michael



BTW I remember posting a warning about these conversions sometime last year before work was begun on CHS. I am sure no-one noticed the post as I was a "trainee" player.

What would be really cool is if Mike Wood could treat the massive rebuilds to some USN BBs as conversions, not just refits. Although some were damage instigated, Tenessee's was not so I figure the Tenessee and Colorado class could be converted into full rebuild variant (taking approx one full year) or simply follow upgrade path for the less extensive variations.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

IIRC, the Ise and Hyunga must stay in slots 51 and 52. These are the two ship slots which can be specially converted to class #514. (I tested this out and found it does not convert based on class type, but on actual ship slot).
The same with the Chitose and Chiyoda in ship slot 37 and 38 to class #560.
====
Looking at scenarion 155:
I think the way it stands at the moment, when the conversion comes into play (1 Jan 1943 in Osaka), the BB Kirishima (slot 51) and BB Nagato(slot 52) will auto convert to the BB hybrid class.
Same with the Mizuho (slot 37) and Nisshin (slot 38) for the Chitose conversion.

Tested scenario:
The new BB Nagato after 31 Dec 42.[:D] Looks like the Ise conversion[:@]
Michael

BTW I remember posting a warning about these conversions sometime last year before work was begun on CHS. I am sure no-one noticed the post as I was a "trainee" player.

Thanks Guys - this is MY FAULT. I did note that these four ships should be in the proper slots and put them there. I then promptly forgot about it and inserted two slots (10,11) as reservations for additional Taiho class ships in future mods. This moved everyone down two slots and produced the mess. Will fix but also see my posts of the MASSIVE respawning issue.

Don

[Lemurs!]

What is the problem with the Japanese 5th division? The only thing i see is that i should have lined up tankettes and AA MG's but that is a very small item. The starting 5th Division is overstrength not under so it should not draw much of any replacements.

Mike

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

What is the problem with the Japanese 5th division? The only thing i see is that i should have lined up tankettes and AA MG's but that is a very small item. The starting 5th Division is overstrength not under so it should not draw much of any replacements.

Mike

So far, I haven't seen anything wrong. But, in the editor manual, it says "While units may point to any TO&E, we strongly recommend that the TO&E’s weapon slots match up with the weapon slots of the unit. If these slots do not match up at least with similar device types, unexpected results may occur." Since it's relatively easy to fix, I think we should do so before the beta. It would beat the hell out of waiting around to find out what an "unexpected result" is. [;)]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

What is the problem with the Japanese 5th division? The only thing i see is that i should have lined up tankettes and AA MG's but that is a very small item. The starting 5th Division is overstrength not under so it should not draw much of any replacements.

Mike

So far, I haven't seen anything wrong. But, in the editor manual, it says "While units may point to any TO&E, we strongly recommend that the TO&E’s weapon slots match up with the weapon slots of the unit. If these slots do not match up at least with similar device types, unexpected results may occur." Since it's relatively easy to fix, I think we should do so before the beta. It would beat the hell out of waiting around to find out what an "unexpected result" is. [;)]

There are a very large number of these "mis-matches" that originate in Scenario 15. Michaelm's WITPCHK will list them all (many pages). I have not bothered to fix them for two reasons:
1. Since it was that way in Scenario 15 I assume it's OK
2. It's a lot of work

[Lemurs!]

yes, you are correct Don. I just went back and checked scenario 15 land units compared to TOE and they are not lined up. I just worked from the scenario 15 database.

I think there will be no problems, but i will probably line some things up such as 13mm AA mgs and tankettes.

Artillery is going to be almost impossible as i started units with their historical equipment but the TOEs are going to be a bit more generic.
As it is i added half a dozen TOEs to the Japanese OOB to represent more unit types.

Don, i will email you shortly with a suggestion.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Hi all,

Yet again my guinea pigs... um, playtesters, i need sone combat replays and comments from you about air to air combat.

I totally revamped the air to air ratings in the game ESPECIALLY in regards to Claudes, Nates, Zeros and Oscars.

Part of why i did this was the Zeros were unrealistically awesome in the origional game. Both my testing and the AARs showed this.

I really, really, wish that Matrix had added Zero bonus to all 4 of those fighters as that would be more realistic.

I am afraid i will have to uprate all of those aircraft again because in my tests the Nates and Oscars are getting slaughtered.

So... Feedback! Please!

masonsgild@charter.net