Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Dili

I do not understand your suggestion in a technical sense

The suggestion is that it will consume the supply of the place but will not be a part of resistance to it's takeover 

It will not cause any damage to resouces (or HI or similar things) when the hex is taken.

Will not small enginnering party achieve that? or insert engineers in the major infantry unit?
Btw in many places in DEI assets were not sabotaged. Some were some not.

c) It will not make the hex harder to take. If we have too much of this - I want some of it. Read about the miners in New Guinea, the oil field hands in NEI, and such. Taking a base hex that has real industry manned by foreigners who oppose your takeover is very different from taking an empty hex - and should not be free. I don't like tiny landing parties taking over vast areas (2600 sq miles?) for free

Well that is what happened in many places historically. Like i said if Kendari needs to be taken by more than a reinforced battalion it isnt a War in Pacific, it's another what if.
Btw where i said that real combat units shouldnt be there for you to say "for free"?

To start at the end, you did not say that. I am thinking ahead: I am covering the case where there was no unit there - or where a player moves the unit that was there. I still want defense in the no unit case.

My design philosophy is that it is not for us (modders and commentators) to say who resists or not? Let Gary's die rolls say you get lucky sometimes. What I want (intend) is to make sabotage possible. Nothing there makes it impossible - surely wrong. Even if Matrix gives us total control over supply production at resource centers (takes it out or makes it something reasonable or gives us soft control) I will STILL want "supply sinks" for their impacts on defense. WITHOUT a military unit in the formal sense (you still have the local defense forces, police forces and industrial security forces) you should not get guaranteed free control IMHO. I think a resource hex wholly undefended is wrong design. So I am not looking for a solution that incorporates that concept. I will accept too much defense as more realistic than none at all.
I am willing to modify the way things work in the direction of better simulation - but IMHO that isn't going to take us toward zero defense - ever. For one thing - takeover MUST "damage" production even if there is no actual damage to facilities - in game terms this simulates disrupted work schedules.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Accipiter is correct.  The date into service of the engines is the date before which NONE can be produced. Obviously they should all be set to December 41 to allow for the slow production of stockpiles etc etc but in RHS ( and Empires Abaze) a couple of the later ones are set to only begin production in 1944 - Nissan engines are among these, resulting in the hobbling of Ki-44 III production throughout 1943 [:(]

I suspect you and Acceptor are technically incorrect - but only in the most technical sense. IF engines are like aircraft, you should get 1/100 the production rate - if you are lucky - and IF you do - it might advance the date of production by a certain small amount (a week I think). However, for practical purposes, you are quite right: and that is my intent.

The entire point of the RHS reform of engines is that they are NOT all available early. Many times an airframe was ready but the engines were not. While I have set that by setting airframe date (which can be modified, but only slightly, by producing the type before its date - as outlined above) - I don't like the gamey behavior of producing some engine in 1941 that you need in 1944 - long before even the prototype could be built. I specifically attacked that in my engine reform - along with you can produce engines for different planes based on their size (power) requirements - but not substitute a tiny 150 hp thing for a 3000 hp thing. [If it was up to me, the cost in HI points would vary by power]
Anyway - I have decided that better industrial planning might advance the engine dates in EOS only - so I am setting the first ahead a year, the last ahead by six months, and leaving the 5 strictly historical scenarios with historical dates.
In some places you can see the engine designation (rather than the manufacturer - which is just a code because it is hard coded I cannot make it right) - and in that case an Ha-5 or whatever is the most common engine in that range - using the (eventual) common service designation system for engines. I have solved the engine production problem - and it is controllable in all games by controlling HI expendature. I will however make it easier to manage in the next release.

What are size requeriments of a unit to accomplish "production disruption"?
 

Using latest version of RHS, playing human Allied vs AI, CVO, Brit BB Anson has no main guns, only 40mm AA guns..

ORIGINAL: Dili

What are size requeriments of a unit to accomplish "production disruption"?

Not very great. The main requirement is that you need some true engineers - pioneers in RHS terminology. What happens is not clearly defined anywhere - and greatly variable depending on several considerations - the most significant of which is die rolls. But if you have any pioneers - and then possibly if you have other engineers - you will disrupt the HI and resource centers in a hex by various degrees. Not as much as I would like - but significantly - typically on the order of 40%. If you have lots of them, it might be much more.

For combat values there are several more considerations. Squad counts, firepower values, the morale and planning of the unit, and the support value of the unit (IF there is a genuine military unit in the hex that is not optimized support wise - THEN a supply sink gives it the missing support - and THAT unit becomes fully effective - in terms of support requirements anyway). The big supply sinks have awful leaders - the most awful of all in most cases - are misplanned for the wrong location - and the vast majority of their squads have a firepower value of 1 - as low as we go. We use the cube root of the number of squads as engineers - to get a core of them - and three times that of labor squads: otherwise everything is motorized support - which is not worth a whole lot in terms of combat value (and only half as much as regular support firepower wise). Smaller supply sinks are organic to fixed military units - and often difficult or even impossible to spot - or notice in combat - but in theory they contribute a little. The difficult cases are the larger cases - and these are generally located at cities - where heavy resistence is at least a possibility. At the moment they also have a cap size wise - none is bigger than 16,000 squads - although in some cases I need more. [Up in Manchukuo I split one into three adjacent cities near harbin so we didn't have to go over that value - and the resources are also split - so they are all at risk too]. We are always looking for better ways to do this. We have come a long way from the days when Guam or towns in Malaya held up major forces. But the issue is by no means wholly addressed - at least with respect to the larger cases. We might have to go over to putting them in really big cities - to be plausable - eating supplies from a vast area - and indeed this is done in Malaya and on Luzon - as a test.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Using latest version of RHS, playing human Allied vs AI, CVO, Brit BB Anson has no main guns, only 40mm AA guns..

Aha!!!

You have been decieved! That isn't the Anson at all - it just reports as such to fool enemy intel. It is HMS Centurion. [If you bring up her display, not the class is Centurion - not King George V]
A WWI era battleship, when war erupted in PTO she was at Bombay, playing Anson - complete with WOODEN turrets and superstructure! She has 40mm guns because - well - she had 40mm guns! Later - she went to Egypt - got a lot more AAA - and became an AAA barrage ship. Finally, she was expended as a breatwater at Normandy. This ancient ship had functional engines - and was used in several ways at different times. But she had been demilitarized by the London Treaty. The most fascinating story is that, when she lost her forward "turret" in a storm - and put in at Aden - a story was made up she had lost it in a battle with a German raider!

See the Designers Notes for EOS thread - or the EOS Second Edition Memorandum - or the RHS Manual for all the gory details of this sort of thing. In this case, the ship has the great virtue of being strictly historical in this role when PTO erupted, so it is in ALL RHS scenarios. It will report to enemy recon as a BB - and it will always fool the enemy tactically - and draw fire or air strikes like a BB - even if the enemy player is not fooled.

While RHS x.654 can be made to work manually (re Japanese aircraft and engine production) - by shutting down HI eaters like shipyards at certain locations where engines are made - I have tweeked it so that ALL engines and aircraft ALWAYS produce even under wholly unaided AI control. Since a primary user group is human as Allies vs AI as Japan, this is a bit of a priority. [Since AI cannot control the Allies successfully in any case, we don't try to make that work]
Until about September 1944 you can play AI as such. From then on you need to lie to the computer, tell it you are playing head to head, and then either

a) Click on Yes for the Japanese turn (so AI won't set aircraft squadrons to kamakaze)

or

b) Set a squadron to kamakaze and then click on Yes for Japan

[Otherwise ALL squadrons will be kamakaze by about November - and Japan will have no air defense, no bombers,
no recon, no air transport - and it will die faster than ever was really possible - in a wholly ahistorical way]

Otherwise we have converted Axis PCs to two ship units - tweeked some devices and ships - and fixed some eratta or made enhancements - as indicated above and in other threads.

This package will upload as x.655 comprehensive update.

If Blitzk has finished the other enhancements (pointers for example) he is doing - they will be included. If not, they will be in the next round. Some day we are going to get new AOS plane art from Cobra - and that will trigger some major changes to EOS air units - making them easier to upgrade - and adding more types of planes (because duplicates are eliminated - similar to Japan in EOS). That is still "many weeks" off.

Otherwise look for a new pwhex package tomorrow - and a summer map and pwhex "soon" both of which will backfit into running games.

Two validation tests of 6.655 indicate the new production system works better than I had dreamed possible - EVERYTHING produces WITHOUT ANY human optimization to help AI get it right. [Not that AI produces the right stuff - it produces a lot of historical stuff that should not have been produced - but that is a different matter. Humans will do much better than AI]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Using latest version of RHS, playing human Allied vs AI, CVO, Brit BB Anson has no main guns, only 40mm AA guns..

Aha!!!

You have been decieved! That isn't the Anson at all - it just reports as such to fool enemy intel. It is HMS Centurion. [If you bring up her display, not the class is Centurion - not King George V]
A WWI era battleship, when war erupted in PTO she was at Bombay, playing Anson - complete with WOODEN turrets and superstructure! She has 40mm guns because - well - she had 40mm guns! Later - she went to Egypt - got a lot more AAA - and became an AAA barrage ship. Finally, she was expended as a breatwater at Normandy. This ancient ship had functional engines - and was used in several ways at different times. But she had been demilitarized by the London Treaty. The most fascinating story is that, when she lost her forward "turret" in a storm - and put in at Aden - a story was made up she had lost it in a battle with a German raider!

See the Designers Notes for EOS thread - or the EOS Second Edition Memorandum - or the RHS Manual for all the gory details of this sort of thing. In this case, the ship has the great virtue of being strictly historical in this role when PTO erupted, so it is in ALL RHS scenarios. It will report to enemy recon as a BB - and it will always fool the enemy tactically - and draw fire or air strikes like a BB - even if the enemy player is not fooled.

This is absolutely awesome and............BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am running a few RHSCVO 6.654 turns to get a feel for the game again.  A couple of questions or observations:  I can't seem to Disband River Boat TFs. The option is grayed out.  Also from the Preference menu there is the question "Add 1.60 Database changes to this user designed campaign?"  Should I click this option. Lastly a question I have asked before. Should I use the 4.31 plane side file for my game that has a date later that the other RHS Critical files?  It appears to only have some of the plane side files.

Has anyone else had this problem? 
My computer locks up every time I have a land unit march to San Francisco or Sacramento.  This is happening in EOS v5.654, v6.654 and CVO 6.654.   It is not occurring with my CHS or original version of the game.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Until about September 1944 you can play AI as such. From then on you need to lie to the computer, tell it you are playing head to head, and then either

a) Click on Yes for the Japanese turn (so AI won't set aircraft squadrons to kamakaze)

or

b) Set a squadron to kamakaze and then click on Yes for Japan

[Otherwise ALL squadrons will be kamakaze by about November - and Japan will have no air defense, no bombers,
no recon, no air transport - and it will die faster than ever was really possible - in a wholly ahistorical way]

Mayby is this a idea for a next update. A new option at the start of the game Kamikaze Yes or No

Hi Cid
have found another problem in the OOB, occured in EOS newest version.

US ship Richmond arrives at Colon, next to Panama, about the 20ish of Dec41. its clss is UNKNOWN so if you click on it you get an error as per the previous problem with ht PT's

Keep the hard work going..... im loving this scenario......

Drew

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I am running a few RHSCVO 6.654 turns to get a feel for the game again.  A couple of questions or observations:  I can't seem to Disband River Boat TFs. The option is grayed out.  Also from the Preference menu there is the question "Add 1.60 Database changes to this user designed campaign?"  Should I click this option. Lastly a question I have asked before. Should I use the 4.31 plane side file for my game that has a date later that the other RHS Critical files?  It appears to only have some of the plane side files.

Don't click the "Add 1.60 Database changes".

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I am running a few RHSCVO 6.654 turns to get a feel for the game again.  A couple of questions or observations:  I can't seem to Disband River Boat TFs. The option is grayed out.  Also from the Preference menu there is the question "Add 1.60 Database changes to this user designed campaign?"  Should I click this option. Lastly a question I have asked before. Should I use the 4.31 plane side file for my game that has a date later that the other RHS Critical files?  It appears to only have some of the plane side files.

The last is a question for Cobra to answer - try direct pm or the Cobra RHS upload thread. I maintain EOS files only - but I can send them.

Don't know about river boats being greyed out. Have not seen that. What causes ANY TF not to be able to disband?
Or - maybe - which nation?

Do NOT update the database - or you will mess up a lot of stuff - mixing stock and RHS will surely not work.

ORIGINAL: drw61

Has anyone else had this problem? 
My computer locks up every time I have a land unit march to San Francisco or Sacramento.  This is happening in EOS v5.654, v6.654 and CVO 6.654.   It is not occurring with my CHS or original version of the game.

I will test.

Unable to confirm issue. Works for me. Need more data.

ORIGINAL: DrewBlack

Hi Cid
have found another problem in the OOB, occured in EOS newest version.

US ship Richmond arrives at Colon, next to Panama, about the 20ish of Dec41. its clss is UNKNOWN so if you click on it you get an error as per the previous problem with ht PT's

Keep the hard work going..... im loving this scenario......

Drew

Confirm the problem - unable to locate ship instantly. There are a LOT of US ships! Will find her.

Got it. There are two Richmonds - a CL and a tanker. This was the Omaha CL. Defined to class of wrong date.
Fixed.

Uploading 6.555 and 5.555.

Converted US Admirable class MS to two ship units - and added more - because I do not believe they stopped being sent to PTO in January 1945. I found one lost to enemy action not on our list!

Thank's Brum and Sid. I think I resolved the River Boat issue. It has to do with the port size. When I send the formed River Boat TF to a larger port it will disband. Now if I could only figure out where the River Boats can go to. I like these they facilitate the movement of supply.

Excellant work Cid...
 
AI updates receiving now, boy your quick with this work.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: drw61

Has anyone else had this problem? 
My computer locks up every time I have a land unit march to San Francisco or Sacramento.  This is happening in EOS v5.654, v6.654 and CVO 6.654.   It is not occurring with my CHS or original version of the game.

I will test.

Unable to confirm issue. Works for me. Need more data.

This happened to me one time before in ver 6.5??? and then went away.
If I try to "Set Destination Hex" of the USMC 2 Para or the USMC 2Div (actualy any land unit) to SanFran, LA, Long Beach, Sacramento or United States my computer will go into "not responding" mode. It happens in normal mode and window mode.

I may need to reload my WitP RHS games