RHS 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final?

[el cid again]

OK - This update

1) Reworks all scenarios except EOS for resource/device issues in Japan (due to a shift of device number in half of them)

2) Reworks the Japanese AGC ships and Amphib Armies - eliminating this option from Russian passive scenarios and making it more workable in the rest

3) Reworks Celebes with a view to mitigating the problem of taking Kendari - with considerable success

4) Reworks the "lower islands" (Bali to Flores) with a view toward increasing infrastructure, resources and inventories

5) Incorporates the pointer (etc) efficiency improvements in EOS only done by Blitzk

6) Incorporates some minor eratta in JAAF locations, commands, and a major one in unit names (Hikodan is not Hikoshidan)

7) Backs out from non EOS scenarios upgunning of ships to EOS standards, but puts more of that in auxiliary vessels in EOS

8) Adds the missing Shipping Transportation Regiments as reinforcements

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, to be honest, this does not bother me either [:)] The game/scenario I am playing has been "modified" -- as I said two or three posts ago. All the Japanese HQ's are of "type = 1" so the transport ships can load them.

From what I read in the Hyperwar site, the AGP ships idea was basically created, elaborated (on the allied side) by American Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, after his "experience" in the Guadalcanal Campaign. And were first used (if my memory does nor fail) in the Central Pacific Offensive on november 1943.

But again, they have a very concrete role: supporting forces which are assaulting an enemy base.

I was thinking about the worst possible scenario. Japanese few AGP's are sunk -- let's not forget Americans have a lot of submarines and that the dud torpedoes will not last forever = those HQ's won't leave an island if they happened to be there. That's irrational to me, I can't help it, sorry.

A major army (corps) HQ should not be on some minor island - unless it is to start with as a jump off point.
If a ship of this sort is lost - it is very likely to be lost with such a HQ on board. I don't particularly like the rule they cannot move by air or normal sea - but it was a workaround to tie them to the special capability ships.

I think the Japanese are grossly underated in terms of credit for assaulting defended positions. The attack on Kota Bahru - a division assault - should put the lie to it all by itself. It was not a nice assault either - read what Tsuji says about troops unable to reach the beach - stuck in obsticles under fire - and you will be reminded of a number of Allied landings. But the Japanese rallied, pressed, obtained fire support - and took the position - with significant casualties (including lost ships) not preventing success. What you normally read has a combination of things going against objectivity: (a) patriotism and the principle "we were better" as a basic attitude; (b) ignorance of the development of technical and operational amphibious doctrine. You are absolutely correct about the development dates. You leave out only that we learned things of great value in the Aleutians - mainly by doing them wrong - and this is not at all well known because it was secret at the time. [Soldiers saying they were fighting on US soil in Alaska were generally thought to be telling tall tales during the war] But we also deliberately transferred back officers with first hand experience facing the Japanese - to learn what they had seen? Most of these officers recommended "withdrawal to the US West Coast" - because it was going to take time to equal the military quality of the enemy. This sort of thing is not found in many histories - and when it is - the officers are ridiculed for their pessimism - instead of praised for their professional honesty. Not many people expected us to come back as strong or as fast as we did. And it was a lot more iffy than it seems reading books: it was not at all clear that we could fund what we did - it was not at all clear that political pressures might not change priorities - etc. [Look at the present age and present war for the potential impacts of not having popular support] Anyway - the Japanese were actually superior to all others in terms of joint amphibious operations when PTO erupted into war. We eventually went beyond what they had done - and achieved a capability to assault heavily fortified positions (which positions were NOT fortified as mythology says during the inter war period - but only after the rather foolish Makin Island raid). Instead of being proud of that capability - we probably should be ashamed - it was inefficient in lives - and we would never do it today (ask the Marines). We regard the battle of Iwo Jima as a victory - but so do the Japanese. If it was a victory for either side - it was a phyrric one. Head on assault of heavily defended points violates the concepts of modern warfare taught by the great strategists of our age - starting with Liddle Hart. Battles like Palau are generally regarded as a mistake by our own historians - never mind other nations historians - and the push to invade Japan was close to irrational religious fanaticism. There was every reason to believe it would be horribly expensive in every sense - to our own forces - to enemy forces - and to civilians which we claimed (in war crimes tribunals) to believe should be "protected" to the extent military necessity permits. Running in ops bigger than D Day (at least two of them) on a nation already defeated - or dropping atom bombs - was not really a military necessity. [And Truman, at least, was honest about it (at Potsdam). Don't like him much - or his reasoning - but he was very honest - and I like that: on the occasion he got the telegram saying the test bomb worked - it was disguised as a message about the estate of a prominent member of his administration - his immediate reaction was to say: "If we are unwilling to use the bomb, in time of war, on an Asiatic enemy, Stalin will never believe we would use it on a European enemy in time of peace." If that represents his thinking - the bomb was indeed NOT intended to end the war - or save lives (troops or civilian) - but to become a sort of trump card for what his administration came to term "atomic diplomacy" - nuclear blackmail against the USSR and others even when were not at war. The war was lost, everyone who mattered on both sides knew it was lost - and Olympic and Coronet were not going to change that. By mid 1945 there was much more worry about "taking too long" and "what Stalin might do if we do" - in spite of pressuring Stalin for years to attack Japan! We no longer liked the things we had advocated!

My first ship - USS Francis Marion - APA-249 - was the last attack transport ever built. Sister of Paul Revere, they were the largest of all time, too large (so it was very hard on troops trying to climb the nets). Normally fitted with 14 LCM-6 and 8 LCVPs, we at times carried LCM-8s or Swift Boats - and we could embark an entire BLT (a reinforced Marine battalion) - including its tanks. We were good at what we did - but like the Japanese - we didn't like to land in the teeth of heavy opposition - and preferred to land at some undefended or poorly defended place - and strike from the flank. Far too much propaganda is made of how great it is to assault a beach from a (at best) 8 knot landing craft with an open top. If you do it in the teeth of heavy opposition, in daylight, you are going to get hurt, period. We came to the conclusion the Japanese were right - if you must do it - do it at night. If you don't have to - don't.

[TulliusDetritus]

I don't think the Japanese should be "underrated". Who affirms this wild statement? Au contraire! They did invent, elaborate the modern amphibious operations (China was their laboratory). Just like they were the first ones who truly understood the role of the CV's (or naval aviation). I don't think the British had fully understood this new kind of "war" (despite Taranto Operation).

Anyway, the Pacific War taught something, I suspect: you cannot stop an amphibious assault. There were many many during the war and only one was "stopped": the first assault on Wake Island. A simple coincidence? This should say it all.

Anyway, as for avoiding the "strong points", I agree, but soon or late you will have to face (or not avoid if you prefer) the enemy resistance... Not to mention that sometimes you are "forced" to face the enemy: Iwo Jima. Either you take this island or you will probably lose many B-29's... So what counts? Infantrymen or sophisticated planes (and their crews)? You have to make your choice. American planners made their own. Right or wrong, that's another story.

On the other hand, I think we can affirm that the capture of Palau island was a big mistake. The planes from Morotai could have neutralized this base, from what "experts" affirmed.

[BlackSunshine]

Seriously.. I want to play this mod.  Really, really badly.

But is there a version which doesnt have any gamestopping bugs in it?  Might I suggest creating a smoothly polished Mod before doing more radical changes?

[el cid again]

Maybe. Maybe not. Information theory says that any big program or data set must have errors. We have a big program and several gigantic databases feeding it - 7 regular, one .cam and one pwhex. I have personally found astonishing errors in stock and in CHS - and if I would never play stock - I do like CHS.

What has happened with RHS is a process that permits people spotting issues to get them addressed very fast.
With a global set of testers some things are going to show up. For a long time, RHS took the heat for errors "inherited" from its ancestors - which is fine: the enemy of good code is errors and professionals don't care how they are spotted.
Now the errors seem to be pretty much mine - and more than that - what I did not long ago - often just days ago. That - combined with a very great decrease in turn execution time - and very short lists from automated error checkers (the lists now are errors we want, if you understand that) - may mean it is very clean.

At this moment I am aware of no technical errors in RHS Level 5 or 6. I also plan no technical changes. I will convert more US minesweepers to two ship units, then PCs, and I will add a few US LSTs, whenever I do an update - but otherwise these levels will only change as we learn things. I am writing utilities that require looking at each line in a different sense - and I probably will find eratta error checkers have not - but unless it matters - it will just fold in to whatever next big change happens.

We are at the stage where HUMAN testing is needed to find out what is wrong. And DIFFERENT humans must do it - because the developers are blind to whatever they do not see now. There is a lot of expermental stuff here - and surely some of it will not work as intended (see the Amphib Army/AGC discussion immediately above). I was told by a programmer that the HQ gives a bonus - but not told it only rides on an AGC. This sort of thing is what I need to find out to get better.

I am running a validation test right now on 6.656 - and if it shows no issues I can spot - I will release it in about an hour.
I don't know what anyone is about to discover - but if we are lucky - not very much. Then I can move on to developing the Level 7 pwhex file - the only part of Level 7 that needs development before we can put Madagascar on the map. THis is a big deal - I have to shrink Australia. Cobra did his part - with the art. Now it is my turn. A very tedious turn indeed. Since Australia was too big - shrinking it makes distances more correct INSIDE Australia. At the price of "too much ocean" at the map edge - right where I need some ocean.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

Seriously.. I want to play this mod.  Really, really badly.

But is there a version which doesnt have any gamestopping bugs in it?  Might I suggest creating a smoothly polished Mod before doing more radical changes?

We all want to play this mod, (and it is being tested globally as Sid has said)..You are welcome to join the testers to continue to put it thru its' paces..It might help the process a bit..The difference between this mod and vanilla is like night and day already..
The threads alone ar more educational than many of the books some of us have, many smart fellas in here.....[8D]

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Where are the British Withdrawl points for Scenario 60. Is it Aden and Melbourne or Aden and Tristan de Cunha (South Atlantic Entry)? Thanks

BUMP

[MineSweeper]

El Cid, thanks for correcting the Kendari issue, this base is vital for the Japanese to take and does not not warrant a full division/half the Japanese battle fleet to take it.....RHS is great.....fantastic support guys[:)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

Seriously.. I want to play this mod.  Really, really badly.

But is there a version which doesnt have any gamestopping bugs in it?  Might I suggest creating a smoothly polished Mod before doing more radical changes?

We all want to play this mod, (and it is being tested globally as Sid has said)..You are welcome to join the testers to continue to put it thru its' paces..It might help the process a bit..The difference between this mod and vanilla is like night and day already..
The threads alone ar more educational than many of the books some of us have, many smart fellas in here.....[8D]

The real difference between RHS and other options is that we will correct things - so people ask. You can ask for others to fix things - but it will either not happen or take a long time. I created this process because I found that frustrating. While it is hard to please everyone - I really do try - which is why so many scenarios - two of which I won't play myself - so you can have what YOU like. [For me making Russians active was a major reform. For others, it is crazy to do that. I don't say they are wrong - and give them ways to have our maps and OBs with their preference.]

We really may be there. This is the cleanest set ever - because of all the help we get spotting errors. From now on updates will be mainly to get something better - not because you have to do it. I hope.

[el cid again]

After validation testing, Level 5 files also uploaded for all scenarios.

[Ol_Dog]

After 3 days of reinstalling WITP RHS several times, I think I found a solution to my problem.

When I updated RHS to 5.655 and 6.655, two different directories, and the PWHEX to 12-03 5.655 and 6.655, and with the art changes, my program crashed whenever I tried to load a saved game or after selecting a new scenario with both 5 & 6.

Today I used a 6/05 pwhex.dat from regular WITP, then I loaded a saved RHS game and the computer did not crash to black.

The pwhex maybe the problem?

I foolishly copied over the previous RHS pwhex and deleted the zip file. Does anyone have the RHS pwhex before 12-03 for me to try?

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

After 3 days of reinstalling WITP RHS several times, I think I found a solution to my problem.

When I updated RHS to 5.655 and 6.655, two different directories, and the PWHEX to 12-03 5.655 and 6.655, and with the art changes, my program crashed whenever I tried to load a saved game or after selecting a new scenario with both 5 & 6.

Today I used a 6/05 pwhex.dat from regular WITP, then I loaded a saved RHS game and the computer did not crash to black.

The pwhex maybe the problem?

I foolishly copied over the previous RHS pwhex and deleted the zip file. Does anyone have the RHS pwhex before 12-03 for me to try?

You do not want ANYTHING of 5.X in the same folder as anythig of 6.X..These are for 2 seperate mods!!.The 5.X is to be used with Andrew Brown's map, and 6.x is for an even more enhanced map, exclusively for the enhanced version of RHS..
If you do have both pwhex files in the same folder, you will not get an error message because they are not using the same name. The game itself however will read both fighting for your map!

[Ol_Dog]

I have them installed in 2 separate directories - \WITP_RHS and \WITP_RHS2, for 5 and 6 respectively. I also installed WITP_RHS on another drive for Level 5 only while trying to get back running this week.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

I have them installed in 2 separate directories - \WITP_RHS and \WITP_RHS2, for 5 and 6 respectively. I also installed WITP_RHS on another drive for Level 5 only while trying to get back running this week.

Ol_Dog...were you able to play the game o.k.?..I am reading your problem was in trying to reload a saved game?..Have you upgraded mid-game?

[Ol_Dog]

I had played and saved 3 turns of CVO 5.654, when 5.655 and 5.656 came out. I installed 5.655, 5.656, River Boat art 3/12 and 12-3 pwhex all at one time.

I tried to start CVO 5.656, but after selecting scen 50, the screen when black, MS error message said witp exe had a problem.

I then tried to load saved game 5.654 - it went black. After playing around with the computer, I tried a new install on another drive of 5.656. Same error.

Trying different combinations, today I copied a pwhex.dat dated 6/18/05 from regular WITP into RHS. It loaded the saved game and then started a new game. I copied 12-3 pwhex.dat back into the directory - then it would not load the game or start a new game - back to black.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

I had played and saved 3 turns of CVO 5.654, when 5.655 and 5.656 came out. I installed 5.655, 5.656, River Boat art 3/12 and 12-3 pwhex all at one time.

I tried to start CVO 5.656, but after selecting scen 50, the screen when black, MS error message said witp exe had a problem.

I then tried to load saved game 5.654 - it went black. After playing around with the computer, I tried a new install on another drive of 5.656. Same error.

Trying different combinations, today I copied a pwhex.dat dated 6/18/05 from regular WITP into RHS. It loaded the saved game and then started a new game. I copied 12-3 pwhex.dat back into the directory - then it would not load the game or start a new game - back to black.

It does sound like a bad download on the newer pwhex file..Have you tried to download again?..If your old Pwhex files are still workable, and your new ones aren't, I must agree, sounds like you have ID'd the problem??I can send you one if you are having problems..

[Ol_Dog]

I had tried another download earlier - just tried again.

Crashes to black with error message.

If you can send a new pwhex and/or one or two earlier pwhew I will try those.

I appreciate the help, thanks

send to ol_dog at mvn.net

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

After 3 days of reinstalling WITP RHS several times, I think I found a solution to my problem.

When I updated RHS to 5.655 and 6.655, two different directories, and the PWHEX to 12-03 5.655 and 6.655, and with the art changes, my program crashed whenever I tried to load a saved game or after selecting a new scenario with both 5 & 6.

Today I used a 6/05 pwhex.dat from regular WITP, then I loaded a saved RHS game and the computer did not crash to black.

The pwhex maybe the problem?

I foolishly copied over the previous RHS pwhex and deleted the zip file. Does anyone have the RHS pwhex before 12-03 for me to try?

I too have experienced a problem with pwhex files (Level 6.642 - not 6.641 or 5.642) - and am attempting to confirm the issue - and wether a working copy exists. 6.655 works very well - we only gain marginal things with 6.656 - and I will be able to recreate it if we cannot find a working version. Cobra just sent me one to test. I am somewhat mystified - I have the file in three forms (pwhex, RHSPW, PANPW) plus a save of WITPEdit in that form - and these four all backed up twice on board and once to electronic media - and all forms went from working to unworking after days of use. But I am a test guy - I will sort it out - or recreate it. Above is NOT a typo - 5.642 - which was made from 6.642 - still works fine. Wierd.

EDIT: Problem resolved - see below.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

After 3 days of reinstalling WITP RHS several times, I think I found a solution to my problem.

When I updated RHS to 5.655 and 6.655, two different directories, and the PWHEX to 12-03 5.655 and 6.655, and with the art changes, my program crashed whenever I tried to load a saved game or after selecting a new scenario with both 5 & 6.

Today I used a 6/05 pwhex.dat from regular WITP, then I loaded a saved RHS game and the computer did not crash to black.

The pwhex maybe the problem?

I foolishly copied over the previous RHS pwhex and deleted the zip file. Does anyone have the RHS pwhex before 12-03 for me to try?

You do not want ANYTHING of 5.X in the same folder as anythig of 6.X..These are for 2 seperate mods!!.The 5.X is to be used with Andrew Brown's map, and 6.x is for an even more enhanced map, exclusively for the enhanced version of RHS..
If you do have both pwhex files in the same folder, you will not get an error message because they are not using the same name. The game itself however will read both fighting for your map!

This is almost right. There are THREE DIFFERENT RHS map systems - only two working at this time due to an absence of a Level 7 pwhex file. You MAY use Level 5 pwhex with Andrew's CHS map - OR with the original RHS map - which is called Level 5 - and which is kept up to date as we add features to Level 6. But you must keep THREE things in sync -

a) pwhex same level

b) map art same level

c) cam files same level

Do NOT mix Level 5 and Level 6.

And FYI the latest issue of Level 6 pwhex may not work. 6.642 seems busted - and I am testing one that may not be.
5.642 is working.

EDIT: Found problem - reissued 6.642 - and Cobra's version worked all along.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: m10bob

Moot