Matrix Games Forums

pwhex set 6.77 uploaded - minor changes to Alaska and BC coast

data file sets for RAO, BBO, PPO and EOS uploaded

The Russian Passive Scenarios need Soviet subs reworked - next.

Level 6 CVO uploaded

Level 6 RPO uploaded

After a few more lines of data entry - all 18 RHS scenarios at all three levels (for the first time) will release (and freeze) a coordinated set of files. The main change is data washing of the location files. Level 7 work has caused some minor changes in location logistic values. I may add a few US LSTs and convert some RN/Commonwealth MS to two ship units as well - time allowing.

Level 7 now needs only final cleanup of pwhex and Australian art - mainly with respect to RR and roads - to be playable.

It's been a while since I followed this thread. I've been playing v5.13 for several months (mid 1/43 gametime) and haven't kept up with the latest information on RHS development. I have recently downloaded the level 6 map and v6.677 of EOS and I'm finding some difference that I'm hoping I can be enlightened about.

1 - I noticed that fort levels have been reduced to 0 throughout most of the DEI and Malaya. Is this intentional?

2 - Why are the supply sink now Motorized support? Does this make them behave somewhat differently?

3 - The first turn is also vastly different with an ensuing PH invasion. While this is great, is there still an EOS version that has the more traditional set-up (or even a completely unloaded/blank set-up) for those of us not wanting to invade Hawaii?

Originally, we used forts and static squads to immobilize supply sinks. Now we use the classification fort to immobilize a unit - and a "fort" means "concrete or similar thing" = "hard point" = one battery (typically 2 heavy guns or 4 medium guns). Very heavy batteries with extreme fortification are given 3 forts per battery (e.g. Fort Drum or the Tsushima Straits Forts). Forts were reworked on a global basis, and no longer represent anything inherited (i.e. done to different standards), but instead all work on the same set of standards. DEI were not singled out for special treatment. In fact, a few locations gained fortification. RHS added forts to a number of places, and greatly strengthened those in places like Hawaii. One of the first things we did was add CD to Rabaul (which had none) - but note that CHS added the same thing at the same time - upgun the Japanese major forts (Tsugaru Straits, Tsushima Straits, Tokyo Bay) - and also Manila Bay and Fort Stevens. Later we added some CD to Panama and San Francisco - which also had been understated. In general, RHS has added forts and CD guns, not taken them out. Most removed were in Japan - where vast numbers of 24 cm weapons greatly exceeded the total numbers of weapons of all major calibers emplaced.

The RHS supply sinks converted over to motorized support at the time RHS support diverged from motorized support in size and firepower. We did this for mainly logistical reasons. A non-motorized support element is considered to be pack or draft, and it involves a greater size (man count = 20) and firepower (2) than a motorized support element - which is considered to use a truck of some sort (man count = 10) and firepower (1). Sinks use motorized support because the want lower firepower totals - and because civilian vehicles are significant features of civilian economic infrastructures of great military value - it is semi-abstract - but good simulation.

EOS is DIFFERENT from the "strictly historical scenarios" at its heart. It assumes a better than historical planning. It adopts a plan that Adm Yamamoto decided should have been used two days after PH - 10 Dec 41 Japan time. It is alternate history - and dovetales nicely with better planning in terms of production - etc. found in EOS. The nearest thing to what you are asking for is PPO - which is BBO with extra political points. EOS has those points on a daily basis - but has expended them to buy the units move to PH etc. PPO lets you buy what you want with them. And it gives you the historically planned fleet on both sides (rather than the one built after lessons learned at PH, Coral Sea, etc). This is IMHO MORE historical than the actual fleets - more likely (if you could run the war 10 times you would get this sort of fleet more often than one like really happened). Remember - history is not what was likely to happen - it is what did happen.
If you want something similar to historical fleets - play RAO = CVO with active Russians (that is, like EOS). You get the carrier fleets - but the historical war start.

Using EOS6.677
Found that if you convert a PG to a PT tender (AGP) it now converts to a Isle de France Class AP (slot 384).  This slot (384) originally was the AGP version of the Niagara class.

Thanks again for this great mod!

Wow. Slot 383 is NOT set to upgrade to 384 - so that is strange. It might be a hard coded slot. I have commented out slot 384 - and moved the Isle de France. Niagara will not upgrade to an AGP. These ships are specialized - and should not be too common. While a small AGP is possible, it should not be able to control a major landing - which code does not understand. Also - the Niagara is useful as a PG - and should not be forced to upgrade. Now as to upgrading to a PT tender - maybe that is the real problem. Not sure what is going on there - but it may contain a reference to 384? With no class in the slot it should no longer be able to upgrade to anything.

Uploading of all scenarios begun. There are 18 of them - the first Level 7 release data file set - and it will take a while for all to upload.

All 12 Level 5 and 6 scenarios uploaded. Need to create a new folder for Level 7 uploading - they will upload in plus 5 hours.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. Slot 383 is NOT set to upgrade to 384 - so that is strange. It might be a hard coded slot. I have commented out slot 384 - and moved the Isle de France. Niagara will not upgrade to an AGP. These ships are specialized - and should not be too common. While a small AGP is possible, it should not be able to control a major landing - which code does not understand. Also - the Niagara is useful as a PG - and should not be forced to upgrade. Now as to upgrading to a PT tender - maybe that is the real problem. Not sure what is going on there - but it may contain a reference to 384? With no class in the slot it should no longer be able to upgrade to anything.

I just did some testing with EOS 6.678 with the slot commented out and when I used the “convert to PT boat tender (AGP)” option it crashed the game. I believe you are correct that slot 384 is hard coded; you need to have some type of PT tender in that slot to have the convert button work.

Data files for Level 7 - issued in 7x scenario format - are uploaded. Some minor eratta were incorporated - mainly related to Australian SOF - and these are available for Levels 5 and 6 as microupdates (location files only). All these scenarios are now frozen. Level 7 is completed except for the pwhex file set re Australia. You can set up a game - but not execute the first turn (except for test purposes) - pending pwhex release. There are no roads or RR in Australia and there are problems with hexes near the coasts. Fortunately, most of Australia is empty - so no changes were needed to most hexes.

ORIGINAL: drw61

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. Slot 383 is NOT set to upgrade to 384 - so that is strange. It might be a hard coded slot. I have commented out slot 384 - and moved the Isle de France. Niagara will not upgrade to an AGP. These ships are specialized - and should not be too common. While a small AGP is possible, it should not be able to control a major landing - which code does not understand. Also - the Niagara is useful as a PG - and should not be forced to upgrade. Now as to upgrading to a PT tender - maybe that is the real problem. Not sure what is going on there - but it may contain a reference to 384? With no class in the slot it should no longer be able to upgrade to anything.

I just did some testing with EOS 6.678 with the slot commented out and when I used the “convert to PT boat tender (AGP)” option it crashed the game. I believe you are correct that slot 384 is hard coded; you need to have some type of PT tender in that slot to have the convert button work.

Ugly if true. Not that I understand PT boat tenders at all. Will investigate.

This class is an "AGP" in stock and CHS. Not sure what Matrix thinks AGP means - but code thinks it can be made to appear anywhere! Also it appears to have an amphibious command function (ACC). I think we need to put it back in but classify it as a tender - hard code probably means it will work as a PT tender and not being AGC probably means it won't appear anywhere - nor be a command ship.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: drw61

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. Slot 383 is NOT set to upgrade to 384 - so that is strange. It might be a hard coded slot. I have commented out slot 384 - and moved the Isle de France. Niagara will not upgrade to an AGP. These ships are specialized - and should not be too common. While a small AGP is possible, it should not be able to control a major landing - which code does not understand. Also - the Niagara is useful as a PG - and should not be forced to upgrade. Now as to upgrading to a PT tender - maybe that is the real problem. Not sure what is going on there - but it may contain a reference to 384? With no class in the slot it should no longer be able to upgrade to anything.

I just did some testing with EOS 6.678 with the slot commented out and when I used the “convert to PT boat tender (AGP)” option it crashed the game. I believe you are correct that slot 384 is hard coded; you need to have some type of PT tender in that slot to have the convert button work.

Ugly if true. Not that I understand PT boat tenders at all. Will investigate.

This class is an "AGP" in stock and CHS. Not sure what Matrix thinks AGP means - but code thinks it can be made to appear anywhere! Also it appears to have an amphibious command function (ACC). I think we need to put it back in but classify it as a tender - hard code probably means it will work as a PT tender and not being AGC probably means it won't appear anywhere - nor be a command ship.

AGP = Patrol Craft Tender

AGC = Amphibious Force Command Ship

A leading A should be Auxiliary. A G should be "gun". P usually means Patrol. C usually means Command. So all that makes some sense. But code (and WITP data sets) use AGP for some wierd things - and they appear like landing craft do when you call "create landing craft." Using USN taught nomenclature - AGP would be a patrol vessel - not a tender. Not that it may not have been used that way - there are anomolies. A tender - even if armed - would not normally be classified as a gunboat - nor would it be classified as a patrol vessel.

RHS Level 7 pwhex files are now released.

Technical updates to Level 5 and 6 pwhex files will now be done - to make them achieve the same standard (EXCEPT that Australia will NOT be updated re communications codes).

Technical updates to all data files will also now be done. This is probably the last set of updates for Level 6 - which will not be more or less replaced by Level 7.

pwhex file set 6.77 - so numbered to indicate it is parallel to 7.77 - is uploaded.

it may be the last Level 6 pwhex set

Level 5 pwhex set has also uploaded to the x.77 standard

What changes have been done to this most recent ver 6.XX ??

This is just a change to pwhex files - obscure technical stuff. A town in Mongolia gets road vice railroad. Access to certain glacier and wilderness hexes in North America is more restricted. An obscure minor Dutch island gains a trail.
Some Hemilaya mountains blocked hex sides are matched up.\

Pwhex changes may occur in a game already begun. There is no issue in this case of any sort.

There will be some data file updates for all scenarios. A few Allied MS will convert to two ship standard. A few USN LSTs will be added. A few technical tweeks to economic stockpiles. And in Level 7 CVO and RPO one or two towns need relocating in Australia. In all reports of location or ship erratta by Blitzk will be incorporated as well.