Matrix Games Forums

Have added a missing garrison unit to IJA - and turned all 8 into brigades - which they are - since they are supposed to be able to spread out (they have four battalion combat teams - and no brigade assets except HQ and communications - all four teams are self contained).

Have reduced and renamed NLFs to NGFs and SNGFs - battalions and companies instead of brigades and battalions. Have changed the unit assaulting Wake to an SNLF - it still isn't able to do the job - and am reviewing the possible names. In general, each major command has one SNGF (a company without heavy weapons) and only actual independent NGFs or SNGFs will show up.

Have fixed one plane's gun, one ship's ordnance, a host of minor technical eratta, and am reviewing more. Have changed a number of names - shortening them and making them consistent with the RHS patterns. Shorter names reduce the number of reports too long for the report window. This is already down to well under 1 in 100.

Have changed Panama so Colon is a Level 10 port - to permit entering ships to load rapidly - simulating a Caribbean Entry Point Cobra and I intend to add soon. Also have added the option to attack and damage the Gatun Locks.

Have changed Panama so Colon is a Level 10 port - to permit entering ships to load rapidly - simulating a Caribbean Entry Point Cobra and I intend to add soon. Also have added the option to attack and damage the Gatun Locks.


The Germans are attacking from the Atlantic? The first set of locks on the Pacific side are the Miraflores Locks...., and they are more than 8 miles inland from the channel entrance. What type of "attack" were you envisioning?

I know the Japanese intended to carry out an air attack...

No high speed internet - new cabling required. 5.00 will upload slowly
today.

It is WOW. New aircraft ranges = fantastic.

NLFs either revised smaller or deleted.

A few eratta folded in.

New situation in Panama - see thread on Gatun lock -
Panama pwhex to release tomorrow.

Have confirmed Ganges was navigable to steamers until dam construction silted it up - post war.

5.1 will release when aircraft maneuverability data in hand.
Looks like we may get revised pilots and/or leader files as well.

How long for the new cabling?

ORIGINAL: el cid again



A number of other divisions began the war square (I think) - but reformed before they became operational.
I have a giant book on the US Army Order of Battle - and it gives details for each - including a quite complex
liniage. The problem is not so much data as the time to look it up case by case - and I was told the US units
had been done "more than once" for CHS. And I do see some attempt at accuracy: a US Army RCT was
given 24 mortars - which is right - only they were all 81mm - because no 60mm device was available. IRL
18 were not 81s. The US Army was in transition over to triangular from its historical square form.

Each Infantry Bn has 6-81mm Mortars, Each Infantry Company has 3 60mm Mortars. A three battalion regiment would have 18-81mm, 27-60mm mortars. Regimental Combat Teams were not independent units, all were formed from parent Division with a slice of Divisional assets (usually one BN of 105mm, 1 troop of Recon, 1 company of Combat Engineers). The 155's BN's were never broken down into batteries, as this was the Division wide general support artillery, therefor there should not be any 155mm in the RCT's.


All Independent Regiments, those not affiliated with Divisions, were not RCT's, just standard three BN regiments. In this the stock game is in error in making all US infantry regiments that are independent RCT's. If one wants to play with RCT's in the game, then one needs to divide a Division into three units.

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations.

At start this is correct, however, they eventually reorganized into two batteries of 40mm and 1 battery of 20mm (24-40mm and 12-20mm?), somewhere around mid 1943 I beleive.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am still not with you - why is that a problem? I worked with Big J shelling target more than 20 miles inland. If the river is navigable, it is navigable, and if a ship goes up it - it can shell WE went up MEkong - a bad place for an aluminum superstructure ship to go - just so we could shell farther inland.

Without a good reliable local pilot or extremely accurate navigational charts, no BB captain is going to sail up any river. I bet the ship you was in had a pilot on board.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

How long for the new cabling?

Two days all goes well.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again



A number of other divisions began the war square (I think) - but reformed before they became operational.
I have a giant book on the US Army Order of Battle - and it gives details for each - including a quite complex
liniage. The problem is not so much data as the time to look it up case by case - and I was told the US units
had been done "more than once" for CHS. And I do see some attempt at accuracy: a US Army RCT was
given 24 mortars - which is right - only they were all 81mm - because no 60mm device was available. IRL
18 were not 81s. The US Army was in transition over to triangular from its historical square form.

Each Infantry Bn has 6-81mm Mortars, Each Infantry Company has 3 60mm Mortars. A three battalion regiment would have 18-81mm, 27-60mm mortars. Regimental Combat Teams were not independent units, all were formed from parent Division with a slice of Divisional assets (usually one BN of 105mm, 1 troop of Recon, 1 company of Combat Engineers). The 155's BN's were never broken down into batteries, as this was the Division wide general support artillery, therefor there should not be any 155mm in the RCT's.


All Independent Regiments, those not affiliated with Divisions, were not RCT's, just standard three BN regiments. In this the stock game is in error in making all US infantry regiments that are independent RCT's. If one wants to play with RCT's in the game, then one needs to divide a Division into three units.

This is easy to do. I seem to have the right counts (probably because I use the same ones you do) - and it isn't hard to have pure regiments. In RHS some are RCT and some are not - apparently this is the CHS format - I didn't do that. But all can be strait up regiments - formation already there - and it frees a valuable formation slot. As I assign the most numerous units formations, the code gets more efficient: I am achieving 50% less time per day now because of efficiency improvements (time to process a day - down to 4 minutes).

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am still not with you - why is that a problem? I worked with Big J shelling target more than 20 miles inland. If the river is navigable, it is navigable, and if a ship goes up it - it can shell WE went up MEkong - a bad place for an aluminum superstructure ship to go - just so we could shell farther inland.

Without a good reliable local pilot or extremely accurate navigational charts, no BB captain is going to sail up any river. I bet the ship you was in had a pilot on board.

Well - we certainly had fine depth sounders and 3D sonar. I am not sure a pilot is a problem: Britain had real problems (all of Congress - a united party including Muslims then - was in prison for the duration - and the Mayor of Calcutta led the Indian National Army - so a pilot might have been found).

I think it is time for human testing of a longer term sort. I think 5.00 has resolved even minor things (like a carrier that won't rearm, or a mid war bomber with a huge 57 mm tail gun) - and we really do need to get some eyes on the many changes made to see how they are working and what issues may exist with unintended conseqences? I intend to issue my playtesters opening turn shortly - by Monday at the latest - maybe sooner. One big surprise: The Allies have lost just under 24,000 ground strength points (are these 100 men?) in about six months - to about 800 for Japan - the first time I have seen such lopsided outcomes. I believe this may represent the fall of the manpower at supply sinks captured.

I have run the AI vs AI validation test through six months - in just over half a real day - and turn execution efficiency is 20% better than 4.49 and 50% better than 4.40 (that is, I am running a day in 4 minutes real time without animations vs 5 minutes in the last version and 8 minutes ten sub versions back). It is not entirely clear why this is the case - but I have been systematically resolving technical issues and attempting to make things require less memory. We have reached the point we are pruning - each version has more free lines - and many records have fewer fields - after many months of growth in both senses. Stability seems in large measure to have come once we got art calls right: call something not there you have trouble. But speed - it is not entirely clear what that comes from?

AI was able to take Manila by February and Bataan and Singapore and Batavia since. It has invested Soerabaja - to shut down the supplies made there I think - with a minor unit - and has others on the march.
It regularly begins operations in the DEI before the fall of Singapore - particularly at Menado and Tarakan and Brunei and points in Western Borneo. In this game it was able to take Wake - and as far as I can tell AI never sends reinforements - it either takes it or not with the initial force. No carriers have been lost on either side yet - the AI seems to collect US carriers in Hawaii until it has 5 or 6 - only the RN commits its carriers in small forces. Carrier battles usually occur in late spring or early summer in AI vs AI - unless the Brits get into one - which they always lose.

I have a report that the work on aircraft maneuverability fields will take until about a week more. I also have a volunteer working on leaders and pilots - and while he felt he needed 36 hours - a week is more realistic. He is resolving things like the same person assigned to several different commands and/or assigned on the wrong date. There are more than a few such instances - although I am not convinced they matter much - I have no problem cleaning them up. So the major update to 5.00 will be adding these things.

Minor things I am folding into my human test turn include replacing "Indian" with IA for many brigades and divisions - shortening the name - and adding mmg and supplies to these units - which have either no supplies or too few when they start. Also I am going to convert all US Army RCT to pure regiments - and get rid of the RCT slot - so we can use it for some common formation (meaning the program does not have to have so many fields tracking specific formations - I think formations should be used when there are large numbers of similar units - and never when there is only one - like the US cavalry division: if there is only one formation, let the unit point to itself by entering nothing in the formation field). And of course any errors which are reported. So far I have not found any - unless the above are errors.

I am not sure I have said this - but 5.00 has moved US cruiser classes so they will not respawn - and two runs show it seems to work.

I will report on planes from the data entry point of view in a separate thread. And I have to post a revised Panama pwhex procedure.

I found one significant eratta - a duplicated supply sink at Harbin -
and issued 5.01 location files for anyone who prefers to kill it.
This includes the Indian Army brigade/division update (they use IA
name format and have mmg from start) and changes US Army and
Philippine Army RCT to regiments (no artillery).

The pilot and leader files will both be in the 5.10 release and may be more updated than originally thought due to more time.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations.

At start this is correct, however, they eventually reorganized into two batteries of 40mm and 1 battery of 20mm (24-40mm and 12-20mm?), somewhere around mid 1943 I beleive.

Not in India/Burma - all OOB's for British/Indian/East African LAA Rgt I have access to still show the standard of 54 Bofors as equipment in 1944.

However, some LAA Rgt were used to form LAA/AT Rgt in August 1943 (1 AT Bty + 2 LAA Bty). But this change lasted only until June or September 1944 when the LAA/AT Rgt were dissolved, which means that they were used to (re-) form the LAA and AT Rgt they had been formed from originally. And independent LAA Rgt were not involved, LAA/AT Rgt were only formed as divisional assets.

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations.

At start this is correct, however, they eventually reorganized into two batteries of 40mm and 1 battery of 20mm (24-40mm and 12-20mm?), somewhere around mid 1943 I beleive.

Not in India/Burma - all OOB's for British/Indian/East African LAA Rgt I have access to still show the standard of 54 Bofors as equipment in 1944.

However, some LAA Rgt were used to form LAA/AT Rgt in August 1943 (1 AT Bty + 2 LAA Bty). But this change lasted only until June or September 1944 when the LAA/AT Rgt were dissolved, which means that they were used to (re-) form the LAA and AT Rgt they had been formed from originally. And independent LAA Rgt were not involved, LAA/AT Rgt were only formed as divisional assets.

Well i do know that a few LAA Regiments converted into FA/MA Regiments in Burma late 44 early 45. What I did not know was that the LAA did not change, but keeping them constant well make to OOb simpler. I know that most of the LAA/AT Regiments served organic to various infantry divisions, not independent formations.

ORIGINAL: el cid again


I am not sure I have said this - but 5.00 has moved US cruiser classes so they will not respawn - and two runs show it seems to work.

Are you saying that respawn is slot dependent?

Yes I am. Apparently it is sufficient to move the class. It is not clear if a suggestion to move the ships individually works? Moving both works - and moving the class works. I moved the carriers back to their slots - no problem. It is Essex that had to move. So I figure same for ships like Brooklyn. In Test 127 at 5.50 level - in to September 42 - no respawns.

RHSCVO 5.02:

carrier Lexington has disappeared. The TF 1005 only contains the CA's and DD's. Not in the ship list either *Poof, gone*

In 5.02 EOS the only Allied carriers present at game start (12/7/41) are Enterprise, Hermes, and Saratoga.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

RHSCVO 5.02:

carrier Lexington has disappeared. The TF 1005 only contains the CA's and DD's. Not in the ship list either *Poof, gone*

Now that is something. Can't have that - so 5.03 will release with it fixed - as soon as I can find the darn thing.
I expect to have new pilot and leader files (with over 3000 lines fixed - many deleted) any time. And when the plane maneuverability is done there will be 5.10 with that - possibly tomorrow.

I have converted Indian Divisions to "division" brigades - Japanese style - because they divide into two formations - not three. I may do this to other British units - but I have trouble with sources: my official US Army manual on the British Army says the norm is THREE brigades per division in the British forces - and not two like I remember.
A few other errors have been found in a line by line review of Allied armies - all of them fixed.