Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:09 am**

That is my concern too. Stock/Babes has too few PPs (50 per turn) while RHS has too many of them (500 per turn or so), to a point they become meaningless and can be done away with altogether. By March 1942, Allied players have assumalted huge pile of unused PPs in thier test games.

Posted: **Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:25 pm**

ORIGINAL: Yaab

That is my concern too. Stock/Babes has too few PPs (50 per turn) while RHS has too many of them (500 per turn or so), to a point they become meaningless and can be done away with altogether. By March 1942, Allied players have assumalted huge pile of unused PPs in thier test games.

The way our friend Sid does things, I am sure it is based on a known quantum, (production/manpower/resources, etc)
That said, perhaps if we were given a percentage of that number?

For sure 50 per turn in stock was way too few and does not even represent national "mobilization" whatsoever IMHO.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:55 am**

Level II Update Link 2.72
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhYgdhnbHRnhTAFX2OQ

This update mainly concerns map art and map support files. It also has some
eratta and some chrome.

I recommend deleting the files in the RHS installer BEFORE installing. This will purge out of date files or files previously included by mistake.

I recommend coping all map files regardless. Many items have been revised.

The with hex version of the panel including Tasmania now also has a railroad East from Adelaide - it was already present in the non hex version. Similarly, up in the NE area of the map. the hex version has the railroad NW from Fort MacMurray - it isn't there today but it was in WWII (to get coal from a mine at Embarrass - only spelled in French which AOL won't let me do!). The Tasmaina hex also is redefined in pwhexe.dat terms such that the new port access is now shallow draft only.
Up in Northern Australia, the river to Timber Creek now works, although possibly it should not in Winter (need to look it up). In NW Australia the fictional RR is gone (it was built decades later - the biggest freight capacity line in the world).

Extensive work on the Indian Ocean SW map area - much of the ocean is now gone.
New art restores (and amplifies) the ice Andrew used in his map design. In that area
we are looking at adding a Southern Ocean entry exist zone. The 'Western Map Edge' is in fact a diagonal line NW to SE across the Indian Ocean - and one could approach it via a different vector from the Falklands and South Africa. Since there is no 'map edge' IRL I am trying to make it so for the Allies in game terms - they can enter and exit just about anywhere.

I added landing parties for four raiders - the two Japanese ones that really tried raiding and the two German ones. These are classical naval landing parties - more or less platoon size (except in both cases with four rifle squads - SOP for Axis navies -
and different flavors of 'heavy weapons' - the Germans get two MG 34 while Japan gets a section of 4 grenade dischargers and one MMG section. These can be used to capture undefended Allied positions - just as the German Pacific Squadron did in WWI and the reason Marine Defense Battalions were formed in WW2.

A peculiar bad air group record was rebuilt - No 4 IAF detachment (which grows into a squadron eventually) - was wholly dysfunctional.

Numbers of issues involving starting positions for ships were resolved either by moving the ships or by changing the pwhexe.dat file.

Obviously the pwhexe.dat file is new. For safety copy the pwzone.dat and pwzlink.dat files to the top level AE folder (from the RHS PWHEXE and PWLINK SOURCE folder).

For some reason (possibly size) this file will not work as a link - or maybe it will later (so says the error message).

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:12 am**

Actually both of you are right. Political points probably had a useful design intent. But as
implemented, they completely hamstrung the players. The Allies in particular are not able to perform
historical operations because they cannot change commands of historical units at even 10% of the rate
they really did. As well, the Allies include the Russians: in Russian active scenarios or in any
scenario where the Russians are brought in by Japanese action, suddenly their vast forces are competing
with the rest of the Allies for a much too small pool.

RHS has experimented with a wide range of political point rationales. Generally, the idea is along the
lines of "a command should be able to decide what to do with a division a day" or some multiple of that,
given the typical size of a division for that side. It really doesn't work out very well. Too few and players
cannot transfer from one command to another to facilitate historic (or similar operations), and they run into
problems. But if you give a side "too many" pp, AND IF a player does not use enough of them, it can cause
a register overflow which may crash a game. So we were forced to find a compromise value. This value is
"too high" if you think stock must have been in the right ball park. But it is also "not enough" if you think
the British need to be able to send historical forces to Burma when they really did.

Remember that in RHS there are also more units than in stock. And many RHS scenarios have active Russians.
They need pp too. So the need for pp is in fact somewhat greater than in the original game. Our values in fact
are only marginal for a long term game: RHS is DESIGNED so the players can play through until 1945 - with vastly
greater units needing vastly more supplies (and political points). Unlike with supplies - where we found ways to
'grow' the number available, PP are constant. So we need to have a value that is tolerable in 1944 even if that
is 'too many' in 1942. A player might be well advised to save some for later use. But it is a trade off. RHS
believes in 'power to the players' and lets as many trade-off compromise decisions be managed by players as possible.
To impose a lower value really harms the player's options.

Note, however, we DO that to the Japanese in the 1945 Downfall Scenario. Japan has few options at that point in time
and is reasonably forced to keep most units in their present command assignments.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Yaab

That is my concern too. Stock/Babes has too few PPs (50 per turn) while RHS has too many of them (500 per turn or so), to a point they become meaningless and can be done away with altogether. By March 1942, Allied players have assumalted huge pile of unused PPs in thier test games.

The way our friend Sid does things, I am sure it is based on a known quantum, (production/manpower/resources, etc)
That said, perhaps if we were given a percentage of that number?

For sure 50 per turn in stock was way too few and does not even represent national "mobilization" whatsoever IMHO.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:36 am**

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Level II Update Link 2.37
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg7YTgw8gY65Xue8YuQ

This update mainly concerns map art and map support files. It also has some
eratta and some chrome.

I recommend deleting the files in the RHS installer BEFORE installing. This will purge out of date files or files previously included by mistake.

I recommend coping all map files regardless. Many items have been revised.

The with hex version of the panel including Tasmania now also has a railroad East from Adelaide - it was already present in the non hex version. Similarly, up in the NE area of the map. the hex version has the railroad NW from Fort MacMurray - it isn't there today but it was in WWII (to get coal from a mine at Embarrass - only spelled in French which AOL won't let me do!). The Tasmaina hex also is redefined in pwhexe.dat terms such that the new port access is now shallow draft only.
Up in Northern Australia, the river to Timber Creek now works, although possibly it should not in Winter (need to look it up). In NW Australia the fictional RR is gone (it was built decades later - the biggest freight capacity line in the world).

Extensive work on the Indian Ocean SW map area - much of the ocean is now gone.
New art restores (and amplifies) the ice Andrew used in his map design. In that area
we are looking at adding a Southern Ocean entry exist zone. The 'Western Map Edge' is in fact a diagonal line NW to SE across the Indian Ocean - and one could approach it via a different vector from the Falklands and South Africa. Since there is no 'map edge' IRL I am trying to make it so for the Allies in game terms - they can enter and exit just about anywhere.

I added landing parties for four raiders - the two Japanese ones that really tried raiding and the two German ones. These are classical naval landing parties - more or less platoon size (except in both cases with four rifle squads - SOP for Axis navies -
and different flavors of 'heavy weapons' - the Germans get two MG 34 while Japan gets a section of 4 grenade dischargers and one MMG section. These can be used to capture undefended Allied positions - just as the German Pacific Squadron did in WWI and the reason Marine Defense Battalions were formed in WW2.

A peculiar bad air group record was rebuilt - No 4 IAF detachment (which grows into a squadron eventually) - was wholly dysfunctional.

Numbers of issues involving starting positions for ships were resolved either by moving the ships or by changing the pwhexe.dat file.

Obviously the pwhexe.dat file is new. For safety copy the pwzone.dat and pwzlink.dat files to the top level AE folder (from the RHS PWHEXE and PWLINK SOURCE folder).

For some reason (possibly size) this file will not work as a link - or maybe it will later (so says the error message).

Indeed this is still showing as an empty folder...nothing obtainable at present by e-mail nor by this link as posted..We are patient.[:D]

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:44 am**

Possibly there is too much art in the update. The link worked briefly last night but
is down now. Working on it.

RHS Level II Update Link 2.373
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg7YTgw8gY65Xue8YuQ

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Level II Update Link 2.37
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg7YTgw8gY65Xue8YuQ

This update mainly concerns map art and map support files. It also has some
eratta and some chrome.

I recommend deleting the files in the RHS installer BEFORE installing. This will purge out of date files or files previously included by mistake.

I recommend coping all map files regardless. Many items have been revised.

The with hex version of the panel including Tasmania now also has a railroad East from Adelaide - it was already present in the non hex version. Similarly, up in the NE area of the map. the hex version has the railroad NW from Fort MacMurray - it isn't there today but it was in WWII (to get coal from a mine at Embarrass - only spelled in French which AOL won't let me do!). The Tasmaina hex also is redefined in pwhexe.dat terms such that the new port access is now shallow draft only.
Up in Northern Australia, the river to Timber Creek now works, although possibly it should not in Winter (need to look it up). In NW Australia the fictional RR is gone (it was built decades later - the biggest freight capacity line in the world).

Extensive work on the Indian Ocean SW map area - much of the ocean is now gone.
New art restores (and amplifies) the ice Andrew used in his map design. In that area
we are looking at adding a Southern Ocean entry exist zone. The 'Western Map Edge' is in fact a diagonal line NW to SE across the Indian Ocean - and one could approach it via a different vector from the Falklands and South Africa. Since there is no 'map edge' IRL I am trying to make it so for the Allies in game terms - they can enter and exit just about anywhere.

I added landing parties for four raiders - the two Japanese ones that really tried raiding and the two German ones. These are classical naval landing parties - more or less platoon size (except in both cases with four rifle squads - SOP for Axis navies -
and different flavors of 'heavy weapons' - the Germans get two MG 34 while Japan gets a section of 4 grenade dischargers and one MMG section. These can be used to capture undefended Allied positions - just as the German Pacific Squadron did in WWI and the reason Marine Defense Battalions were formed in WW2.

A peculiar bad air group record was rebuilt - No 4 IAF detachment (which grows into a squadron eventually) - was wholly dysfunctional.

Numbers of issues involving starting positions for ships were resolved either by moving the ships or by changing the pwhexe.dat file.

Obviously the pwhexe.dat file is new. For safety copy the pwzone.dat and pwzlink.dat files to the top level AE folder (from the RHS PWHEXE and PWLINK SOURCE folder).

For some reason (possibly size) this file will not work as a link - or maybe it will later (so says the error message).
Indeed this is still showing as an empty folder...nothing obtainable at present by e-mail nor by this link as posted..We are patient.[:D]

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:23 pm**

Level II Update Link 2.38
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg74A7TujZK_wdrKG1A

Note THIS version of the installer INCLUDES revised maps with hexes.
These add some missing rail lines (which was deliberate originally -
when Level II was compatible with Andrew Brown's Extended Map system.
It isn't any more - so all maps are for the expanded RHS version of
his Extended Map System). This is the first release of two such panels.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:31 pm**

Part of the problem is PP are constant. Testers found when the Brits need to transfer many
units for the offensive in Burma, it was impossible later in the war. Similarly, a player
may want to do a non-historical shift in units for an offensive. You need the pp to be able
to do that in a reasonable time in 1943 and 1944 and 1945.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Very much appreciate the continued improvements.

Sid, what is the reason RHS gives so many political points from the offset?
I definitely appreciate the ability to transfer units from a CONUS or otherwise committed command to one of an emerging theater of operations, (as in real life), but am concerned that I may be getting ALL of my political points in one fell swoop, rather than earning them thru time?
In a nutshell...will I continue to get political points as the days pass?

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:34 pm**

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Part of the problem is PP are constant. Testers found when the Brits need to transfer many
units for the offensive in Burma, it was impossible later in the war. Similarly, a player
may want to do a non-historical shift in units for an offensive. You need the pp to be able
to do that in a reasonable time in 1943 and 1944 and 1945.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Very much appreciate the continued improvements.

Sid, what is the reason RHS gives so many political points from the offset?
I definitely appreciate the ability to transfer units from a CONUS or otherwise committed command to one of an emerging theater of operations, (as in real life), but am concerned that I may be getting ALL of my political points in one fell swoop, rather than earning them thru time?
In a nutshell...will I continue to get political points as the days pass?

IIRC part of the reason stock had so few PP's per turn was to prevent the very gamey practice known as "Run Robin"(or something similar whereby an allied player would simply evacuate forces to Australia rather than lose them in place.

I am huge on historical possibilities and would prefer these limitations but certainly feel 50 points per turn does NOT represent true mobilization as happened in real life.

Limiting the Dutch units by command to prevent evacuation would go far to appease history IMHO, with very few exceptions.

If you need any help finding a more historic number of points per turn, I am sure you will have volunteers more qualified than just me, though I will be willing to help.(Retired, private resource library, etc.)
If the game requires a FIXED point pool per turn and it can still be based on manpower and actual production numbers, I can acquire those numbers.

Giving the Japanese fixed victory point pool for their conquests still seems like a fair system and I would not limit them to "whatever they hold up to and ending with 1943".
I would give them credit for things they did later in the war as well which might be 4 times what they were worth in 1942.(Just an example.)

As far as Russia being part of that VP pool, I would not even consider them as they did not have a DEDICATED force whatsoever compared to what they had removed to employ forces at Kursk, Stalingrad, Smolensk and Leningrad.
Most of the units the game shows coming into the Russian areas were cadre strength at best.

Again...if you choose to revisit the production pool or manpower or "whatever" fuels the PP's, feel free to holler, I and others will help.

RHS is a HUGE amount of fun to play as you have assembled it, IMHO.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:49 pm**

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Level II Update Link 2.37
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg74A7TujZK_wdrKG1A

Note THIS version of the installer INCLUDES revised maps with hexes.
These add some missing rail lines (which was deliberate originally -
when Level II was compatible with Andrew Brown's Extended Map system.
It isn't any more - so all maps are for the expanded RHS version of
his Extended Map System). This is the first release of two such panels.

I did NOT take your prior advice to back up the map panels...This installer did not include all of them and I am now missing the panel going from north of Panama to southern California and that eastern edge with Midwest..

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:25 pm**

Level II Update Link 2.38
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg74A7TujZK_wdrKG1A

Apart from including all map panels redone for RHS,

this update includes

some rework of Japanese aircraft and classes (with impacts on ships)

and a working spreadsheet for Level II Scenario 129 aircraft and engine
economic planning (it can be modified for other scenarios)

that is a rather complicated and sophisticated tool permitting projection
of future requirements - and is based on Level Two Test I Japanese planning

and some changes to other documentation - such as updating the House
Rules somewhat to include Level II scenario names and better wording

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:27 pm**

New Link includes all map panels - see above

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Level II Update Link 2.37
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg74A7TujZK_wdrKG1A

Note THIS version of the installer INCLUDES revised maps with hexes.
These add some missing rail lines (which was deliberate originally -
when Level II was compatible with Andrew Brown's Extended Map system.
It isn't any more - so all maps are for the expanded RHS version of
his Extended Map System). This is the first release of two such panels.

I did NOT take your prior advice to back up the map panels...This installer did not include all of them and I am now missing the panel going from north of Panama to southern California and that eastern edge with Midwest..

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:20 pm**

I actually faced something of a players revolt (not on the Forums, but in private email)
over this issue a few months back in time. By then I had a number of games to evaluate to
there was less need to guess about effects over time.

I took considerable time integrating the new values with location file changes to land units.
I also implemented significant differences between scenarios. But I also folded in restrictions
to prevent abuse. These mainly are putting some units into situations where they can never
change commands by expending political points and/or where they cannot even move. This is more
or less SOP in RHS - a single policy change involves thousands of records (sometimes over a hundred
thousand records - and we often do that to 13 different scenarios - if we include Level I and
the unreleased Downfall scenarios - or to 7 - if Level II only. It isn't just a case of more PP,
but also of insuring there is limited opportunity to reassign improperly.

The unreleased 1945 Downfall
scenario 125 in development sees Japan with little capacity to reassign major land units - 500 per
day or about four days for a major division. But the Allies get three times as much - which
for their typically smaller divisions is about 1 division per day. As well, the scenario tends
to have units assigned to the correct command - no major changes for the Allies should be needed.

Most scenarios ("strictly historical" 121 to 124 in Level II - 101 to 104 in Level I) have Japan
get 1000 to start and 1000 per day - or about two days for a major division decision. The Allies
start with only 500 - and they have more units - particularly late in the war. That is to prevent
major first turn changes. But they get 1500 per day thereafter - which on review is minimal - about
enough for a division decision per day. Both levels do tend to show great accumulation of pools - but
not dangerously so - and by the time the Allies need to transfer whole armies (in 1943 and 1944) they
either have them or at least can get the points after a period of a month or so.

Japan enhanced scenarios are similar except Japan starts with 2000 points - which is only enough for
one division - to give them more starting flexibility. When used for things other than major land units
a thousand points is significant.

Now Russia is a very special case. It was very undeveloped in stock - missing entire air forces and kinds
of units - the list is long. Adding these units and capabilities has been noticed in Russia, where we seem to
have players. [They write when I miss something or get it wrong]. As well, RHS is DESIGNED to play WITH
RUSSIANS ACTIVE - even if NOT in combat. This isn't required - I provide Russian passive options for historical
scenarios as well as for the future AI controlled Downfall scenario (AI does not grasp active Russians are not
in the war yet). This is done as a FAVOR to ALLIED players and to balance things in a way that should limit
Japanese gamey behaviors: instead of a garrison of ONLY land units, Japan needs to ALSO have a real air force
facing Russia - because of the risk of not having one when a fight begins. Probably more important is where
units are located, how and when they upgrade, and what recon flights are made over what targets? Active Russians
means air units to not retain obsolete aircraft while pools of new ones grow to the point they are scrapped. The
list of reasons is long and well tested - players familiar with it usually prefer it (assuming they do NOT play
the AI - in which case ONLY scenario 122 (102 in Level I) is really going to work - to the extend AI ever works.
But there must be an AI and an AI oriented scenario - to permit long term testing AI vs AI - to have a sense of
effects over time of various things - so it is an option for players - even if AI is misleadingly named and not
intelligent.) In tag team games, the player running Russia can be very upset he cannot do anything because some
other "allied" player wants all the PP all the time! As for there being no "dedicated force" in Russia - I do not
grasp what you mean? Although there were units sent West - the forces in the East generally grew over time.
They begin so strong I doubt the Japanese can beat them in 1942, and it only gets worse as time passes. Certainly
General Togo was pessimistic: "Every night I go to sleep worried about the Russians. Every morning I wake up without
an answer." There is no indication in stock OB data that most units are in cadre form and no indication in later
war data units sent with a view to launching an offensive were either. Remember, PP must apply to ALL war years -
even 1945 - because they are fixed and do not 'grow' over time. In a realistic Russian Active Scenario - Russia
does NOT have to watch Japan invade and be helpless - sometimes for days - until AI decides the invasion is one.
It is horrible not to control where you build forts or fortifications, where your units are, or to what command
they are assigned. Whatever that is, it is not accurate simulation. RHS does not ignore the Russians as a matter
of design - the Russians are a gigantic flanking presence and certainly should not be portrayed as either helpless
or unable to act when their interests demand it. Without recon, how can Russia even detect an assembling invasion
force - never mind deploy to counter it - or possibly to pre-empt it? Developing Arctic logistics in both Siberia
and North America has been a difficult task - and perhaps not well understood. Here in Alaska we study this history
a good deal more than probably anywhere else - except in Russia of course - where notes indicate players appreciate
the attention to detail we have shown. If you think the Russians should be passive, spend no PP points for their
interests at all. Consider the needs of the British, the Chinese, the Dutch, the Aussies, the Canadians and NZ and
of course the USA - and tell me that a diligent player who reviews all units every turn won't run out of PP regularly.
We actually experimented with "unlimited" PP and found real problems with that - even game crashes. So we use
generous but LIMITED PP - and it seems to solve the problem of hamstrung Allied players. Japan is insatiable -
IF a player wants to commit the bulk of the IJA (which historically did NOT happen - outside of China we never
faced more than 1/6 of it) - they will be as hamstrung by PP as the Allies are. The real limits on Japan should
be logistical - not PP: we have seen invasions of India, Ceylon and Australia fail because you can move the UNITS
but it isn't so easy to feed them! Even in China, probably Sian has never fallen, and certainly Chunking is not
likely to fall - even in games where I asked players to commit major IJA forces to try. PP don't help Japan
win in China. Its defense is mainly its size compounded by terrain and poor communications to feed major forces
needed to reduce fortified urban hexes.

RHS takes all suggestions and complaints seriously (including more than a few very good ones from M10Bob).
And we have experimented with PP over a wide range - going from too many to too few - and settling back near
where we began - based on more or less a division every day or two. Complaints by the Allies in Test Eight were
very strong - the Allies had very unrealistic operational constraints. It is also hard to reconcile any given
value with very DIFFERENT player styles - SOME players more or less ignore PP most of the time - while others
run em to zero every day. And apparently AI doesn't use em at all - 'it does whatever it wants' quoting a senior
programmer.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Part of the problem is PP are constant. Testers found when the Brits need to transfer many
units for the offensive in Burma, it was impossible later in the war. Similarly, a player
may want to do a non-historical shift in units for an offensive. You need the pp to be able
to do that in a reasonable time in 1943 and 1944 and 1945.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Very much appreciate the continued improvements.

Sid, what is the reason RHS gives so many political points from the offset?
I definitely appreciate the ability to transfer units from a CONUS or otherwise committed command to one of an emerging theater of operations, (as in real life), but am concerned that I may be getting ALL of my political points in one fell swoop, rather than earning them thru time?
In a nutshell...will I continue to get political points as the days pass?

IIRC part of the reason stock had so few PP's per turn was to prevent the very gamey practice known as "Run Robin"(or something similar whereby an allied player would simply evacuate forces to Australia rather than lose them in place.

I am huge on historical possibilities and would prefer these limitations but certainly feel 50 points per turn does NOT represent true mobilization as happened in real life.

Limiting the Dutch units by command to prevent evacuation would go far to appease history IMHO, with very few exceptions.

If you need any help finding a more historic number of points per turn, I am sure you will have volunteers more qualified than just me, though I will be willing to help.(Retired, private resource library, etc.)
If the game requires a FIXED point pool per turn and it can still be based on manpower and actual production numbers, I can acquire those numbers.

Giving the Japanese fixed victory point pool for their conquests still seems like a fair system and I would not limit them to "whatever they hold up to and ending with 1943".
I would give them credit for things they did later in the war as well which might be 4 times what they were worth in 1942.(Just an example.)

As far as Russia being part of that VP pool, I would not even consider them as they did not have a DEDICATED force whatsoever compared to what they had removed to employ forces at Kursk, Stalingrad, Smolensk and Leningrad.
Most of the units the game shows coming into the Russian areas were cadre strength at best.

Again...if you choose to revisit the production pool or manpower or "whatever" fuels the PP's, feel free to holler, I and others will help.

RHS is a HUGE amount of fun to play as you have assembled it, IMHO.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:30 am**

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I actually faced something of a players revolt (not on the Forums, but in private email)
over this issue a few months back in time. By then I had a number of games to evaluate to
there was less need to guess about effects over time.

I took considerable time integrating the new values with location file changes to land units.
I also implemented significant differences between scenarios. But I also folded in restrictions
to prevent abuse. These mainly are putting some units into situations where they can never
change commands by expending political points and/or where they cannot even move. This is more
or less SOP in RHS - a single policy change involves thousands of records (sometimes over a hundred
thousand records - and we often do that to 13 different scenarios - if we include Level I and
the unreleased Downfall scenarios - or to 7 - if Level II only. It isn't just a case of more PP,
but also of insuring there is limited opportunity to reassign improperly.

The unreleased 1945 Downfall
scenario 125 in development sees Japan with little capacity to reassign major land units - 500 per
day or about four days for a major division. But the Allies get three times as much - which
for their typically smaller divisions is about 1 division per day. As well, the scenario tends
to have units assigned to the correct command - no major changes for the Allies should be needed.

Most scenarios ("strictly historical" 121 to 124 in Level II - 101 to 104 in Level I) have Japan
get 1000 to start and 1000 per day - or about two days for a major division decision. The Allies
start with only 500 - and they have more units - particularly late in the war. That is to prevent
major first turn changes. But they get 1500 per day thereafter - which on review is minimal - about
enough for a division decision per day. Both levels do tend to show great accumulation of pools - but
not dangerously so - and by the time the Allies need to transfer whole armies (in 1943 and 1944) they
either have them or at least can get the points after a period of a month or so.

Japan enhanced scenarios are similar except Japan starts with 2000 points - which is only enough for
one division - to give them more starting flexibility. When used for things other than major land units
a thousand points is significant.

Now Russia is a very special case. It was very undeveloped in stock - missing entire air forces and kinds
of units - the list is long. Adding these units and capabilities has been noticed in Russia, where we seem to
have players. [They write when I miss something or get it wrong]. As well, RHS is DESIGNED to play WITH
RUSSIANS ACTIVE - even if NOT in combat. This isn't required - I provide Russian passive options for historical
scenarios as well as for the future AI controlled Downfall scenario (AI does not grasp active Russians are not
in the war yet). This is done as a FAVOR to ALLIED players and to balance things in a way that should limit
Japanese gamey behaviors: instead of a garrison of ONLY land units, Japan needs to ALSO have a real air force
facing Russia - because of the risk of not having one when a fight begins. Probably more important is where
units are located, how and when they upgrade, and what recon flights are made over what targets? Active Russians
means air units to not retain obsolete aircraft while pools of new ones grow to the point they are scrapped. The
list of reasons is long and well tested - players familiar with it usually prefer it (assuming they do NOT play
the AI - in which case ONLY scenario 122 (102 in Level I) is really going to work - to the extend AI ever works.
But there must be an AI and an AI oriented scenario - to permit long term testing AI vs AI - to have a sense of
effects over time of various things - so it is an option for players - even if AI is misleadingly named and not
intelligent.) In tag team games, the player running Russia can be very upset he cannot do anything because some
other "allied" player wants all the PP all the time! As for there being no "dedicated force" in Russia - I do not
grasp what you mean? Although there were units sent West - the forces in the East generally grew over time.
They begin so strong I doubt the Japanese can beat them in 1942, and it only gets worse as time passes. Certainly
General Togo was pessimistic: "Every night I go to sleep worried about the Russians. Every morning I wake up without
an answer." There is no indication in stock OB data that most units are in cadre form and no indication in later
war data units sent with a view to launching an offensive were either. Remember, PP must apply to ALL war years -
even 1945 - because they are fixed and do not 'grow' over time. In a realistic Russian Active Scenario - Russia
does NOT have to watch Japan invade and be helpless - sometimes for days - until AI decides the invasion is one.
It is horrible not to control where you build forts or fortifications, where your units are, or to what command
they are assigned. Whatever that is, it is not accurate simulation. RHS does not ignore the Russians as a matter
of design - the Russians are a gigantic flanking presence and certainly should not be portrayed as either helpless
or unable to act when their interests demand it. Without recon, how can Russia even detect an assembling invasion
force - never mind deploy to counter it - or possibly to pre-empt it? Developing Arctic logistics in both Siberia
and North America has been a difficult task - and perhaps not well understood. Here in Alaska we study this history
a good deal more than probably anywhere else - except in Russia of course - where notes indicate players appreciate
the attention to detail we have shown. If you think the Russians should be passive, spend no PP points for their
interests at all. Consider the needs of the British, the Chinese, the Dutch, the Aussies, the Canadians and NZ and
of course the USA - and tell me that a diligent player who reviews all units every turn won't run out of PP regularly.
We actually experimented with "unlimited" PP and found real problems with that - even game crashes. So we use
generous but LIMITED PP - and it seems to solve the problem of hamstrung Allied players. Japan is insatiable -
IF a player wants to commit the bulk of the IJA (which historically did NOT happen - outside of China we never
faced more than 1/6 of it) - they will be as hamstrung by PP as the Allies are. The real limits on Japan should
be logistical - not PP: we have seen invasions of India, Ceylon and Australia fail because you can move the UNITS
but it isn't so easy to feed them! Even in China, probably Sian has never fallen, and certainly Chunking is not
likely to fall - even in games where I asked players to commit major IJA forces to try. PP don't help Japan
win in China. Its defense is mainly its size compounded by terrain and poor communications to feed major forces
needed to reduce fortified urban hexes.

RHS takes all suggestions and complaints seriously (including more than a few very good ones from M10Bob).
And we have experimented with PP over a wide range - going from too many to too few - and settling back near
where we began - based on more or less a division every day or two. Complaints by the Allies in Test Eight were
very strong - the Allies had very unrealistic operational constraints. It is also hard to reconcile any given
value with very DIFFERENT player styles - SOME players more or less ignore PP most of the time - while others
run em to zero every day. And apparently AI doesn't use em at all - 'it does whatever it wants' quoting a senior
programmer.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Part of the problem is PP are constant. Testers found when the Brits need to transfer many
units for the offensive in Burma, it was impossible later in the war. Similarly, a player
may want to do a non-historical shift in units for an offensive. You need the pp to be able
to do that in a reasonable time in 1943 and 1944 and 1945.

IIRC part of the reason stock had so few PP's per turn was to prevent the very gamey practice known as "Run Robin"(or something similar whereby an allied player would simply evacuate forces to Australia rather than lose them in place.

I am huge on historical possibilities and would prefer these limitations but certainly feel 50 points per turn does NOT represent true mobilization as happened in real life.

Limiting the Dutch units by command to prevent evacuation would go far to appease history IMHO, with very few exceptions.

If you need any help finding a more historic number of points per turn, I am sure you will have volunteers more qualified than just me, though I will be willing to help.(Retired, private resource library, etc.)
If the game requires a FIXED point pool per turn and it can still be based on manpower and actual production numbers, I can acquire those numbers.

Giving the Japanese fixed victory point pool for their conquests still seems like a fair system and I would not limit them to "whatever they hold up to and ending with 1943".
I would give them credit for things they did later in the war as well which might be 4 times what they were worth in 1942.(Just an example.)

As far as Russia being part of that VP pool, I would not even consider them as they did not have a DEDICATED force whatsoever compared to what they had removed to employ forces at Kursk, Stalingrad, Smolensk and Leningrad.
Most of the units the game shows coming into the Russian areas were cadre strength at best.

Again...if you choose to revisit the production pool or manpower or "whatever" fuels the PP's, feel free to holler, I and others will help.

RHS is a HUGE amount of fun to play as you have assembled it, IMHO.

As ever I am glad to read that my comments are NOT seen as those of an "enemy"(LOL)..
I remember when you had them in your face on a daily basis, and I stood with RHS when some of those detractors went far beyond civility.
I am confident the folks using RHS at present and commenting are too involved finding the "Easter eggs" and evidence of unspoken research on your part to be dismayed.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:20 am**

An observation:

I have never seen this before in any mod nor scenario..In RHS II I am getting LSM's all over the place..Los Angeles, Pearl, Seattle, etc, but when I put them with larger ships for long transit they are not taking fuel from the larger ships and acquire damage and eventually sink!
Of course, I can get around this by "returning them" at CONUS and just accept them or create them closer to active operational areas.
Is this intentional?
Of course, IRL smaller invasion types were transported on the backs of larger ships, or actually sailed across those oceans.
Does RHS require a special ship-type to get them across, intact with payload?

BTW...Your latest revised download cleared up all my map issues and the new ports work great!

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:15 am**

There is no change in RHS with respect to landing craft. If I could make a change, I would do so in favor
of a better system. My first ship was the last APA built for the US Navy - tied with her sister for the largest
APA as well. [That was a mistake - the sides were too high for troops to climb easily - and in some conditions,
especially in hot tropical conditions, they could not do so with a full pack and weapon.] Anyway, being aware of
how ships really carry landing craft, and even how large ones can be carried (usually on an LST, but my ship could
carry the biggest if it gave up some of its Mike boats), I find the transit issue frustrating.

There may be a change - but only if it is a code change in the updates.

I believe you can also solve the problem by sending the small craft (any kind) along with a replenishment task force.
That is much more feasible for the Allies - with all their AO's - than for the Axis - although it would slow most
of them down badly. There are a few slow AOs however.

My solution generally has been to increase the number of landing craft - so if you wait a while - you can always
find more in the pools.

The problem is software really - and there is no solution really either. It is impossible to put in the
huge numbers of landing craft used - some abstraction is needed. Even I somehow the program would permit it,
there isn't enough time for the data entry - even for Japan - never mind for the Allies. So landing craft on
ships are abstracted when you specify an amphibious task force - which is a good compromise. The other landing
craft you see are really supposed to be for local ops. But you can create them anywhere you have supplies -
which is supposed to let you decide where you want them. But they are not supposed to do inter-theater transits.

But I have done it - by island hopping and refueling along a line of communications - and by following or meeting a
replenishment task group (or more than one).

ORIGINAL: m10bob

An observation:

I have never seen this before in any mod nor scenario..In RHS II I am getting LSM's all over the place..Los Angeles, Pearl, Seattle, etc, but when I put them with larger ships for long transit they are not taking fuel from the larger ships and acquire damage and eventually sink!
Of course, I can get around this by "returning them" at CONUS and just accept them or create them closer to active operational areas.
Is this intentional?
Of course, IRL smaller invasion types were transported on the backs of larger ships, or actually sailed across those oceans.
Does RHS require a special ship-type to get them across, intact with payload?

BTW...Your latest revised download cleared up all my map issues and the new ports work great!

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:29 pm**

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is no change in RHS with respect to landing craft. If I could make a change, I would do so in favor
of a better system. My first ship was the last APA built for the US Navy - tied with her sister for the largest
APA as well. [That was a mistake - the sides were too high for troops to climb easily - and in some conditions,
especially in hot tropical conditions, they could not do so with a full pack and weapon.] Anyway, being aware of
how ships really carry landing craft, and even how large ones can be carried (usually on an LST, but my ship could
carry the biggest if it gave up some of its Mike boats), I find the transit issue frustrating.

There may be a change - but only if it is a code change in the updates.

I believe you can also solve the problem by sending the small craft (any kind) along with a replenishment task force.
That is much more feasible for the Allies - with all their AO's - than for the Axis - although it would slow most
of them down badly. There are a few slow AOs however.

My solution generally has been to increase the number of landing craft - so if you wait a while - you can always
find more in the pools.

The problem is software really - and there is no solution really either. It is impossible to put in the
huge numbers of landing craft used - some abstraction is needed. Even I somehow the program would permit it,
there isn't enough time for the data entry - even for Japan - never mind for the Allies. So landing craft on
ships are abstracted when you specify an amphibious task force - which is a good compromise. The other landing
craft you see are really supposed to be for local ops. But you can create them anywhere you have supplies -
which is supposed to let you decide where you want them. But they are not supposed to do inter-theater transits.

But I have done it - by island hopping and refueling along a line of communications - and by following or meeting a
replenishment task group (or more than one).

ORIGINAL: m10bob

An observation:

I have never seen this before in any mod nor scenario..In RHS II I am getting LSM's all over the place..Los Angeles, Pearl, Seattle, etc, but when I put them with larger ships for long transit they are not taking fuel from the larger ships and acquire damage and eventually sink!
Of course, I can get around this by "returning them" at CONUS and just accept them or create them closer to active operational areas.
Is this intentional?
Of course, IRL smaller invasion types were transported on the backs of larger ships, or actually sailed across those oceans.
Does RHS require a special ship-type to get them across, intact with payload?

BTW...Your latest revised download cleared up all my map issues and the new ports work great!

I wonder if there might be a way for Amphib Command land units to have an option to create those landing craft, the same way air HQ units can produce torpedoes?..I realize it would display as creating them "on the beach", (or a near-by beach), but it would make it more convenient than sailing them as far as they do at present.

EDIT:Having slept on this topic, I now feel my suggestion lacks merit because it would give that Amphib unit the ability to reate landing craft at an unreasonable location.
We both know those smaller craft were carried by larger ships, and I wonder if some of them might be given a "refuel" capability?

Dada in laws 2nd ship was the APA 19 "Callaway" which carried its' own LCVP's..At present the game engine allows them a much faster troop unload capability to represent this but I wonder if the unload capability is really generous enough for this, and if so, are LCVP's even needed in the quantity the game has them at?..

Of course, this is a can of worms we need not even look at since the game works well as is.

One of the things that has bothered me about WITP (different mods included) has been the lack of engineer units in many of the LCU's.

The Chinese immediately come to mind as people who "drafted" many locals to do the manual labor for their building projects, airfields and entrenchment work especially, using both manual labor and oxen, water buffalo, and even elephants.
I have never felt "engineering" points demanded the formality of Caterpillars per se, when part of a larger unit.
I appreciate that RHS is generous with those engineer squads.

Posted: **Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:40 am**

Level II Update Link 2.38
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg74A7TujZK_wdrKG1A

Although the next really important order of business is the completetion of the SW
map area, that isn't included here. But there now is a detail plan to do that. But players may wish not to update to the final form for RHS Level II maps. So this update brings all the files to the latest form. Mainly they deal with eratta detected because of Level II Test 1.

Slight problems were detected with the new landing parties, and their officers. The units had the wrong symbol. The officers were in the wrong service. These issues are fixed and the number of landing parties was doubled from four to eight. There won't be any more: that is enough to duplicate the WWI actions by ships landing parties early in WW1, should the Axis player want to do that. [This history is why the USMC created its Defense Battalions].

Problems were detected with respect to Chinese River Steamers. These are substantially resolved here. As well, new variations were introduced. Similar to the junks in China, these vessels can perform a variety of roles, and to some degree, convert between them. The new types include a "ferry" (xAP) variant, new art for the LSI(S) version, and something like an Irrawaddy Flotilla "Flat" for use as an AKV (or perhaps xAKV might be a better name). The "new" art is not actual art - simply pointing at a different part of the art database.

The next update - likely tomorrow - will not involve data files at all - but instead map support files, and map art panels. This should complete development of the Level II map system. We will slightly simplify the Arctic "Winter over" ports - which is why a player might not want to use these files. Ongoing games will exhibit an somewhat alarming 'teleporting' of Russian ships to Krasnyoarsk - which won't hurt anything. None of these ships can move in game terms until Monsoon. The main focus is the SW map corner area. This will split the Capetown Entry Exit Zone into two parts - one North of Amsterdam Island - one South of it. The new one will be called the Crozed Islands Entry Exit Zone. There will be a gap between them five hexes in height -
unusually an area for Axis use. Allied ships (and searches) are not permitted withing
three hexes of Amsterdam (so entering Axis vessels can appear at various points in the Indian Ocean. As well, there will be an off map Axis movement track due "West" from Amsterdam - turning immediately "South" - and then finally entering the map
along the "Southern" map edge (where the logo used to be). That area will feature
a number of points the Axis may exit the track - and it will be called the Southern Ocean Axis Entry Zone. [There is no mechanism for an Axis vessel to leave the map -
although we may invent one in Level III - to reward mainly exports of tin to Germany]
Map panels 14 and 28 (probably) will be modified to show this new arrangement.

Posted: **Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:22 am**

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RHS Level II Update Link 2.373
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg7YTgw8gY65Xue8YuQ

Although the next really important order of business is the completetion of the SW
map area, that isn't included here. But there now is a detail plan to do that. But players may wish not to update to the final form for RHS Level II maps. So this update brings all the files to the latest form. Mainly they deal with eratta detected because of Level II Test 1.

Slight problems were detected with the new landing parties, and their officers. The units had the wrong symbol. The officers were in the wrong service. These issues are fixed and the number of landing parties was doubled from four to eight. There won't be any more: that is enough to duplicate the WWI actions by ships landing parties early in WW1, should the Axis player want to do that. [This history is why the USMC created its Defense Battalions].

Problems were detected with respect to Chinese River Steamers. These are substantially resolved here. As well, new variations were introduced. Similar to the junks in China, these vessels can perform a variety of roles, and to some degree, convert between them. The new types include a "ferry" (xAP) variant, new art for the LSI(S) version, and something like an Irrawaddy Flotilla "Flat" for use as an AKV (or perhaps xAKV might be a better name). The "new" art is not actual art - simply pointing at a different part of the art database.

The next update - likely tomorrow - will not involve data files at all - but instead map support files, and map art panels. This should complete development of the Level II map system. We will slightly simplify the Arctic "Winter over" ports - which is why a player might not want to use these files. Ongoing games will exhibit an somewhat alarming 'teleporting' of Russian ships to Krasnyoarsk - which won't hurt anything. None of these ships can move in game terms until Monsoon. The main focus is the SW map corner area. This will split the Capetown Entry Exit Zone into two parts - one North of Amsterdam Island - one South of it. The new one will be called the Crozed Islands Entry Exit Zone. There will be a gap between them five hexes in height -
unusually an area for Axis use. Allied ships (and searches) are not permitted withing
three hexes of Amsterdam (so entering Axis vessels can appear at various points in the Indian Ocean. As well, there will be an off map Axis movement track due "West" from Amsterdam - turning immediately "South" - and then finally entering the map
along the "Southern" map edge (where the logo used to be). That area will feature
a number of points the Axis may exit the track - and it will be called the Southern Ocean Axis Entry Zone. [There is no mechanism for an Axis vessel to leave the map -
although we may invent one in Level III - to reward mainly exports of tin to Germany]
Map panels 14 and 28 (probably) will be modified to show this new arrangement.

Looking forward to the next map improvements...Thank you...

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:49 am**

ORIGINAL: m10bob

An observation:

I have never seen this before in any mod nor scenario..In RHS II I am getting LSM's all over the place..Los Angeles, Pearl, Seattle, etc, but when I put them with larger ships for long transit they are not taking fuel from the larger ships and acquire damage and eventually sink!
Of course, I can get around this by "returning them" at CONUS and just accept them or create them closer to active operational areas.
Is this intentional?
Of course, IRL smaller invasion types were transported on the backs of larger ships, or actually sailed across those oceans.
Does RHS require a special ship-type to get them across, intact with payload?

BTW...Your latest revised download cleared up all my map issues and the new ports work great!

Just disband them. In real life, they travelled open waters aboard ships. In the game, the process is abstracted and they travel as supplies loaded on a ship. You recreate them in a new location.If you set them to travel long distances ALONGSIDE ships in a TF, they will get damaged and sink.

I alwyas disband the landing craft present in PH and CONUSA at start. You should also have some of them on Luzon, and can put them to good use there.

Matrix Games Forums

RHS Thread: Planned Update 8.20

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.37 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.37 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.37 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update Link Working

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update Link Working

RE: RHS Level II Update Link 2.371 (aircraft, classes)

RE: RHS Level II Update Link Working

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)

RE: RHS Level II Update Link 2.373 and 2.38 plan

RE: RHS Level II Update Link 2.373 and 2.38 plan

RE: RHS Level II Update 2.36 (comprehensive)