RHS x.753 corrected eratta (report)

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Finally let me say the numbers above do not add up - and so I am somewhat confused.

A simple math error or typo on my part, Sid (sorry!). Does not affect the substance of the observation.

Thanks for your reply. I may have been unclear about my point.

Lexington and Saratoga are sister ships. Lexington's air group works fine. Please make Saratoga's air group be structured just like Lexington's air group and it should work fine too. The player work-around is totally unnecessary if that is done.

The problem comes about because the code (that you cannot change) expects Saratoga to have four squadrons on board, not three. You have combined the two (real-life) dive bomber squadrons on Saratoga (called VB-3 and VS-3) into one bigger squadron (called VB-3/VS-3). The code is not smart enough to deal with that.

I am aware that in later years of the campaign the code will change US carriers to have only three squadrons, including a double-sized dive bomber squadron. But, if the scenario designer does that at game start, the code fails to realize it and messes up things. Nobody's fault, just code we cannot change. Giving Saratoga the standard four squadrons avoids the problem.

[el cid again]

Actually - all US CVs have four squadrons. In this case there should also be a USMC squadron on board.

And in RHS NO US CV will resize - unless you screw up and don't follow my advisory NEVER to let a carrier resize (the location of the HQ and a major shipyard being necessary means you can avoid it - on certain dates).

And you also can transfer a squadron over if you must.

We got a nice description of the revised code. It can deal with a CV with only 3 squadrons. It adds all fighter and all non-fighter sqaudrons
up - in two categories - and then divides up the planes by a formula that includes the number of each. Very nicely done.

Now I need to see what you are talking about if you don't see a fourth squadron. Maybe we have the wrong combined squadron - it is not the same in every scenario. Checking.

The Sara shows with VMF-221 on board in the editor. This is historically correct.

In the game screen I still see it. I also see combined VB3/VS3 and VT-3 --

BUT NO VF-3.

This is wrong. Investigating.

OK = here it is: EOS ALL LEVELS: VF-3 has delay = 9999 - should be 0 (no delay) - so the unit fails to appear.

This matters - so we will issue x.751 as soon as the other eratta reported by BLITZK are worked in - by morning.

[el cid again]

Location slot 1444 (62nd Independent Construction Bn) should have formation pointer 919 in Scenarios 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75

Location slot 2458 (KNIL Mobiele Einheid) should have formation pointer 0 in Scenario 71.

Location slot 1918 (JAAF 110th EAB) should have 30 infantry squads (device 264) in slot 7 (vice 266) in Levels 5 and 7.

Location slot 961 (JNAF EAB) should have Navy infantry squads (device 268) in slot 7 (vice 264) ALL scenarios ALL levels.

Location slot 2649 (USAAF 803rd EAB) should have a formation pointer of 2015 in Scenarios 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75.

Location slot 2604 (NZA 1st Mounted Brigade) should have a formation pointer of 2054 in Level 7 Scenarios.

Location slot 2612 (NZA 2nd Mounted Brigade) should have a formation pointer of 2054 in Level 7 Scenarios.

Location slot 2617 (NZA 3rd Mounted Brigade) should have a formation pointer of 2054 in Level 7 Scenarios.

[el cid again]

Due to the lack of availability of VF-3 in EOS (all Levels) - we need to release an update. Since we have found a number of things in several files, we will do a comprehensive - and include a new comment file.. It will be called x.752.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I found an American ML on the West coast in 1941 with an observation plane. This plane upgrades to a Ventura night fighter!
RHSCVO.

This is a bit too undefined to prosecute: we have neither name nor ship slot number to look at - nor the type of aircraft.
There was at one time a problem of this sort - and it may be it is still a problem in a scenario. We don't even know the Level
involved here. If it is identified we can look at it - but there are about 260,000 fields - so a little more information is needed.

This problem pretty well had to involve one of two US floatplanes. It need not be in the aircraft data - and I found no such case.
But I DID find a case where the floatplane upgraded to a PB4Y (B-24) ! I forced all air units to look like aircraft data in all Level 7 scenarios on principle - so we do not have to find the individual unit to fix it. It must be fixed (unless you were not in Level 7). But this is an unreleased fix.
I will release all this eratta at one time - probably in 1 to 3 days - whenever eratta reporting dies out.

I went on to check Levels 5 and 6 as well:

RHSRAO (all levels) had aircraft slot 160 (Seagull) upgrading to PB4Y. This is typical - it is a one slot slippage of the field - and Matrix editors do that a lot. It should upgrade to itself (160).

Scenarios 52, 53 and 55 had aircraft slot (Seagull) upgrading to the Mars Patrol plane. It should upgrade to itself (160).

I forced all air units to look like the parent aircraft with respect to these observation planes.

In RHSCVO 6.xxx MSW Pelican has a slot for a Curtis SOC Seagull..It shows as having "0" units aboard which upgrade to PV1 Ventura nightfighter..
January 1942..

[bbbf]

Slot 58 Ki 84 Frank in 7,75 EOS,CVO,BBO Durability is 7.  Nate is 10!

Slot 59 Ki 100 Tony, durability is 7. Ki 61 & 61 II are 12 and 14.

[drw61]

Using 7.752  EOS
The 38th Inf (slot 3101) states it starts at New Orleans but comes into the game in the wrong place.  It's starting hex 147, 101 and should be 148, 104.
 
Thanks

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I found an American ML on the West coast in 1941 with an observation plane. This plane upgrades to a Ventura night fighter!
RHSCVO.

This is a bit too undefined to prosecute: we have neither name nor ship slot number to look at - nor the type of aircraft.
There was at one time a problem of this sort - and it may be it is still a problem in a scenario. We don't even know the Level
involved here. If it is identified we can look at it - but there are about 260,000 fields - so a little more information is needed.

This problem pretty well had to involve one of two US floatplanes. It need not be in the aircraft data - and I found no such case.
But I DID find a case where the floatplane upgraded to a PB4Y (B-24) ! I forced all air units to look like aircraft data in all Level 7 scenarios on principle - so we do not have to find the individual unit to fix it. It must be fixed (unless you were not in Level 7). But this is an unreleased fix.
I will release all this eratta at one time - probably in 1 to 3 days - whenever eratta reporting dies out.

I went on to check Levels 5 and 6 as well:

RHSRAO (all levels) had aircraft slot 160 (Seagull) upgrading to PB4Y. This is typical - it is a one slot slippage of the field - and Matrix editors do that a lot. It should upgrade to itself (160).

Scenarios 52, 53 and 55 had aircraft slot (Seagull) upgrading to the Mars Patrol plane. It should upgrade to itself (160).

I forced all air units to look like the parent aircraft with respect to these observation planes.

In RHSCVO 6.xxx MSW Pelican has a slot for a Curtis SOC Seagull..It shows as having "0" units aboard which upgrade to PV1 Ventura nightfighter..
January 1942..

OK - Found it. Air Group slot 2276 5/VCS-14 should upgrade to 160 in almost all scenarios. This will be corrected in Level 5 and 6 - but not Level 7 - at this time (because Level 7 files already are away). [But will be in the 7.753 microupdate]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: bbbf

Slot 58 Ki 84 Frank in 7,75 EOS,CVO,BBO Durability is 7.  Nate is 10!

Slot 59 Ki 100 Tony, durability is 7. Ki 61 & 61 II are 12 and 14.

After testing, we applied a K (constant) factor of 2 to RHS durabilities. It may be that this is not applied in every case as it should be,
which would render Ki-84 as 14 and Ki-100 as 14. But I cannot investigate this at this time - so that is a top of my head correction - unless it happens to be right in some files I cannot verify it here.

OK - yep - this is right - and so I will change the update. We will go up to x.753 - and Levels 5 & 6 will release in that form. Level 7 will get a microupdate - aircraft and air group files only.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: drw61

Using 7.752  EOS
The 38th Inf (slot 3101) states it starts at New Orleans but comes into the game in the wrong place.  It's starting hex 147, 101 and should be 148, 104.

Thanks

Looks like this is a problem only in RHSEOS Level 7. And indeed it should be 148,104. You can load the unit at sea IF you can get there with something to load it too.

[Dili]

In general, high slots are used in RHS for devices that should not produce or replace.

 
Nice. All  aircraft guns and weaposn can be put there?

[witpqs]

Sid,

Trying to make sure I understand your finding about Saratoga.

The other US fleet carriers of the time have four squadrons: F-DB-DB-TB. You are saying(?) that Sara should have F-F-DB-TB? And, that the DB should be (effectively) double-sized (because it is a combination of two real-life squadrons)?

If I understand correctly, your (and others) research found that there were actually five squadrons on board Sara on 12/7/41, namely VF-3, VB-3, VS-3, and VT-3 plus the USMC squadron VMF-221. The game engine clearly chokes on five squadrons during re-sizing, so you have to make a decision and have basically two choices.

1) Keep the USMC Squadron on Sara, and combine the two DB squadrons. This results in there being four squadrons. A side effect is that two squadrons are now combined as one, and there are consequences with the game engine re-sizing routine.

2) Place the USMC squadron on land at game start. This is unhistorical but the game engine is happy.

I am not certain how the game engine (it being a bit finicky) will respond to there being two fighter squadrons when it expects two dive bomber squadrons. Most important I think is the issue of the combined squadron - the game engine will treat it (is treating it now - no further testing required) as a single squadron. This means that even though you make it start the game at size x36, it will get re-sized to x18.

Keeping US fleet carriers out of Pearl Harbor is quite impractical for any US player.

Starting the USMC squadron on land is a small historical error. If a player wants too, he can immediately move the USMC squadron to the Sara (they both start in San Diego). On the other hand, the combined dive bomber squadron can never be uncombined. The player is stuck with either the loss of 18 dive bombers on Sara or the horrible game engine work-around.

What you have tried to do (admirably) is get all five squadron-worth of planes on board Sara. The game engine will not allow that except at great penalty to the player (stay out of Pearl Harbor, San Francisco, etc.) I think that clearly the lesser of two evils is to have the USMC squadron start on land and have the four VF squadrons (do not combine the dive bomber squadrons).

Besides, I always had the impression that VMF-221 was on board Sara for transport - not as a permanent resident. Working with the game engine limitations, that is done by flying the squadron off as you approach Pearl Harbor. You can have five squadrons on board for a short time.

[Fletcher]

VMF-221 had been organized at NAS San Diego, California on 11 July 1941. In late 1941, they were alerted for overseas movement to the Pacific to commence in early December. On Sunday, 7 December 1941, the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga (CV-3) arrived at San Diego from Bremerton, Washington and got underway the next day with VMF-221 and their 14 F2A-3's. Saratoga arrived at Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii on 15 December and stopped only long enough to refuel. A detachment of VMF-221 was sent aboard and the ship got underway to reinforce the Marine garrison on Wake Island.After receiving reports of Japanese landings on Wake, the force was recalled on 22 December (23December on Wake Island which is west of the International Date Line). On 25 December, the F2A-3's of VMF-221 were launched and landed on Midway Islands (28.13N, 177.26W) to become part of the defense force.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

In general, high slots are used in RHS for devices that should not produce or replace.

Nice. All  aircraft guns and weaposn can be put there?

Regretfully not. Aircraft devices must be in a narrow range between low (ship) and higher (land) slots. Some also have
hard code associated with them - so are doubly immobile. Code "knows" where to find a particular bomb because that is the right slot -
and it won't make an atom bomb or a missile work unless it is in the exact right slot. Stuff like that.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

Trying to make sure I understand your finding about Saratoga.

The other US fleet carriers of the time have four squadrons: F-DB-DB-TB. You are saying(?) that Sara should have F-F-DB-TB? And, that the DB should be (effectively) double-sized (because it is a combination of two real-life squadrons)?

REPLY: More or less. In EOS three carriers have "extra" squadrons - Lex, Sara and Hornet I think. These ships use combined SBD units to represent two sqauadrons so they can embark a 5th unit. IRL USN and IJN had 5 squadrons (or detachments of different kinds of planes) regularly - and RN had as many as 8. Code is not up to this - so it is my workaround. Works well.

If I understand correctly, your (and others) research found that there were actually five squadrons on board Sara on 12/7/41, namely VF-3, VB-3, VS-3, and VT-3 plus the USMC squadron VMF-221. The game engine clearly chokes on five squadrons during re-sizing, so you have to make a decision and have basically two choices.

REPLY: Yes - and if you play a different scenario you have a more standard set - minus the Marines. ONLY in this way can Marines be carrier qualified - they can leave the ship but STAY qualified too,

1) Keep the USMC Squadron on Sara, and combine the two DB squadrons. This results in there being four squadrons. A side effect is that two squadrons are now combined as one, and there are consequences with the game engine re-sizing routine.

2) Place the USMC squadron on land at game start. This is unhistorical but the game engine is happy.

I am not certain how the game engine (it being a bit finicky) will respond to there being two fighter squadrons when it expects two dive bomber squadrons. Most important I think is the issue of the combined squadron - the game engine will treat it (is treating it now - no further testing required) as a single squadron. This means that even though you make it start the game at size x36, it will get re-sized to x18.

REPLY: Mike Wood explained it on the Forum - we used the info - and you can find it by searching.

Keeping US fleet carriers out of Pearl Harbor is quite impractical for any US player.

REPLY: Only at certain times. And it better be practical if you play against me - because I don't let US players HAVE Pearl Harbor!

[TulliusDetritus]

"The 38th Inf (slot 3101) states it starts at New Orleans but comes into the game in the wrong place. It's starting hex 147, 101 and should be 148, 104 -" -- drw61

Does this mean this division (the 38th) will not appear at all? Or it will appear somewhere (San Francisco, etc)? I ask this because I already started a H2H game (v. 7.751). And er... should I redo one more time the bloody 1st Japanese turn (ie 7.753)? [8D]

[drw61]

Sorry for the bad news but....
The unit will appear on 440115 in the middle of the ocean at hex 147 101, which is a hex just northwest of New Orleans.  What may work is just play the game and when it appears make a copy of your pwhex with a Rail line from that hex to New Orleans and have the unit "walk on water".  Or you could send a ship out and load them (not sure this works).

After looking at the map the hex in question is blocked on all sides so you would need to unblock the east side of 147 101 and the west side of 148 101 to open up the hex.

The best way I've found to redo the pwhex is with WITP Editor X, it makes it almost painless....

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

REPLY: More or less. In EOS three carriers have "extra" squadrons - Lex, Sara and Hornet I think. These ships use combined SBD units to represent two sqauadrons so they can embark a 5th unit. IRL USN and IJN had 5 squadrons (or detachments of different kinds of planes) regularly - and RN had as many as 8. Code is not up to this - so it is my workaround. Works well.

I double-checked the game start conditions and found them as you say. I think a better solution is for those carriers to have five squadrons, and one (the VMF squadron) can be disembarked when entering a critical port (like Pearl or San Francisco).

REPLY: Mike Wood explained it on the Forum - we used the info - and you can find it by searching.

Please accept that I understand this game engine issue - a search of those threads will reveal that Mike Wood jumped in to help us when you and I were discussing (I believe it was) the HMS Hermes air group. I just disagree with your position on the work-around as a viable solution, and I am trying to change your mind.

I might switch to CVO or PPO (I actually like the PPO style but as CVO not BBO, that's why I went with EOS). And anybody who intercepts the previous sentence will not be able to decode it! [;)]

Or, I will try my hand at changing just those squadrons after the release is settled (hopefully there are three extra slots to un-combine the DB squadrons).

Keeping US fleet carriers out of Pearl Harbor is quite impractical for any US player.

REPLY: Only at certain times. And it better be practical if you play against me - because I don't let US players HAVE Pearl Harbor!

In that case San Fran becomes even more important to be able to disband into!

[eloso]

I had a couple of questions and wasn't sure where to post them. The first one might be errata. I briefly looked at CVO and RAO. I looked in the handbook pdf but didn't see anything related to these.

I noticed that all the allied bases that contain the static industrial fortresses have 1 experience and they all have 100 prep points for Magadan, Siberia.

Is this intentional?

I don't know if Japan has them or not because I didn't check.

I think the Burma Area HQ might be in the wrong spot (34,36). It looks like it is stuck between two Laotian bases.

I also noticed that several allied bases have either/both naval and merchant shipyards. I checked the ship screen and there isn't a way that I can see to accelerate/halt production of allied ships.

Other than sucking up supply to repair them what purpose do these serve?

Does it speed up ship production? If bombed, does ship production slow down?

EDIT: There were 3 different pwhex.dat files in the zip file that I downloaded (RHS 03-07 PWHEX set v7.92.zip).

Which is the correct one to use?

Thanks

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

"The 38th Inf (slot 3101) states it starts at New Orleans but comes into the game in the wrong place. It's starting hex 147, 101 and should be 148, 104 -" -- drw61

Does this mean this division (the 38th) will not appear at all? Or it will appear somewhere (San Francisco, etc)? I ask this because I already started a H2H game (v. 7.751). And er... should I redo one more time the bloody 1st Japanese turn (ie 7.753)? [8D]

Machts nichts, because it is already fixed. This note was for anyone who for any reason didn't have the revised version. I believe it was only a problem in RHSEOS level 7. I think this means the unit would appear at sea (if it was to appear at game start it would) and I think you can go to the unit and load it - unless the location was some place you could not get to. Anyway - it is one reason we issued an update - because I did not want to leave it that way. This was a previous location for New Orleans somehow not updated when it was changed.