Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Question about C-46 Commando:

In CHS and I think (if I remember correctly) in early versions of RHS the C-46 Commando had a 50% greater payload and a slightly greater range than the C-47.

Currently, the C-46 has the same payload and a much shorter range than the C-47.

Does this sound correct or is it errata?

This is a much more difficult question to answer than it sounds like. There are all sorts of ways to measure transport capacity - and WITP does not use any of them properly! Capacity should be related to range - and it essentially is not in our game system! This is because there is no field to define "normal" cargo capacity for "normal" range. ALL we have is GROSS cargo capacity - and code does what it pleases with that - and not entirely rationally. Worse - it lets you carry to 50% of transfer (ferry) range. That is a very crude rule of thumb and essentially false in a technical sense. We have adjusted that in RHS: our transport transfer ranges are reduced by 8% so that de facto transport range = 42% of what the transfer range ought to be. The Forum decided operational ranges are higher in priority.

Anyway - BECAUSE we don't get to enter the "normal" cargo OR the "normal" range - you cannot see that data for either (or any) transport type. Nothing I can do about it either. For better or for worse, we have entered the maximum cargo for both types. It might be better to enter the normal cargo for all transports - and if the Forum agreed I will do that.
But that isn't the stock WITP system. Since air transport capacity is too efficient - possibly this is a good idea. A variation would be to enter the extended range cargo - since 42% of transfer range is for REDUCED cargo loads.

It appears that six squadrons - if they do not sum greater than the carrier limit (115% of deck capacity) - function properly.

Here is something astonishing: If a CV has six squadrons, the sixth squadron does NOT resize. In the case of Taiho, the smallest element was 3 recon planes: AFTER resize it remains three. But the fifth - a flight of 4 night fighter - expanded into a true squadron - although smaller than the others.

Errata (I think) with the 75mm pack howitzer:

I've discovered that the pack howitzers organic to the Marine Para Bn's are not being dropped by air (using C-47's), nor will they transport by air (again using C-47's).

I remember it being this way in stock, and that CHS had fixed the problem by adjusting some setting in the pack howitzers.

Were the pack howitzers air-dropped with the marines, or did they have to leave them behind?

From what i have learned devices with more than 7 load size are not air transportable. I dont know if there is more limitations.

Thanks. Now the question is - did they go in real life? If so, then they should go in the game.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Errata (I think) with the 75mm pack howitzer:

I've discovered that the pack howitzers organic to the Marine Para Bn's are not being dropped by air (using C-47's), nor will they transport by air (again using C-47's).

I remember it being this way in stock, and that CHS had fixed the problem by adjusting some setting in the pack howitzers.

Were the pack howitzers air-dropped with the marines, or did they have to leave them behind?

The issue is supposed to be the load cost - and RHS (to some complaints) has greatly reduced this - for airborne of both sides. They do seem to be flying in some tests. But they always fly last.

ORIGINAL: Dili

From what i have learned devices with more than 7 load size are not air transportable. I dont know if there is more limitations.

Pretty unlikely. A Japanese airborne squad has a load cost of 12, and it surely flies. Same for other airborne squads.

However the US Pack Howitzer has too much load cost. So we will reduce it. Due to ammo - we will also increase the Japanese pack howitzer.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Thanks. Now the question is - did they go in real life? If so, then they should go in the game.

The reason for pack howitzers is they can go. They were called "airborne artillery." The Japanese had a pack system that broke their later mountain gun into 11 manpacks.

I just looked at RHS versus CHS for the 75mm Pack Howitzer (slot 433) load cost.
CHS = 18
RHS = 16

So, if it was made air-transportable in CHS, that must have been in an earlier version.

By the way, since you mention 'sometimes' things getting transported by air, I've seen that over the past couple of days. I figured it was a code bug and not a scenario matter.

When air-transporting units base to base (not air-drop), I've seen that some of the 25pdr howitzers and some of the 75mm howitzers (not pack howitzers) will get moved and the rest will not. I presume those artillery pieces were not air-transportable IRL and some got sent due to a code bug.

I just found the ones in RHS that are moving 'sometimes':

Slot 434 75mm Field Gun - load 12
Slot 435 75mm Mountain Gun - load 12
Slot 440 25pdr Howitzer - load 20

So it seems that the 75mm Pack Howitzer (load 16) falls right into the 'sometimes' range. Maybe 7 (cited by Dili) is the 'always go' cutoff. Presumably any above that value that go are due to code bugs.

There is a difference between air transportable and air droppable. Most of them could be slung! Also, it depends on the plane what it can carry. The problem with tanks and big guns is density - not load capacity of the plane. But small guns can all go - if they can fit. Often you don't get many!

The mountain guns are revised - for safety. So were a few other devices - also for consistency relative to other units.

I got my info from Mifune. Not because testing. Note that the game might assume that a 12 value "SQUAD" can be splitted since it is a bunch of men but a 12 "ARMY WEAPON" dont . This is only speculation. I am also not aware if the plane load capability has some effect in load ability. With WITM 40 we will get Me 323 with 10 ton or 20000lb load capability. I am curious to see what will happens.
 
We need a REAL editor manual.

The load is something like load rating of the plane divided by a number (e.g. 50)

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It appears that six squadrons - if they do not sum greater than the carrier limit (115% of deck capacity) - function properly.

EDIT: New theory: I think the reason the squadron did not resize is because it is neither fighter nor bomber. Mike's explanation of how resize works means it would not be included in either category - but it still exists - so it is preserved.
Actually - his resizing code works very well in terms of not overstacking the carrier - formerly a problem. It seems also to permit more squadrons - not something I think was understood by anyone. But it does not permit historical sizes for squadrons and in fact all but guarantees that won't happen. It is frustrating to do historical research and see blind code ruin it! Still - resizing is now a feature and - combined with changing air groups - something we can work with.

Slot 9755 (Class 1688) - ML Savorgnan de Brazza shows a battleship graphic.

Slot 279 (Class 279) - DD FF Le Triamphant shows a battleship graphic. On this one the record in the database looks correct, but still a wrong graphic is displayed???

The Dutch Marten 139/B10 bomber (slot 197) squadrons should be allowed to upgrade to the American version of the B-25C/D. The Mitchell III/B25 is not a suitable substitute because the production rate of 15 per month makes it unrealistic that the UK would provide these aircraft to the Dutch. The B-25C/D, which is available in great numbers, would clearly be available when surplus numbers are built up (perhaps as US units upgrade to later models).

Many ships are wrong. The pointers are right - and so is the RHS ship art. But somehow the conversion to "RHS standard art" has got the wrong bitmaps. I have put out this matter to those responsible for art. We can either go back to pre standard art - or they can rearrange the bitmaps. I am going to issue the file set either way - and I don't care either way - but the pointers are all right (except the few I have changed in an effort to work around this issue - and they can be changed back). Probably the standard art set was done on an out of date art set.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

[The Dutch Marten 139/B10 bomber (slot 197) squadrons should be allowed to upgrade to the American version of the B-25C/D. The Mitchell III/B25 is not a suitable substitute because the production rate of 15 per month makes it unrealistic that the UK would provide these aircraft to the Dutch. The B-25C/D, which is available in great numbers, would clearly be available when surplus numbers are built up (perhaps as US units upgrade to later models).

This is a difficult matter. In fact, the reason production is 15 per month is to permit this upgrade. This was done specifically so that the Dutch could not easily upgrade - the politics are/were complex - and IRL it didn't happen. It should be difficult - and it is set this way to reflect that. There is also another political dimension: the US did not support Dutch colonial war aims. We dragged out feet on the Dutch Marine Brigade - and never did deliver it to the war zone - precisely for that reason. The British attitude about return of the colonial regimes was very different than the American attitude was. Yes - the Americans COULD provide the planes - but WOULD they provide the planes? IRL they didn't.
We give players more flexibility - but only slightly more. It is one of those compromises that can be made more than one way. Players tend to do everything to the limit we allow them to do - so modders often try to limit that - because a player isn't going to not upgrade to US planes just because it would not have been done. The RHS rule is "if you don't think it would have happened IRL, don't do it" - but I don't think you are asking for this so you would not do it! But some day - in EOS - this will change - ALL Allies will share the same B-25 at each level. We await art.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Slot 279 (Class 279) - DD FF Le Triamphant shows a battleship graphic. On this one the record in the database looks correct, but still a wrong graphic is displayed???

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Many ships are wrong. The pointers are right - and so is the RHS ship art. But somehow the conversion to "RHS standard art" has got the wrong bitmaps. I have put out this matter to those responsible for art. We can either go back to pre standard art - or they can rearrange the bitmaps. I am going to issue the file set either way - and I don't care either way - but the pointers are all right (except the few I have changed in an effort to work around this issue - and they can be changed back). Probably the standard art set was done on an out of date art set.

Sid,

This one is very strange. I looked in the art folder, and graphic 279 is what looks to be a DD (and what I imagine Le Triamphant should look like). I went through all of the graphic files, and it seems that #183 is the one (incorrectly) being displayed for the Le Triamphant. But - as mentioned and as you noted - the scenario file points to graphic #279. I started this AI game under 7.756 - but, I saved the exact copy of 7.756 that I started the game with in another folder when you released 7.757. I have also (twice) examined 7.756, and it also points Le Triamphant to graphic #279.

Any idea how this can be happening?