Matrix Games Forums

possible japanese ship errors:
ship class 517 Aoba no DC /518 Aoba wpn 10 108 DC x4
ship class 520 Takoa wpn 10 107 DC x4 / 521 Takao no DC
ship class 529/530 Agaro 4DC / 531 Agaro 1DC
ship class 562/564 Mutsuki 1DC / 563 Mutsuki Kaiten but no DC
572 shiratsuyu (cosmetic) wpn 9 listed as 107 dc rear 5 ammo ->0 num

also many rtn and other subs begin with 1 speed and upgrade to more resoanable speeds. Working as designed? comments...

ggm

more to follow

ORIGINAL: ggm

possible japanese ship errors:
ship class 517 Aoba no DC /518 Aoba wpn 10 108 DC x4
ship class 520 Takoa wpn 10 107 DC x4 / 521 Takao no DC
ship class 529/530 Agaro 4DC / 531 Agaro 1DC
ship class 562/564 Mutsuki 1DC / 563 Mutsuki Kaiten but no DC
572 shiratsuyu (cosmetic) wpn 9 listed as 107 dc rear 5 ammo ->0 num

also many rtn and other subs begin with 1 speed and upgrade to more resoanable speeds. Working as designed? comments...

ggm

more to follow

1. el cid played with the ASW fits to get ASW working reasonably.
2. he also worked out a way of getting reasonable building costs and times by upgrading at launch to their true characteristics.

herwin if you look at the japanese ships their asw is inconsistent to what I beleive is el cids system of limiting 1 dc per ship. I think chicken was right in stating these inconsistentes maybe leftover from chs.

ggm

ORIGINAL: ggm

herwin if you look at the japanese ships their asw is inconsistent to what I beleive is el cids system of limiting 1 dc per ship. I think chicken was right in stating these inconsistentes maybe leftover from chs.

ggm

When El Cid upgraded the ASW system, he was working primarily on the Japanese enhanced scenarios, particularly EBO, which was getting a lot of play testing by myself and others. It doesn't surprise me that there are some leftover errata in BBO, particularly in the upgrades, which wasn't getting as much attention at the time. I doubt that the current version has received recent testing.

Also, at that time he did some thorough research on ASW weapons on all navies, particularly early war configurations. These are probably more accurate than Wikipedia and certainly more accurate than stock. The limit wasn't necessarily 1 DC per ship, but rather than DC's were treated as patterns of 2, 4, 8, 13 etc depth charges. Some ships could fire patterns from multiple platforms. Each platform should fire one pattern at a time, however.

As far as maintaining files, many of us who play RHS maintain files that we have updated or customized to our preference. You should maintain a list of suspected errata for El Cid to look at if he comes back to this, but this is his baby and only he can tell you for sure which design elements are intended and which are errata. This is the way that most of us who served as play testers for RHS worked with him. Some of the changes he made seem odd on the surface, but they are actually ways of working around the hard code to get more empirically sensible results. Since he lacked access to the code, this was often confusing and frustrating.

The AE team on the other hand have access to and even altered the hard code where necessary. The fixes they are making will generally be more satisfactory and will not have the ripple effects that changes in mods of WITP often had.

yes chicken, it seems more logical to have only one depth charge pattern per ship, rather than multiple depth charge attacks per ship.

ggm

tromp 223 cl  listed as having 4x pattern2 small dc