Matrix Games Forums

The Catalinas are more or less my fault. There had been a great deal of discussion about production numbers, armament etc of various European Allies flying boats/pat planes way back when and i just took the recomendations from those discussions and put them in Lemurs mod. I never went over these aircraft with Don when we were putting together CHS.

Andrew, the Catalina I should have it's build rate adjusted to either 10 or 11.

Mike

Air Group ID 1453, No.358 Squadron RAF, is scheduled to arrive in 1944 at Location ID 299, which is an empty location.

The following ship-based air groups are scheduled to arrive on ships that are 9999ed:

• 750    Shinano-1 Chutai
• 751    Shinano-2 Chutai
• 2019    VMF(CVS)-216
• 2020    VMTB(CVS)-624

This probably does not cause any problems, but maybe you need air group slots.

Another question: all ship-based air groups have "0" as their HQ-ID, except groups that arrive on (some, not all) US CVEs, which have CentPac as their HQ. Why?

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The Catalinas are more or less my fault. There had been a great deal of discussion about production numbers, armament etc of various European Allies flying boats/pat planes way back when and i just took the recomendations from those discussions and put them in Lemurs mod. I never went over these aircraft with Don when we were putting together CHS.

Andrew, the Catalina I should have it's build rate adjusted to either 10 or 11.

Mike

OK. I have increased the rate for the Catalina I. Are there any others that need adjusting Mike?

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Air Group ID 1453, No.358 Squadron RAF, is scheduled to arrive in 1944 at Location ID 299, which is an empty location.

I changed all of the squadrons arriving at the Middle East base to Aden, but this one seems to have slipped through the net. It is now fixed.

ORIGINAL: VSWG

The following ship-based air groups are scheduled to arrive on ships that are 9999ed:

• 750 Shinano-1 Chutai
• 751 Shinano-2 Chutai
• 2019 VMF(CVS)-216
• 2020 VMTB(CVS)-624

This probably does not cause any problems, but maybe you need air group slots.

Another question: all ship-based air groups have "0" as their HQ-ID, except groups that arrive on (some, not all) US CVEs, which have CentPac as their HQ. Why?

The first two are for the variant Shinano BB (see the house rules notes in the CHS documentation).

The Rendova was removed as a reinforcement because we got rid of all reinforcement ships appearing in 1946. You are right in that we can recover the slots by removing the air groups, but I will only do this as a last resort in case the Rendova is restored to the database for some reason.

Thanks,
Andrew

I'm glad I can help. One more:

Is the 14th Bombardment squadron (ID 1151) in Cagayan supposed to have "West Coast" as HQ?

ORIGINAL: VSWG

I'm glad I can help. One more:

Is the 14th Bombardment squadron (ID 1151) in Cagayan supposed to have "West Coast" as HQ?

No, they shouldn't, and I have changed it to USAFFE.

Thanks,
Andrew

ORIGINAL: VSWG

• 66th IJA Division (ID 1673) is set to arrive in hex 47,46, the very southern tip of Formosa (no base hex). I guess this should be Takao (47,45)
• The following IJA units arrive in hex 64,23, which is a wooden hex 120 miles east of Hailar:
  • 1691 125th Division
  • 1692 80th Ind.Mixed Brigade
  • 1693 133rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
  • 1694 130th Ind.Mixed Brigade
  • 1695 136th Division
  • 1696 138th Division
  • 1697 148th Division
  • 1698 79th Ind.Mixed Brigade

A question: If a LCU with delay is slated to arrive in hex 0,0, does that mean it will arrive at the default entry port for this nation? If so, where can I find a list with these ports?

I've just looked into this a bit more. It seems that the LCUs appearing in hex 64,23 are not simply due to a map translation error after all. These LCUs also appear in an empty hex next to Hailar in the stock scenarios. My map translation script must have moved them to 64,23 - also a blank hex (but 2 hexes from Hailar which is not quite right, so my script does need tweaking).

I am moving all of those LCUs into Hailar itself in CHS.

Andrew

I've noticed the japanese submarine D1/2 Class, slot 134 (in scenario 155) use the bmp 158. This bmp is the fact the graphic ship side of the japanese Type STS.
Of course, the slot 158 use the bmp 158 acordingly.

Andrew, I was wondering how the 2.06 version is going?

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Andrew, I was wondering how the 2.06 version is going?

I have been on the verge of releasing 2.06 for a couple of weeks at least. However every time I prepare to do so another problem has cropped up (such as the bomber loads, CV squadron resizing issues, and changes to the Nik Mod version). The latest hitch is over US late war fighter production, which I am looking at right now (prompted by the discussions about the F6F).

What is interesting about these problems with CHS is that most of the issues that have been raised are problems that have been in CHS all along, since 1.0, but are only now coming to light. They still need to be fixed though.

I should explain from a personal perspective I have been very busy for the last couple of weeks looking after sick family members (all OK now), so my spare time has been minimal of late.

But 2.06 will be released very shortly.

Andrew

You're doing a great job, Andrew. I did not buy this game until I saw that dedicated fans of WitP produced lots of scenarios, mods and art files. A lively modding community is always a sign for a good game.

Andrew,
I just finished reading Andy's AAR against PzB and he was upset about the low number of F6F's produced monthly (144) vs what he considered historical numbers. Does his point have any validity??

He feels and I kind of agree that the Japanese can outproduce the USA. [&:]

F6F-3 first flew Oct 4, 1942--production ended in mid 1944 - total built - 4423
F6F-5 first flew April 4, 1944 ---production ended in November 1945

Total Hellcat production - 12,275

Great to hear about the 2.06 release.

I'm just getting ready for another game...my other one is going to restart due to map issues.

SD (etc.) radar in subs might beed slight toning down. I think it's working fine...bit too well, actually...[8D] Very few hits against subs equipped with it.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

SD (etc.) radar in subs might beed slight toning down. I think it's working fine...bit too well, actually...[8D] Very few hits against subs equipped with it.

I would not tone down a thing because IMO subs are caught on the surface waaaaay too often in the game...they are modelled as surface ships I think and this is off. Be nice if the logistics model demanded Japan use its merchant fleet...nothing for subs to shoot at.[8|]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

SD (etc.) radar in subs might beed slight toning down. I think it's working fine...bit too well, actually...[8D] Very few hits against subs equipped with it.

I would not tone down a thing because IMO subs are caught on the surface waaaaay too often in the game...they are modelled as surface ships I think and this is off. Be nice if the logistics model demanded Japan use its merchant fleet...nothing for subs to shoot at.[8|]

Well..since I think I came up with SD radar etc. and played with it a few campaigns, I have comparisons I can make. With new air-ASW model SD may be just bit too potent just now. I see attacks, though, so it's not way too potent, though. Maybe taking the effect down by 10 ? I agree with you, Ron, that subs were attacked too often, that's why I tried air-search radars for subs and found that they do reduce attacks and hits.

Would it be possible to increase the crew experience on the British Q-ships? They have day/night ratings of in the low tens. They were warships, after all.