Matrix Games Forums

Thank you for this. I took Chinese Geography once (which I probably didn't need to do, being unrelated to
my discipline) - but it was useful. I confirm all your translations - and I routinely translate the name into what
it means (Ho = River, Shan = Mountain, etc).

What I didn't know, but find useful, is the part about the seasonal flow of the tributary river. This is the area
that gives the "Yellow River" its name - all the mud flowing into it from the loess. It makes sense that tributaries
get pretty dry - but the picture is helpful.

You are absolutely correct about the quantity of oil. The first "refinery" in China, at this location by the company
named in my above post, first "capacity" is given at "15 pounds" - which sounds to me like a rough translation of
"one gallon" - per day. It was not until the 1930s it achieved economically significant production. Similarly the
oilfield itself achieved economic significance only in the 1920s, and only at the lowest end of the scale. [Today
is different - capacity was greatly expanded since 1981] It appears to me NONE of this oil (or distilate products )
were exported from the immediate area - but only fed the local industry. Still - in the 1930s - it permitted industrial
growth which would not have been possible without it.

In game terms, nothing has changed. At the moment, both towns are in the same hex, and for that reason, so
is the junction of the two rivers. So any riverine traffic on the Yellow River "reaches the hex" in the sense it reaches
the edge of the hex - and then must go overland in some seasons. If we were to move the location of Yenan - then
we would have a LOC problem - and perhaps that would be better economic modeling. Yenan in those years was in
many respects pretty isolated, and didn't have a lot of economic communications with other places. But in game terms,
being only on a secondary road, and the game not using rivers as LOC (except in RHS and then only if a player deliberately
uses small capacity river craft), it is effectively isolated anyway. In particular due to the long distances - secondary roads
don't seem to function well over long distances for moving resources, supply, fuel and oil. The art does create issues -
and we could move Yenan perhaps one hex down the Yan - but then would lose the road connection in the pwhexe file.
If we added one it would be "blind" - not visible to players in the art (though reveal codes would show it). It does not seem
worth the effort to do that - and we would then have to create a new location in the present Yenan hex to show the oilfield
and refinery - and the river junction.

Yanchang surely is the name of a county, but on my (official) map of PRC, it is shown as a town. Regardless, locations in
AE may sometimes be non-cities. We have some airfields for example. RHS has Balinta Pass and similar locations. It also
has Cotabato Mindinao - an inland district famous for food production and a good potential airfield location - distinct from Cotabato
Mindinao - a port city adjacent to it (as IRL). There also are cases in AE where the island name is used in preference to the
city or town - and some where it is hard to tell which - since the city and island have the same name (and even cases where they both
are named in repeitition). [RHS generally names the town with the island in brackets after it, but field length prevents this in some
instances] It does not matter if the map symbol on my modern (Chinese language) map is incorrectly a town or not - the name of
the county is fine.

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It appears that there is a river feeding the Yellow River called the Yan Ho

Yes, that's how Yenan got its name (Yan in pinyin, is Yen in Wade Giles). The Yan river (Ho=he means river) passes through Yenan, too (no suprise, pretty much every major chinese city in the north is build upon a river, that's what the Yin and Yang in their names are all about : Yin, side to the dark, ie south bank, Yang, side to the sun, north bank)

ORIGINAL: el cid again
On this river - between Yenan and the big river - is a city called Yanchang.

No, on three counts.

- The river isn't big, or, rather, like most rivers on the loess plateau, it is only big when flooded. Here a pic of the Yan at Yan'an.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/med ... ina-in-the
- Yenan is on the river, the place you refer to is just downstream
- Yanchang is not the name of a city but that of a county (xian in chinese), modern maps give the county capital as Qilicun Zhen. Zhen means township, Qilicun : the village seven leagues away. As the name implies, we are certainly not talking about a city. In 2002, I'm told the whole county (3000 sq km) had a population of 150 000, and this is after the chinese population tripled, and those northern regions were developped under Mao. In 1941, I doubt it had more than a few thousand peasants there.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It also appears THIS is the actual location of the oilfleld, and refinery company (Shanxxi Yanchang) - which dates to 1906.

I could find a modern company, named Yanchang petroleum, and there certainly was some oil there. But the lack of roads, canals, railways and other transportation means (which would exist if some serious oil exploitation existed there) suggest that production was certainly very low.

And this doesn't make Yenan (or Yanchang) a port, which would allow for tankers to load oil and fuel and deliver it up or downstream on ports on the Yellow River. Once more, I would be very prudent about the navigability of the Yellow River.

Francois

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Yanchang surely is the name of a county, but on my (official) map of PRC, it is shown as a town. Regardless, locations in
AE may sometimes be non-cities.

This makes sense. It it common practice, even today, to refer to the county seat either as the name of the village, or the name of the county. I was just disputing the fact that it can be considered a city, ie operate as a base, which can be fortified, which can serve as a supply depot, where an airfield can be built. If we accept this in Yanchang, I believe EVERY hex in the eastern half of China qualifies as a base.

Another quick comment about the names of place. The game mostly uses the Postal Romanization, ie the system in usage on western atlases in the first half of the 20th century. This is where we get finals like 'chow' (which would be zhou in pinyin, and Chou in Wade Giles), the "king" in Nanking and Anking (Jing in pinyin, Ching in Wade, but can be tsi as well, as in Tsinan), or the "kwei" in Kweisui, Kweiyang (gui in pinyin and wade).

When creating new names, it might be wise to seek consistency. Unfortunately, the postal romanization was much less systematic than modern pinyin or wade giles, as it incorporated local pronounciation, western usage, and past misspellings. The correct source would probably be a postal directory from that era. (Sam, it you're reading this, this goes for Da Babes as well)

Francois

ORIGINAL: fcharton
,snip>
When creating new names, it might be wise to seek consistency. Unfortunately, the postal romanization was much less systematic than modern pinyin or wade giles, as it incorporated local pronounciation, western usage, and past misspellings. The correct source would probably be a postal directory from that era. (Sam, it you're reading this, this goes for Da Babes as well)

Francois

Errmm. Ok Francois I hear you. But I don't think I can do base names changes without some permissions. I'm not that good and Xie-Xie is as far as I got so far on my Chinese...well not really [:D] I'm far enough to know it's going to be really ugly for a long time. I take my book and DVDs out and talk to a family of praire dogs that moved in out the back. My daughter comes out sometimes and wonders what I'm doing and I tell her I'm speaking Chinese to the desert dogs. She thinks it's gloss but she's baffled by the pictograms. She's already picking up the sing-song better than me. Can't wait to take her to Toko Sushi that's run by Taiwan Chinese in Havasu.

[edit] owner's name is Yaki. Has a daughter called Suki. She has a sister called Teri....and a younger brother called Tepan. [:D][:D][:D]

Regards. Sami

Stuck in a place with no internet, and forced to wait, I ran out of tasks -

so I did a couple of things:

1) The Philippine Reserve Divisions which have detached battalions now can re-attach them. Easy to say - not so easy to do - but I got it done - turning the "Div (-)" formations into sub units - creating a new parent unit - and creating a formation for the parent - with the battalions pointing at it as well as the Div (minus) formation.

2) I created the Philippine Division out of its three regimental combat teams and the 14th Engineer Regiment (Philippine Scouts). This is historical. Its commander was not in list - so I added him. Brig Gen Maxon S Lough was promoted only in December, 1941 - but he was a real professional. Led his regiment in spite of severe wounds in WWI. Spent most of WWII in captivity. [I found that the artillery was incorrectly distributed. All the artillery is US Army - not Philippine Scouts. And each regiment has a three battery artillery battalion in support - two with 75 mm guns of British pattern - one with 75 mm mountain guns called 2.95 inch by the US Army. But these come from regular Army artillery regiments - a two battalion one and a one battalion one. Taken from the official US Army history.

3) In Scenario 105 only, the Philippine Division has the Philippine Scouts Cavalry Regiment attached (not historical). This is the Japan enhanced scenario.

4) The communist guerilla organizations that form mid war in the NEI were redefined. They no longer tend to "plant" and become static, unless pressured by combat. To make them more irritating. There are only three - but they are irritating. They don't need a lot of supply - and can move over long distances without it. They have a combat engineer platoon - a mortar platoon - and a Vickers platoon - all with Dutch pattern weapons scrounged in the islands. But they are labeled "Red" - these are communists - against the Japanese - and also against central rule - each wanting its own area as an independent country! But they cooperate with the allies for the duration - so are Allied units.

5) A Dutch militia regiment and a Dutch support regiment were reworked so the many parts can combine. There are more of these not done - but it is a start - in the North Sumatra area where good LOC mean they might actually be able to get together.

6) I reworked where the US Army is in the Philippines in 1941? This based on MacArthur's plan in the US Army Atlas on the subject. The plan isn't quite what happened, apparently - but it is what was supposed to happen - and provides an interesting interpretation of the start positions. There are not so many undefended beaches - my (Japanese) tactic of landing at Iba isn't quite so free any more! 21st Division was never put in its right location as there is none defined there - so I created a location for it. It really is a port - should have been defended - and was.

7) A number of map mysteries were cleared up - why is there a road or rail line there? The request I add a location for every hex is unrealistic - there are not enough slots nor time for research - but tests show that adding locations is a good thing. It also does not mess up the AI. I hate to waste all the effort Andrew put into the pwhexe files (the real map from the point of view of the computer) - having a road or RR with nothing to do. I plan to add the gage breaks in New South Wales - and a missing rail spur to a major airfield called Mildura in the same area.

Version 5.00 has completed validation testing and is in packaging for release. It will release today. This is a last call for comments.

ORIGINAL: Natali

ORIGINAL: fcharton
,snip>
When creating new names, it might be wise to seek consistency. Unfortunately, the postal romanization was much less systematic than modern pinyin or wade giles, as it incorporated local pronounciation, western usage, and past misspellings. The correct source would probably be a postal directory from that era. (Sam, it you're reading this, this goes for Da Babes as well)

Francois

Errmm. Ok Francois I hear you. But I don't think I can do base names changes without some permissions. I'm not that good and Xie-Xie is as far as I got so far on my Chinese...well not really [:D] I'm far enough to know it's going to be really ugly for a long time. I take my book and DVDs out and talk to a family of praire dogs that moved in out the back. My daughter comes out sometimes and wonders what I'm doing and I tell her I'm speaking Chinese to the desert dogs. She thinks it's gloss but she's baffled by the pictograms. She's already picking up the sing-song better than me. Can't wait to take her to Toko Sushi that's run by Taiwan Chinese in Havasu.

Regards. Sami

I taught my daughter calligraphy when young - and she is vastly better than I will ever be. When young is the time to teach them! Yamamoto said he had to memorize 12,000 pictograms by age 12! [Yes, the Japanese use Chinese pictograms, as well as Hirogana and Katakana, when writing in non-Romanized forms. Takes 20,000 to read a novel.]

You are not a very nice person are you? People are having fun and you just can't handle it. I feel sorry for you.

Regards. Sami.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Takes 20,000 to read a novel.

20 000 is a very large number. Your typical chinese-english dictionary will have between 5000 and 6000 different characters. The Xinhua Zidian, the "chinese webster", has about 12 000, but those include a number of alternative writings of the same words. A very big reference dictionnary for classical language might have 20 000. The Kangxi dictionary, considered for long the "complete reference", has 47 000. It would be less for Japanese, esp. modern.

There always were big claims about the number of characters one needed to know. A couple of years ago, a chinese scholar named Jun Da used computers to measure just that (http://lingua.mtsu.edu/chinese-computing/statistics/). He found that over a corpus of 250 million characters (that's a lot) of modern chinese, only 10 000 different characters showed up, and only 1500 represented 95% of all the signs. The numbers are a bit larger if you include classical (ie ancient) language, but not by a very large factor.


In reality, you can "move around" in chinese (japanese would need less) with 1000 characters. With 2000, you should be fine with most modern litterature (the problem is not the characters but the words, usually made of two characters). With 3000 to 3500 you can probably handle anything in litterature, even classical novels. From time to time, you will find a character you don't know, but you usually can guess the general meaning (like you do in english when you see a word you don't know).

And even then, you don't need to memorize a thousand pictograms, because all characters are made from a small number of parts, and are best remembered as "small stories"... A family is a pig under a roof, a dormitory is a hundred men under a roof, two men in a row means to follow, three men together means a crowd, brightness is the sun and the moon, loyalty the heart at the centre, and so on. Learning chinese takes more imagination than memory, and it is a lot of fun if you do it in the right frame of mind.

A last comment for Sami, the one thing the chinese do best is not sushis but poems. If you like poetry, this is the nicest way to learn (there are excellent modern poets, who use very simple language)

Sorry for the OT and the long post, Cid, pet peeve here.

Francois

After validation testing, the RHS installer was compiled and issued today to those on the RHS distribution list.

The files will probably be posted by Mifune in due course, but anyone wanting them directly may ask him or me.

The next step is to update all 19 pwhexe.dat seasonal files in various technical ways. That process will take some time.

At the same time, we will begin a Series 8 test to validate the files, and discover eratta.

The Chinese completed a rail line from Hengchow to Liuchow before the war.
But the next section, from Liuchow to Nanning, had construction suspended
in 1940 because Japan invaded Northern Indochina and even occupied
Nanning itself for a time. This section was finally completed in 1943. We
will simulate the half built section by making hex 73,55 have no RR from
1941 to 1943. The rest of the line - from Nanning to Lang Son and points
farther South, was already extant - as metric gage line, built and owned by
the French. It was planned to upgrade this line to standard gage, but in the
event, that didn't happen for some years. However, had the war gone on,
there is a good chance it would have been completed - and by either side.

RHS will, for the period from Fall 1945, issue two parallel sets of pwhex files,
called Option A and Option B. In Option A, certain projects, such as the upgrading
of the Nanning - Indochina border section to primary RR, will be present. In
option B, they will not.

The revised seasonal construction list is here below:

Spring 1942
Reactivation of minor RR on New Caledonia (1 hex NW from Noumea)

Monsoon 1942

Fall 1942

Winter 1942
Completion of Iranian National RR spur (2 hexes E from Abadan/Khorramshahr)
Completion of ALCAN highway as pioneer road (segments of 10 trail hexes, 8 trail hexes, and upgrading of 4 winter tail hexes to year around trail in 3 segments between existing road and rail lines in Canada and Alaska)

Spring 1943
Upgrading of Whitehorse & Yukon RR to main line completed (2 hexes NW from Skagway)

Monsoon 1943
Road along Burma-Siam RR line completed (5 hexes SE from Ye)
Completion of Nanning section of Hunan-Guangxi RR (hex 73,55)

Winter 1943
Completion of Burma-Siam RR (5 hexes SE from Ye)
Completion of ALCAN highway as secondary road (segments of 10, 8 & 4 trail hexes upgraded to minor road)

Spring 1944
Upgrading of Bengal & Assam RR to main line completed (15 hexes from existing line near Jessore to Ledo including major river bridging; 8 hex spur to Chittagong)

Monsoon 1944
Ledo Road completed to Myitkyina (upgrading 4 trail hexes to minor road)

Winter 1944
Ledo Road completed to existing Burma Road near Lashio (upgrading 3 more trail hexes between Myitkyina and Lashio)

Spring 1945
Completion of the Longhai Railway to Tanshui
Completion of Sovietskaya Gavan Railway (from Komsomolsk na Amur)

Fall 1945
Completion of Sumatra RR (aka 'the second death railway')

Winter 1945 and Spring 1946 and Summer 1946 [Option A Files; Not Present in Option B Files]
Completion of Burma-Yunnan RR
Upgrading ALCAN to primary road (25 minor road hexes upgraded IF construction not suspended as IRL)
Completion of the Longhai Railway to Lanzhou
Completion of Hunan Guangxi RR (upgrading of minor to major RR from Nanning to the Indochina border; hexes 71,56 & 72,56)

Special Case: The Copper River RR is present in ALL versions of the pwhex files. It runs from Cordova, Alaska to Kennicot, a wholly undeveloped dot location. This RR was abandoned in 1938 when the copper mines were closed due to low copper prices. Other copper mines were reopened in WWII (for example in Michigan and in Montana). This copper mine can be reopened IF an Allied player moves engineer to the dot location along with lots of supplies – in which case the RR will function. The Million Dollar Bridge remained in tact until the 1964 earthquake. This location and RR may be ignore by any player who does not want to use them – and NOTHING will move along it – since there will be no production unless the damaged resources are repaired.

Special Case: The RR tunnel to Whittier Alaska is considered completed if you repair the port (it starts at zero). Because there is no way to have the rail line incomplete and still run its route - we simply have the Whittier hex not function as a port unless you fix it. There is an engineer unit in the hex to do that.

The primary reason for microupdate 5.02 is that the Japanese team preparing for test 8A noticed that Scenario 105 aircraft file was incorrect - either corrupted or somehow a copy of 101/103. Eventually I was able to recover the original file from a server, but before I got there, I looked at the data, and noticed some issues. As long as I must issue an update, there is no reason not to clean them all up.

The NEI MLD (Naval Air Force) is missing three units. This is likely due to their seemingly duplicated names. (MLD-2 is not the same as MLD-2 [New] for example.)

Looking at MLD I noticed two units not in the NEI! I tried to play with them in the right place (Seletar = Singapore) - and found they could not return to the NEI either. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me: The idea of restricted MLD air units is dead as far as I am concerned. It is ahistorical. So I modified the air group file in two senses: to add the three missing units, and to make the air units not be unable to move. Similarly, I modified the location file, with respect to their command units, to the same end.

Looking at the RAAF, I noticed the odd thing that there were three different kinds of floatplanes. One was intended for NEIAF, but intercepted en route. However, only 12 of the 18 machines were included - so it was changed. The other was confusion: Both USN Seagull V and RN Seagull V (aka Walrus) were on the list. Seems there were two different batches of Walrus bought - or transferred. A complex trail, involving some planes lost before the war in the Pacific begins, some transferred to NZ or back to RN/RAF, and some not yet delivered/loaned. In the end, I modified the USN Seagull V slot to be a Walrus with a standard GP loadout, and kept the other Walrus slot with its ASW loadout. In the process, we lost one art issue: no longer a need for USN type Seagull V in RAAF colors!

I found that looking at each national air force as a set was different than looking at a single aircraft - often before the entire set of options was available. For that reason, often there was a better upgrade option. This matters most of all in even numbered scenarios which may use AI control. [While one should never play with AI as Allies - I am not confident this is well understood - and I like it to do the best it can.]

Along the way, I found eratta. Planes defined in most respects, but something omitted - like the upgrade for the new type. I also decided that having identical C-47s and C-46s makes little sense - and looked up the differences between models. With the C-47, you generally get faster planes - with less range - as you upgrade from plain C-47 to C-47A and then to C-47B. With the C-46 it is not as clear: the cruising speed is only different by 2 mph, while the D is a LOT slower at top speed. But it solved a number of problems, and permitted mass production of the aircraft. I also made the C-53 version different - turns out it is virtually the same plane, but cruises much faster (with less range) for safety - and not quite so great as a cargo carrier. Civil DC-3s carry less than military C-47s - but over a greater range. Most of which makes sense and is nice chrome. The RAAF picked up the Dakota II (C-53) using the same art as the Dakota III (C-47) - which permitted a different production rate to be used for the later planes (oddly out of number sequence - the II comes after the III in RAAF).
JNAF picked up (scenario 105 only) a recon version of the Kate 2 - using the same art as the recon version of the Kate 1. The C5M1 is historical, but was rejected for production. In strictly historical 101 to 104, you get those 2 planes and the option to make more. In 105, it is actually put into production late in 1941. Now you have the option of building a faster version - at the cost of more pressure on the critically needed Ha-5 engine. The CAF Hudson recon variant is no longer restricted to 105, but is in all scenarios. It cross upgrades with CAF Hudson bombers. Lots of little things done to make the Allied upgrade paths work better and insuring there are more options for the player - instead of so many long lists with nothing available on them. [The problem still exists early on, but is mitigated somewhat]

Otherwise, since the location file was upgraded to address the MLD issue,
some Chinese locations get new names - using Wade Giles spellings of the period vice modern Pin Yin spellings (not invented until 1954). A couple of other things - mainly adding/upgrading the more important allied aircraft upgrade depots - so now the Liowing location in China fixes the types it really did produce - and isn't just a theoretical point Demons might come from (but probably won't). The main change is to Hyderabad - which aside from making the CAF Hawk 75 (which was its original purpose) now produces other aircraft as well. This is only partly modeled - it is not possible to put in everything it did! This is modeled on a stock trick I mostly don't use - have tiny production of replacement planes: but the difference is, being on the map, it is at risk to enemy damage or even capture. I prefer to have things in a form that can be damaged.

The next transmission is the installer for those who can get it - followed by individual files for those who can't. If you have not updated the pwhexe file - it is included. Otherwise, update all the SCEN files for safety. We only changed aircraft, group, location, scen comment, and maybe leader files. But a comprehensive update insures you have everything on the same level I do.

We are preparing a Japanese start turn on this foundation for Test 8A. Fortunately, the aircraft updates mostly will work for ongoing games and tests as well. We are looking for Allied players (3 of them) for Test 8.

The installer is available on request. We do not intend to modify the file set unless a serious issue is discovered building the Test 8 start turn by the Japanese team.

Software, even in the form of data entry when it affects how a program behaves,
always takes longer than you expect. It is axiomatic. Especially if you follow the
other rule that should be axiomatic - test, test and test again.

Publishing things also generates feedback. This is very useful and corrects errors, improves models, and permits adoption of better ideas than we started with. But it also takes time to fold in.

This "little" project to take "a day or two" has turned into a couple of weeks due to the sheer scale of the files, the problems found, and feedback - mostly from Mifune.

Numbers of unexpected things have turned up. This began as work on the aircraft file, and its impact on the group file (which is to say, six of each in RHS). It also involves the location files because of needed changes in production - to get things to work as intended or to fold in new data about PTO availability. But we found some problems in the air OB itself. We have added some units, the latest being LB-30 and B-17 bomber detachments in Alaska, using the very same LB-30 recon plane we added a couple of days ago for Operation X (with a plane at Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941). Seems two similar aircraft were assigned to the Navy at Kodiak - and here are a detachment of the Patrol squadron there. There were also two B-17s - one a Bomber Recon model and one a sort of B-17 imitation of the LB-30 recon type - both B-17C variants - but the latter with airborne surface search radar. Rare and valuable assets in 1941.

Perhaps a bigger problem was air transport units for RAF and RAAF. Seems we have numbers of Dakota (and even Liberator transports) - and I found we should also have even more Hudson transports. But few units to use them! [Who wants big collections of planes that cannot fly?] So I did some research and found a few things that can be done (one fighter squadron, instead of disbanding and reforming, now can convert to transports any time, but if you upgrade to a better fighter - it will lose that ability). RAF added some regional assets, generally controlled by higher HQ (in India, Ceylon and Malaya) while RAAF added "LOC units" - which are static - but form a network (and if you don't like em, disband em) permitting moving supplies almost everywhere in AUS. [Playing Chair 2 - including AUS - I have learned the rail net is awfully inefficient due to gage breaks - and sometimes moving supplies by air permits you to build things you want badly]

Otherwise, I found some things that should be different: no H6K4 torpedo loadout is possible for example - this was introduced with the H8 series. Many plane types gained lots of operationally useful capabilities - since they now can fly with weapons appropriate to different missions. As it now stands, ASW planes tend to force use of ASW weapons in naval attacks, but are perfectly fine bombers for land targets. TP planes either use torpedoes or AP bombs vs naval targets (if torps are not available),
but GP bombs on land. Otherwise, a bomber or fighter will use AP for ships and GP for land, unless the bombs are very small and no AP is available.

Numbers of production issues were simplified, corrected, etc. A lot of this involved the upgrade path nightmare - due to several different considerations - not all of which are ideal (so often you must compromise between them).

The result is a SET of files that pretty much must work together. Looks like some files change the cam files and the aei files - and I remain unclear about which do that? So we need to change those files - or lose things like the right setting for active Russians.
We also change the air, group and location files. Since the last comprehensive update, we also changed the SCEN files (only by naming the version 5.04), leader, class and ship files (adding air unit leaders in a few cases, and correcting eratta).
In short, the best thing is to copy all SCEN files - if you get the comprehensive update (next transmission). If not, the parts will follow tomorrow.

Now this set is integrated - in that the aircraft, group and location files all work together as needed - and in a few cases one can add the leader file to that (for a couple of the new air units - e.g. Operation X units). But it is integrated through IJN aircraft - all Allies plus IJN. JAAF will be folded in tonight. I will therefore issue a 5.05 file tomorrow. JAAF is straitforward - it is an exercise in data entry - because we have done so much work on it in the past - and key elements are in fact done now (heavy bombers for example). Transports and recon planes generally need no changes (no weapons). Same for some fighters (no bombs, or small ones that are always the same). It should really be issued tomorrow.

The aircraft files are now completed - and issued. I will be issuing the entire file set tomorrow - and burning CDs for those unable to download the installer.
If you want one, let me know.

As always, I learned some things. The reason the Ki-67 is so good as a torpedo bomber is that it carried a 24 inch torpedo! And I thought a 21 inch would be a step up. No longer needing different AP and GP bomber versions, I turned the former into a Ki-67 II - with bigger engines - something mainly for the Downfall Scenario - but if the war lasts long enough, it might apply to a campaign. Also I learned that there was a Ki-97 Transport variant - which is actually better than a Ki-49 transport in terms of payload, range, speed and armament (at the cost of competition for better engines). So we have that as well.

I didn't like the look of the Condor's armament. It is amazingly complex - and more or less "right" - although the theoretical load was "never" carried. Mostly external (what you get when you make a bomber out of a passenger plane), it isn't very range efficient with high drag bombs. But without them, it is a very respectable recon ship,
and the first one (built for Japan) had two cameras. I also was disturbed by the records and route lengths involving the transport version - and could not reconcile that with data from a commercial airliner database. So I went to Greene, and reworked the transport version. I didn't go with the "Special" plane used for the record passage to New York, but rather with more normal planes - no doubt the "special" traded payload for fuel in some way.

I found problems with the speed of the Hudson transport. By the time I got them figured out, I had added a few of them to USAAF - impressed RAF versions - significant briefly before C-47 production ramps up. This because I found our naming was wrong for the A-29A - it is NOT a bomber. So the A-29A is now plain A-29 - stock had it right - and a new A-29A is the transport version. I also found the Navy JO-2 was wrongly called a Hudson variant. Instead, it is a Lockheed Model 12 (while the Hudson is a Model 14) with much less speed, payload and range. However - it was used to prove viability of twin engine carrier operations - in 1938! So they are carrier capable. [Not that I have much idea what anyone may do with that capability? There is also a TBF transport variant - and units to use it - but again - I am not sure it is useful in game terms.]

The Japanese picked up a new version of the C-47 - L2D3 - which is more or less similar to the US C-47A and B upgrades - more powerful engines, faster speed, slightly less range. And it permits an upgrade path for a transport that needs to run out production before it upgrades.

For the first time, we have Japanese volunteers in numbers - details still to be worked out.

But we may need Allied palyers for Test 8A. The Japanese turn should be ready for them in a few days.

Aside from folding in an art issue just reported, which only takes me a moment as I have the needed ship art, and packaging, we are done. Verified too.

I am surprised to report that the task of revising the air groups is of Olympic proportions. The USAAF is simply too big! If it wasn't historical, I would reject it as destroying play balance! Yamamoto was right - Japan must win soon - or it will lose. Period. Never mind atomic bombs. There are enough bombers to sink Japan. Not to mention P-47s which probably deliver as many bombs again. But this work, long neglected, is more important than I realized: any air unit with a gap in its list of devices didn't have the use of devices below the gap. Much of the work we have done on aircraft will only be realized with this update. I decided to go for task completetion than cutting corners: but I did make one compromise: an air unit NOT used in ANY RHS scenario also was not updated. If you copy a unit, and it does not have an X beside the name, update the aircraft for safety.

5.05 is an unintended comprehensive update. I just intended to do air groups and maybe aircraft if eratta were found. Well - I found about 10 eratta that matter and a few more cases of cosmetic nature (removing GP from behind the name of a bomber) - so we do have to add aircraft. I found one device needed a different date so the plane that uses it could actually have a valid device (if they built it, it must have been available!). So we need device files. I have this art report above, so class files need to be revised. And yesterday I found a strange error with respect to I-400 class submarines - while doing their air groups. Seems we had the early (original) version dates (sooner) but the later (actually built) ships in all scenarios. It should be the as built version exists in all scenarios except 105 (and possibly 100 when that is completed), but with the 1944 and 1945 dates. 105 (and 100) should have the early smaller version with 1943 and 1944 dates. I had dummy slots for some of the additional units planned - and these were activated for 105 only (so half the planned 18 will appear in 18, and all as aircraft carriers, none as tankers). This means we need to issue ship files as well. For safety I will insure current cam and aei files, and I will do the notepad only files with the version number update. Lastly I will try to put supporting documentation into a new folder in the installer. And write a note to Mifune that we should do an AE version of the RHS Manual - there is too much to expect players to know and a reference is probably indicated.

Next I will try to organize Test 8A. We seem to have a Japanese testing team, and this is unusual: few players are willing to try Japan in any form, never mind the demanding RHS version with its economic and air training complications. So I need to get the Japanese to define a strategy that shows off RHS features and organize an Allied team.

Work wise, I intend to update the later pwhexe files to current standard. Then I will work on making Scenario 106 playable (1945 start situation). After than, we plan a Level 2 map system, more or less Andrew Brown's Extended map with additional RHS features - possibly like WITP RHS with a mini map - and possibly with dynamic movement for both sides at certain points.

I want feedback. While I will resist changes of an extensive sort, there is always eratta to punch. We badly need long term human testing, but there must be an update to address certain things when we get the revised aircraft filmstrips. Also, we must stop changing things so Mifune actually can make the filmstrips! We will then update everything we have fixed at the same time. That will probably be update 5.10

The update will issue within the hour. Not far into the hour either. This is an exercise in packaging.

This is a general answer to a private question - because it needs to be understood by all.

First the question:


I'm at the start of scenario 102, and need a clarification about something you told me earlier.

I notice that all the allied resource centers/oil wells/factories etc are set to repair ON at game start. Do I leave everything alone (repair ON) except for aircraft factories where the aircraft is still in research?

The aircraft factories which ARE still in R&D get turned to repair ON on the month they become available?

Second, the answer:

Review each location on turn one. While it is common for all factories to be set to repair = on and production = on, sometimes they are all set to off. You need to consider every case, case by case, and turn on those you want on, off those you want off.

The question applies to Scenario 102, which also means to 104 and eventually to 106 - even numbered scenarios have a lot less Allied aircraft production, and less need for management of it. I will return to even numbered scenario in re Allied aircraft in a moment. First, however, I will deal with all scenarios and all industries EXCEPT aircraft.

Some locations (not very many) can "afford" to turn on everything possible. Here we should also include construction: if there are engineers at the location (displayed on the bottom of the screen for the location), you may "build" airfields, ports or fortifications. This act, as well as "repair" of industry, needs supply points. So just how much you can attempt depends on how many supply points are present? And that in turn also is affected by how many supply points you wish to load on ships. US West Coast ports, for example, may wish to load ships bound for distant (or not so distant) places - and should not expend all their supply points in repair. Each repair of each industry costs 1000 supply points every day - so you can easily demand "too many" supply points at most locations.

In RHS, there are a LOT of "damaged" industries. These are present so the production at the location may grow over time. Some of them, in particular in the USA, can "grow" for up to three years! So if you do not set repair = yes, then you will never get the full production from that industry. And the sooner you repair any industry, the sooner you will get its production. In this regard, note the old forum concept of "it isn't worth it to repair" because it takes "1000 days" to "pay you back" is generally wrong. The value of something is not precisely determined in terms of supply points. Even those industries that do make supply points make two (LI and Refineries) or four (HI) supply points per day, and the Refineries also make 12 fuel while the HI also make HI points. [FYI it appears the Allies do use HI points, although only for aircraft production at factories]. And how do you measure the value of a shipyard, or an aircraft factory? What something is worth depends on how much you want it at that location, and how soon you want it? Relative to what other uses you have for supplies at that location. That in turn also may relate to how many supplies will appear at that location every turn? Some places at the map edge get supplies from off map every day - again look on the location display. [Every 2000 tons of something, supply, fuel, oil, or resources, represents one standard train arrival per day for a major rail line.] There is no substitute for considering, location by location, on the first turn, just what should be on, and what should be off. There is no hard and fast rule which applies everywhere.

Aircraft production is a special case in RHS. In general, in AE, if a plane is not a future development, its name appears without a date behind the designation. But a future aircraft appears with a date: A6M5 (7/43) or something like that. In odd scenarios in particular, production is designed to "ramp up" - not start at 100%. So IF an aircraft has a date behind its designation do NOT repair that factory. When it becomes available - the date will disappear. THEN turn ON the repair if you wish. There is a little of this in even numbered scenarios: consider locations like Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Komsomolsk na Amur, Vancouver BC, Seattle and Tacoma: aircraft there have in most cases dates behind the designation. They should NOT repair at start. Wait for that date - at which time the (7/43) will disappear.

Aircraft production in even numbered scenarios is "semi automated." In many cases the "factories" do not exist and need no management at all. They simply appear, full bore, when the date arrives for production. If the total is more than 15 per month, the date is one month later - a crude "production ramping" scheme. [We have others - sometimes factories convert to the same model - making the later one appear in much greater numbers than the early ones do] But IF the factory is on the map, in particular if it is in the exclusive Allied area on the map edge, it may well be it has no damaged factories: that means it does not need management. It won't produce until the right date arrives. So you may safely set repair = on and production = on and forget it. When the time comes, it will produce.

Mifune makes the following suggestion

Maybe you should have clarified that "damaged" industries represents potential (historical) industrial growth. Just so it is clear for everybody to be on the same page. As this would also clarify it is a good investment as opposed to a risky investment.

I thought I said that somewhere. RHS initial "damaged" industry is a way to model growth of production over time - so it does not start out at peak in 1941. The Allies are not able to decide what to invest in so we do that for them - based on where they did invest?

The actual data entry related to past issues is done.

Some technical matters remain under investigation:

1) A report about rearming is being worked on, and it appears I have found a solution. IF I have, it means I should change certain nationalities
of certain locations. Still working it out.

2) A report of "teleportation" - an old issue in WITP which occasionally rears its head - needs to be run down. Unless and until we can duplicate the phenomena, no one can fix it. But I always try to duplicate issues reported - on principle. IF we can make it happen, we can fix it.

One historical matter: AE data entry people decided to use ahistorical organization for the modified Hawaii Division. This unit, just before the war began, divided into the 24th and 25th Divisions - its four regiments combining with two Hawaii National Guard Regiments (98th and 99th) to form triangular divisions. One of these regiments is missing, and the other does not combine up into a division! Instead, two later regiments are linked - so neither division may form in Hawaii - if need be (say in the face of an invasion). One of these, from the Washington National Guard, was actually planned for the Philippines - and should start the game that way. The other, not yet raised in Hawaii, was also not originally tasked for either division. The Matrix principle is you get things as they appear - but this was not done in this case. As well, the 98th regiment is divided into three battalion combat teams, with the wrong artillery (guns not even in service yet) - and split among three islands. The actual defenses of the islands - which include coast guns - are not present. So the 98th cannot effectively form into its real parent division even if the components of it are nearby. As well, the 98th is at about 2/3 strength - not all up. All the OB stuff was done for RHS WITP because one scenario focused on an invasion of Hawaii - and I will simply move over the OB materials - so each island gets what it had - and the two divisions may form up on Hawaii - day one - if a player wants either or both to do that.

I reported a couple of days ago that some start of game US units had "the wrong
artillery"

I specifically referred to the 105 mm airborne howitzer - a real enough weapon.

It is a cut down US M2 howitzer mounted on a 75mm carriage to reduce weight.

It was dreamed up only in 1941 and the first prototype only reached Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1942. The cutting off of no less than 26 inches of barrel - from an already short howitzer - was problematical, even though it did save weight. Seems there was not enough time for the powder to burn! A workaround was found, and the gun put into production, eventually - such that numbers began to reach troops about a year after the war began.

AFTER. NO units should have this weapon in a 1941 OB. But MANY do.

Thus the 1941 infantry division (slot 2517) shows no less than 36 of these weapons, fictional in 1941. The same 1941 formation, and formations pointing at it like the 24th and 25th divisions on Hawaii (slots 5559 and 5565), also show 36 105 mm howitzers. But in fact the regiments in Hawaii appear to have had 75 mm field guns, and the divisions got 105s to replace them only later in time.

Since these divisions have component RCT, and since these need to have the same devices in the same slot order so they combine properly, that means all 6 RCT need reworking re devices. As well, it appears only 6 artillery battalions are available, so each RCT probably gets EITHER 12 75s or 12 155s - or perhaps 8 75s and 4 155s - not 12 plus 4 as shown (in 4 cases).

It is more complicated than that because two of the actual RCT are not shown as assigned to the divisions - with two later ones shown instead. That means players may not form up either division on Hawaii at start. One of the actual RCT present - the 298th - is incorrectly shown as split into BCT on the outer islands. The other - the 299th - is not shown at all. So I reworked these, at 33% disabled (since they do not point at a formation), gave them 12 75 mm field guns, and attached them. I detached the Washington National Guard 161st RCT, moved it to Fort Lewis (Tacoma), and let it appear on the first day - because it was there and activated. Yes, it moved to San Francisco a few days later - but players can do that. It was not actually assigned to a division - so I let it be unassigned. The other RCT - the 34th - is also not actually assigned to a division either. Both units get 12 105s and 4 155s (although an ex MP of the 161st is not able to confirm they had any artillery at all), and remain assigned to Pacific Fleet - as they were supposed to contest the Philippines or the SLOC route to there - as of 7 Dec 1941. I had to create the 299th to achieve this. I left the 24th and 25th split - so players may move the units to different places or combine up. But I changed the command relationships - all the RCT AND the divisions are now part of Hawaii Department. Stock had the 4 RCT on Hawaii so assigned, but not the divisions - so if they combined up with the other RCT you got instant free political points! A subtle solution to the problem!

Related to this, formation 2357 is pointed at by the 298th RCT, but it is dated 420801. It upgrades to 2387, named "42 infantry regiment" - but that has no date. So the formation pointed at probably is ignored, and the "updated" formation probably gets used instead, in a day or so of game start. 2387 should not show the fictional 105s at all - but does. 2387 perhaps should show them, and the way the dates work, it looks like all formations pointing at 2357 may try to use the 1942 OB - and thus will get the fictional airborne howitzer even if they don't start with them - in 1941.

A similar issue appears re Alaska RCT. The 1941 formation (slot 2533) has a date of 420401, but the 1942 (slot 2534) update has no date at all. And the 1941 formation also shows the fictional airborne 105. IRL there were no 105s of any sort in Alaska at all - one regiment of 75s and one of 155s (the latter present as a separate battalion). So only one RCT could exist in 1941, and it would have 75s. If you want some chrome, the 1942 Alaska RCT should have a new device (I use slot 1170) called the T-14 (or CTLS-4) tank! It was a temporary emergency measure not widely used elsewhere by the US Army.

Alaska has still more problems. Its biggest collection of US Army units is at Fort Greeley, a location not present at all! Others are missing from other places. Several units are split up - making a nightmare situation in terms of slot requirements. Some simplification is probably warranted. But IF you add Fort Greely - SE of Fairbanks on the Tanana River and on the main highway of the territory - it gets the 201st Regiment (separate), technically is the location of the parent of the 37th regiment (1 BCT at Dutch Harbor and one at Kodiak), the the 151st Engineer battalion, a battalion of 75s (not a unit if you use even one RCT - but it is the 98th), and the 215th Coast Artillery AAA regiment. The 4th Infantry (Sep) RCT, the only one with tanks, is properly shown at Fort Richardson (that is, at Anchorage). The 81st Artillery is also there (the 155s). So is the 75th AAA regiment. The parent of the 1/297th Infantry is also there, but 2 companies are at Chilikoot Barracks (that is, at Haines Alaska = Skagway hex for game purposes - the terminus of the Whitehorse and Yukon RR and the reason for the barracks - to control the people moving into Yukon - a disaster resulting in 20,000 or more deaths during the gold rush - because of starvation - not only of the newcomers - but everyone else as well!) I simply put the entire unit there. This unit gets the ANG (Alaska National Guard) prefix. [It had several trusted Japanese members, but in spite of the advocacy of their officers, they were transferred to the segregated US Army Japanese units in 1942]. The entire coast artillery regiment is at Dutch Harbor - not split into 3 battalions as shown. Two battalions of AAA are missing - the 1/205th at Valdez and the 1/206th at Dutch.
The 32nd Separate Engineer Company is also at Anchorage, but it might be considered part of the USAAF base force there. The 153rd infantry (sep) is at Valdez, but isn't an RCT. Only one battalion is present, the rest being split between four other locations - more or less properly as shown in the data set. [A battalion at Dutch, a company at Nome, Annette Island and at Yakutat]

A different issue is command relationships. Alaska suffered until 1946 from a lack of unified command. I have split continental and island locations into Alaska Command and Naval Forces Alaska (later North Pacific) Command. Army units - say at Kodiak or Dutch - are under Navy command. And naval units (say at Nome) or other places - are under Army command. On Hawaii, the Hawaiian Department controls most units and locations - but some islands and units are Navy controlled. Midway and Johnston, of course, but also Mauai, which gets a USN base force and USMC infantry squads - while Hilo and Kauai get US Army base forces (with their 9.2 inch guns!) and US Army squads. There is a company of infantry rather than a battalion on most of the larger islands.

A different kind of weapon issue relates to game start US Naval base forces. These are shown with 40 mm guns (not yet in US service!) and 155 mm CD guns (not naval weapons at all but Army). I replaced them with quad 50 cals and with 5 inch CD guns - which were the most common used by the Navy and Marines. There are numbers of these units and all need to be reworked if you wish not to have ahistorical weapons. In a similar sense, command relationships may matter for these units. Which ships may be allowed to rearm may be related to the nationality of the naval unit, and the nationality and command of units at the port they try to rearm at? I have been able to show British ships won't rearm in New Zealand, but the very same vessels classified as New Zealand can, for example. It appears that US Army West Coast command is not allowing US or Canadian ships to rearm at least some (ASW) weapons. It may be that Pacific Fleet command will help that issue.

I "only" had to "add two missing AA battalions" - right?

Not so simple. The parent units - AA regiments - were present in the OB -
slots 5593 and 5613. These were "2 battalion AA regiments" so I could turn
them into 2nd battalion of the regiment - and create duplicates called the 1st battalion - for Dutch Harbor and Valdez. Simple enough. Except the "regiments" were at below battalion strength - and needed to be increased to reach "battalion" size - in order to duplicate the battalions properly.

But the 2 battalion parent formation was dated 430601 - while the 1946 upgrade was undated (familiar story to the infantry issues). And the 3 battalion AA regiments had the same problem. And the 3 battalion regiments did not have the correct device counts for 3 battalions on the same scale as the 2 battalion regiments - in several respects. So all four parents - 2 for 1941 and 2 for 1942 - needed correcting. As well, I created US Army Coast AA battalions - for the no longer regiments in 5593 and 5613 - and updates for them. I used slots 2414 and 2439. The 1943 regiments parental slots are 2436 & 2437. The 1941 parent slots are 2362 and 2363.

A great deal of work to get just two new battalions.

This is the present content of the RHS installer - it is a sort of framework that
describes what is present and where it is to go. You might use it to compile
some version of your own, or Mifune may use it to build an installer locally (since
he cannot get the complied version as such, and instead gets the bits and pieces
which go into it).

It also is a heads up. The installer (WITH content) is now done and is the next transmission (no delay) unless you cannot get such a large file.

I made heroic efforts to integrate and validate the file set. I have also tried to
address numbers of technical and historical issues. If I am correct, this is going
to be the files we use for test series 8. Updates - e.g. to air art or pwhexe files - will
fold into existing games.

There is one more aircraft type - a float version of the TBD-1 Devastator - for 105 only - to compliment the Wild Catfish float version of the Wildcat fighter. These are not going to be something that would be mass produced, but might find a technical application some place with few airfields nearby. There is a reason these planes were developed (I didn't make em up), after all.

There is a bit of development on the land side, as messages of the last two days should indicate. We have a more correct initial US LCU initial order of battle, correcting device errors, adding missing units, and moving things around to the right place. As well, we added the Fort Greely Alaska location, as that is where many of the Army units are (building an airfield to help planes make it to Fairbanks - if they have a range problem). At the same time, I finally rationalized a somewhat extensive minor RR network in South Australia - mainly for hauling grain - a few sheep, gipsum and salt - no longer is it a rail net to nowhere with nothing to move and no way to move units (because there must be two defined locations on a rail line to move a unit now we have five). Since Australia is short of resoures in its big industrial cities, a new port to get resources at closer than the long haul to the West (or even to Noumean) is going to help some. I had no idea about these towns, or that there was such a superb port not defined in the game.