FILE SET RHS 2.23 Released [Minor update]

[el cid again]

if slot 243 is carrier capible - we are using it as a title at the moment you could use to create a 2nd swordfish using same bitmap pointer

We do have one unused Allied carrier capable slot. Some want the Wildcat used on CVEs in it. We could do a swordfish - but my data says it does not have torpedoes any more. Official FAA data. We need to think about this.

[el cid again]

- Ki 61I (55) has maximum speed of 319?

Sounds right to me. Ki-61 II is about 60 mph faster.

[Aterpa]

Version 2.30:

In the slots that are used for upgrading large (japanese) freighters are wrong ship classes:

- upgrading AK to AE -> points to 092, currently AV Kamoi -> should be a kind of AE
- upgrading AK to AR -> points to 090, currently empty -> should be a kind of AR
- upgrading AK to AS -> points to 106, currently AS Rio de Janario -> may be ok (should it be Rio de Janeiro)?
- upgrading AK to AV -> points to 056, currently LSD Mayasan Maru -> should be a kind of AV
- upgrading AK to MLE -> points to 108, currently AO Sunosaki -> should be a kind of MLE

[Aterpa]

Version 2.31:

- B6N2 (021) has 57mm cannon in weapon slot 2
- E8N2 (041) has 57mm cannon in weapon slot 1
- Ki 83 (057) has 57mm cannon in weapon slot 1

[CobraAus]

v2.31 has been packaged and sent to Relays and dispersed to my list
if any one wants or did not get PM me or a Relay

This edition revises RN carrier air groups,
adds the last round of supply sinks and modifications - mostly to insure things do not run short mid war -
and corrects a thousand ships or so about starting location
Many ships in stock which started Karachi need to change to Aden for CHS and RHS
and many more ships in CHS start at Mideast need to shift to Aden - now Andrew decided we don't need Aden. They are so changed here.

Also the usual battery of small corrections.

Note the new pwhex file. This permits the Panama Canal to work.

Now to convert to BBO.

Cobra Aus

[el cid again]

It should say "now that Andrew decided we don't need Mideast" ships starting there needed to shift to Aden - or I fear they never appear.

[el cid again]

- B6N2 (021) has 57mm cannon in weapon slot 2
- E8N2 (041) has 57mm cannon in weapon slot 1
- Ki 83 (057) has 57mm cannon in weapon slot 1

That is irritating. It should not be there.

[el cid again]

- upgrading AK to AE -> points to 092, currently AV Kamoi -> should be a kind of AE
- upgrading AK to AR -> points to 090, currently empty -> should be a kind of AR
- upgrading AK to AS -> points to 106, currently AS Rio de Janario -> may be ok (should it be Rio de Janeiro)?
- upgrading AK to AV -> points to 056, currently LSD Mayasan Maru -> should be a kind of AV
- upgrading AK to MLE -> points to 108, currently AO Sunosaki -> should be a kind of MLE

Since everything is done by slot coding (almost) this is not shocking. What are the slots?

[mlees]

To whom it may concern: I have a copy of British and Empire Warships of the Second World War, by H. T. Lenton. On pages 126 to 130 he lists the RN carriers, and the embarked airgroups.

For example, the first entry:

Furious
9/39 801 Sqdn (9 Skua); 816 Sqdn (9 Swordfish); 818 Sqdb (9 Swordfish)
5/40 804 Sqdn (6 Sea Gladiator); 816 Sqdn (9 Swordfish); 818 Sqdn (9 Swordfish)
6/40 801 Sqdn (6 Skua); 807 Sqdn (9 Fulmar); 825 Sqdn (9 Swordfish)
<snip snip>
8/44 801 Sqdn (12 Seafire FIII); 827 Sqdn (9 Barracuda II); 880 Sqdn (12 Seafire LIIC)

There are some holes in the data, indicated as "?" entries.

From pages 130 to 132, he lists the FAA Squadron TOE's. For example:

809 Sqn:
10/40 12 Fulmar; 8/41 do; 8/42 do; 7/43 12 Martlet IV; 9/43 10 Seafire IIC; 5/44 13 Seafire LIII + 6 Seafire LIIC + 4 Seafire LRIIC (part 4 Naval Fighter Wing); 9/44 15 Seafire LIII + 5 Seafire LRIIC; 4/45 24 Seafire LIII & FRIII + 5 spare Seafire LIII (part 4 Naval Fighter Wing); 6/45 24 Seafire LIII; 8/45 20 Seafire LIIC; 9/45 24 Seafire LIII & FRIII; 1/46 disbanded

I have no idea what "do" means. (Does it stand for "Ditto"? "Disbanded", or otherwise without aircraft?)

Anyway, would any of this info be helpfull?

[Aterpa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

- upgrading AK to AE -> points to 092, currently AV Kamoi -> should be a kind of AE
- upgrading AK to AR -> points to 090, currently empty -> should be a kind of AR
- upgrading AK to AS -> points to 106, currently AS Rio de Janario -> may be ok (should it be Rio de Janeiro)?
- upgrading AK to AV -> points to 056, currently LSD Mayasan Maru -> should be a kind of AV
- upgrading AK to MLE -> points to 108, currently AO Sunosaki -> should be a kind of MLE

Since everything is done by slot coding (almost) this is not shocking. What are the slots?

I already gave you the slot numbers (read above text):

AE: 092
AR: 090
AS: 106
AV: 056
MLE: 108

[Aterpa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Since everything is done by slot coding (almost) this is not shocking. What are the slots?

Thats why nobody should move something that is already existing in stock scenarios to different slots. Otherwise such hardcoded features will not work and in this case would allow the japanese player to create dozens of AOs out of AKs (since a AO ship class is located where a MLE ship class should be).

[Aterpa]

Version 2.31:

- 12th Combined Group (056) has no aviation support troops (should have 10)

[Hipper]

Hi Cid thanks for taking the time to look over my post re the air groups Ill try to revisit my sources & get some data for you

re Seafires & drop tanks I ve got the book "Seafire The spitfire that went to sea" written by david brown ( head of the RN historical branch in 1989 when the book was written) he is quite clear about drop tank usage & has some interesting figures about radius of action

with a 45 gallon drop tank he gives the seafire II an endurance of 2.05 hours and a radius of action of 140 miles

For the seafire III a 90 gallon drop tank gives a radius of action of 200 miles and with an endurance of 3.05 hours

Ill try and translate these figures into WITP ese anon but we should be looking at a range/extended range of 2/3 for the LIIC (seafire II) and 3/4 for the seafire III

without the drop tank the range was small indeed

nb while in theory they should also have a 500 bomb I dont think
they ever used them in action

[Hipper]

Re Hms Illustrious entry date the fleet air arm archive is quite clear

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ships ... RIOUS.html



By May 1942, HMS Illustrious was on operations against Vichy French forces in Diego Suarez Madagascar, and remained in the Indian Ocean from May 1942 until January 1943, where she undertook further operations against Madagascar in September 1942. She undertook a refit in the UK between February -June 1943 then returned to the Mediterranean between August-November 1943 where she took part in the Salerno landings in September 1943.

[el cid again]

Thats why nobody should move something that is already existing in stock scenarios to different slots. Otherwise such hardcoded features will not work and in this case would allow the japanese player to create dozens of AOs out of AKs (since a AO ship class is located where a MLE ship class should be).

Nothing prevents documentation of such things. You are obviously not a field guy - field soldier - field engineer - the person who must make it happen - theory be damned. It is not particularly germane to lecture: do you know the slots or not? If not, how can you know this is a problem?

Let me be perfectly clear: I have not changed slots from CHS for merchant ships - if there is a problem I did not create it - and I don't appreciate the implication that I should not have messed with something I never did mess with - or even look at. I have messed with a great deal - and sometimes got it wrong - but always for cause. I had no reason to suspect a problem with merchants (other than values in the fields) and no desire to actually MOVE thousands of them - so I didn't. Someone - probably several someones - did a LOT of work - and I attempted to preserve it as a body. IF you think there is a problem - IDENTIFY it in a technical sense - with slot numbers. I have not seen any report or test indicating your fears are valid. I am open to the possibility you know what you are talking about. But I am not open to criticism: if someone moved something it was probably innocently and for some cause. And I do not know who it was or why. Nor do I particularly care. My job is to make things better. IF you have a problem, help me understand how to make it go away. Don't imply we who are trying should never have tried.

Let me be clear: I advertised in advance RHS was "experimental" and therefore "dangerous" at first. My theory is that it does not matter how bad the data set may be - we cannot correct every identified error for long without it becoming quite good. You want to tell me this is wrong - fine - tell me what slots I need to have what in - and what you think the code does with each of them - and I will confirm what you say by testing - and if it is correct I will operate inside that regime. My "job" is to fix what is wrong - and I don't care a whit why it is wrong. As far as I am concerned, my job is a lot harder because I lack the kind of tools and technical information this sort of thing warrants - decisions which are not my fault - nor the fault of anyone else in the forum.

[el cid again]

By May 1942, HMS Illustrious was on operations against Vichy French forces in Diego Suarez Madagascar, and remained in the Indian Ocean from May 1942 until January 1943, where she undertook further operations against Madagascar in September 1942. She undertook a refit in the UK between February -June 1943 then returned to the Mediterranean between August-November 1943 where she took part in the Salerno landings in September 1943.

All of which I know, stipulate is true, agree with, and confirm.
It says not a whit about her being in the Indian Ocean from 10 Dec 1941 and doing ferry duty from then until early May 1942. But unless you think that isn't true, she shows up in 12/41

[Aterpa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I am not open to criticism.

This was an advice, no criticism. Maybe you are a little bit over sensitive. I give you this feedback about errors not because it is fun for me to show others mistakes, but because I like this project and want to see it improve.
Crititicim is not necessarily bad, I am open to criticism otherwise I could not do my work (I am research engineer, nanomechanics)

[Aterpa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
IF you think there is a problem - IDENTIFY it in a technical sense - with slot numbers.

I did the work and found the slot numbers with the wrong content and told you them already two times in this thread. I gave the numbers, wrote what is currently in the slots and gave an indication what should be in the slots.

What else do you demand?

[Aterpa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I have not seen any report or test indicating your fears are valid.

Start a game with RHS, japanese side. Go to Osaka, list of disbanded ships. Select an AK with cargo capacity 5000 (info screen) and use the switches in the lower left corner to change it to a AE, AR, AS, AV or MLE. See what happens and draw your conclusions.

[Hipper]

Cid there are still some us and FAA squadrons organising in Tokyo at the start of the game

they are VCF & VCT 39, VCF & VCT 68, VCF & VCT 81, VCF & VCT 4, VMF (CVS) 511 and VMF (cvs) 511(n) plus 1830 squadron FAA

also there are duplicate base forces in Mangalore 2416 Mangalore Base Force and 2120 Mangalore RIN Naval base force

there are not quite duplicate base forces in Aden 2376 aden base Force and 2141 Aden RN Base force

Plus shame on you for putting Karachi et al in Pakistan which at the time was only a concept not yet a country [:D]

thanks for all the hard work its a shame to be pointng out errors when there are so many good things in the scenario

( I like starting the spitfire V squadrons in SF, a hint that they should be going to austrailia )