RHS Level I Updates Suspended

[el cid again]

5.241 mostly involves updating really small things

pwhex eratta

a strange kind of ship eratta - only affecting even numbered scenarios -
eliminating ships from landlocked river systems and from the most Northerly
of the riverine systems (those that only are open to the Arctic Ocean in
the Fall season). No game but RHS has these vessels, and they are the
most marginal even in RHS. Usable as land locked vessels only in Monsoon,
and as ocean access only in Fall. Land locked vessels confuse AI, and 102
and 106 are AI oriented. 104 isn't, but is still simplified to the same degree (having
active Russians, that makes it not suitable for AI either) but some players may like no training air units, and elimination of small sail ships, no RR units, and other features of "simplified" (even numbered) scenarios.

there is also a very small amount of new material

a few, mostly US Army, sailing ships - including one new class - and a couple of PG - one sold by the Army to the Chinese before WWII - and another operated by USCG - similar to USS Lanokai (which is USN and already present)

the addition of the Korps Insulinde - two Dutch SOF units - one in 1942, the other in 1945 -

three new locations in Alaska - one on the Yukon River, two on its tributary the Tanana River - all very near to Fairbanks - to facilitate airfield construction or logistic flows - these meant to enhance the otherwise fully developed Alaska/Canada defensive set of units and locations. We already have the wartime mobilization of Canadian and US airlines - similar to the Japanese airline system - which was almost entirely used to feed the war effort NW of the NW USA. Together with massive infrastructure projects, the addition of local defense forces in Alaska and Canada, the area has substantial development over the starting point of stock: It is almost as badly defended as the South Pacific, and much worse than the SRA is, but there were some capabilities and these are now substantially modeled. A similar, and larger, effort was made in Siberia - which is now developed all the way to the map edge - although wether this is actually needed is hard to say. Japan never hoped to advance much past Chita - but if it did - the Russians should have a series of fall back positions and supporting airfields - such that there should not be any end to them until pushed off the map.

The real purpose of 5.241, aside from improving the details of pwhexe files, is to make the AI scenarios run better, and to get rid of all sorts of minor eratta.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Korps Insulinde was a special operations force of Dutch troops sent to Ceylon from the UK.
It had two operational components: No 1 troop (completing training sometime in 1942), which had
154 men (17 officers, 37 senior NCOs, 28 corporals, 70 privates) conducted commando style landings
on Sumatra in 1943 and 1944; No 2 troop (also 154 men), conducted airborne or naval landings from
May, 1945. While the first troop arrived at Columbo on 7 March, 1942, it had not yet been trained
as commandos. The two units were considered part of the Princess Irine Brigade.

The No 2 Troop is no part of the Irene Brigade. But 2nd Dutch Troop 10th Inter Allied Commando, who after VE Day is send to the NEI.

[Yaab]

Pardon my ignorance, but does RHS mod have AI files for both sides of the conflict? Can human opponent play the whole campaign against Jap/Allied AI?

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Later in the war the Navy and Army got together - and even flew the same bomber. But in general,
the Navy uses 30kg, 60 kg bombs and 250 kg bombs, and in a few cases 500 and 800 kg bombs. The Army
tends to use 50 kg and 100 kg - and also 15 kg bombs. Eventually the move up to 250 kg bombs too - so
the big bombers standard load is with them. But the start of game bombers tend to carry 100 kg to normal
range and 50 kg to extended range, and have no ability to carry 250 kg bombs at all apparently.

I think I have seen report from initial Malaya invasion, which mentions use of 250kg bombs, but I have also seen pamphlet from 1942, which claims NELL bombload as 2x1000lb+2x500lb, so who knows? There is also mention of probably 800kg bomb, which do not penetrated ship.

Anyway, it seems you have few more bombload errors. It may be because you use filters with/without beta, because they works differently in official, and beta:

9 x B5N2 Kate TB launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb, 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
5 x D3A1 Val DB releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb

As you can see, your KATE carries BOTH bomb, and torpedo, and VAL carries 250 lb bomb, instead 250 kg, however it may be intentional. I was also going to give VAL 3 bombs on normal range, as half of sources claim it carried that, but I was unable to find SINGLE PHOTOGRAPHY with 3 bombs.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Pardon my ignorance, but does RHS mod have AI files for both sides of the conflict? Can human opponent play the whole campaign against Jap/Allied AI?

First of all, I don't actually believe in AI. It is a misnomer - there is no actual AI at all in the formal meaning of the term. There is, however, a script, which is moderately functional for Japan and hopeless for the Allies. In spite of its simplicity, it does somewhat attempt to do many things Japan attempted - and some things (like circumnavigate Australia) it never even considered doing!

Second, like it or not, AI is necessary for automated testing purposes. It is the only way to get enough data to detect some problems. To the extent it is useful for this, there is no need to modify the existing scripts. They remain as functional (and dysfunctional) as they ever were.

Third, like it or not, some players feel unable to play vs human opponents, which is vastly better in terms of quality of play. Some do that because they don't feel reliable enough to commit to a regular schedule, and AI does not care how long it is between turns. Some perhaps love to beat up the enemy, and are fine with a truly incompetent enemy. Regardless of motive, there is a "market" for games vs AI.

Both because I have a background in test, and because I believe in freedom for players, RHS has always featured an "AI Oriented" scenario - both with AE and in its former incarnation for WITP. As well, in AE, there is a scenario in development called Downfall, which is also intended for play vs AI if no opponent is needed. However, at the present time, "AI Oriented" means mainly that RHS features which confuse the code, which require human players, are simply not present. There are no RHS scripts. I don't know how to write one and expect it to take years to write one for even one scenario. I might do that - years from now.

An example of RHS features omitted from AIO and the future Downfall Scenario is active Russians. Only humans grasp what it means to be active but not at war?

Another example is RR artillery. Only humans grasp that it is supposed to move on a rail line.

Inland waterways also have no ships - as in stock and almost all other mods. They confuse AI.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Later in the war the Navy and Army got together - and even flew the same bomber. But in general,
the Navy uses 30kg, 60 kg bombs and 250 kg bombs, and in a few cases 500 and 800 kg bombs. The Army
tends to use 50 kg and 100 kg - and also 15 kg bombs. Eventually the move up to 250 kg bombs too - so
the big bombers standard load is with them. But the start of game bombers tend to carry 100 kg to normal
range and 50 kg to extended range, and have no ability to carry 250 kg bombs at all apparently.

I think I have seen report from initial Malaya invasion, which mentions use of 250kg bombs, but I have also seen pamphlet from 1942, which claims NELL bombload as 2x1000lb+2x500lb, so who knows? There is also mention of probably 800kg bomb, which do not penetrated ship.

Anyway, it seems you have few more bombload errors. It may be because you use filters with/without beta, because they works differently in official, and beta:

9 x B5N2 Kate TB launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb, 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
5 x D3A1 Val DB releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb

As you can see, your KATE carries BOTH bomb, and torpedo, and VAL carries 250 lb bomb, instead 250 kg, however it may be intentional. I was also going to give VAL 3 bombs on normal range, as half of sources claim it carried that, but I was unable to find SINGLE PHOTOGRAPHY with 3 bombs.

Why would there be a difference between stock and beta?

Regardless of why, what is the difference?

Val carried only 1 x 250 kg bomb to extended range
but 1 x 250 kg plus 2 x 60 kg bombs to normal range.
It could not carry three 250 pound bombs, but could carry
three 60 kg (110 pound) bombs I suppose.

Kate is supposed to carry a bomb for some missions and a torpedo for other missions.
The filter rules are supposed to determine which weapon for which mission.
Does it not work?

[Symon]

Yes, it works. But this is a game and not a pre-teen kiddle OOB testerone exercise.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Later in the war the Navy and Army got together - and even flew the same bomber. But in general,
the Navy uses 30kg, 60 kg bombs and 250 kg bombs, and in a few cases 500 and 800 kg bombs. The Army
tends to use 50 kg and 100 kg - and also 15 kg bombs. Eventually the move up to 250 kg bombs too - so
the big bombers standard load is with them. But the start of game bombers tend to carry 100 kg to normal
range and 50 kg to extended range, and have no ability to carry 250 kg bombs at all apparently.

I think I have seen report from initial Malaya invasion, which mentions use of 250kg bombs, but I have also seen pamphlet from 1942, which claims NELL bombload as 2x1000lb+2x500lb, so who knows? There is also mention of probably 800kg bomb, which do not penetrated ship.

Anyway, it seems you have few more bombload errors. It may be because you use filters with/without beta, because they works differently in official, and beta:

9 x B5N2 Kate TB launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb, 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
5 x D3A1 Val DB releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb

As you can see, your KATE carries BOTH bomb, and torpedo, and VAL carries 250 lb bomb, instead 250 kg, however it may be intentional. I was also going to give VAL 3 bombs on normal range, as half of sources claim it carried that, but I was unable to find SINGLE PHOTOGRAPHY with 3 bombs.

Why would there be a difference between stock and beta?

Regardless of why, what is the difference?

MODding enhancements.
First - there is extra bit used (or even two IIRC for city attack). There is change in code for checking alternative for torpedo in port attack (previously it was always hardcoded exchange, but you can use torpedoes on port attack, so why not different bombload for it?).
AND now aerial weapons upgrades works. I have left few such fields in my old MOD versions, because they had no function then, but with BETA this can cause strange results.

Val carried only 1 x 250 kg bomb to extended range
but 1 x 250 kg plus 2 x 60 kg bombs to normal range.
It could not carry three 250 pound bombs, but could carry
three 60 kg (110 pound) bombs I suppose.

I thinlk it could carry only 2x60kg on extended range, but who knows about second model? Engine was quite stronger.
As I said - half of the sources claims it carried only 1x250kg bomb on normal range, but other half shows 2x60kg+1x250kg. And I have not seen any picture of this second configuration. Do you have any - preferably in flight?

Kate is supposed to carry a bomb for some missions and a torpedo for other missions.
The filter rules are supposed to determine which weapon for which mission.
Does it not work?

This text I pasted is directly from your AAR (but you are using probably older MOD version there). I am just saying, that your KATE in that version seems to carry both torpedo AND bomb in the same attack. Game will show only weapon currently used, so you will see whole unit using ONLY torpedoes, or ONLY 800kg bombs. If there are TWO weapons listed, both were used in this attack by ALL planes in unit.

And this VAL lb can be a typo for kg, but you better check device if it have correct statistics.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Yes, it works. But this is a game and not a pre-teen kiddle OOB testerone exercise.

I am sorry. These two sentences are unclear to me. What works? What is a kiddle?
And what has pre-teen or testerone got to do with anything?

It does appear the filters work with beta. RHS always uses the latest release of code,
and the official code eventually catches up with beta. I suppose the problem posted above
may be using RHS files with non-beta official releases which did not yet activate the filters.
Perhaps that is what you were trying to say, in too cryptic a form to be understood?

If you wish to be unhappy with my writing style, don't read what I post. If you wish to comment,
always be constructive, complete, as clear as possible, and honor the forum rules - which means
be civil. This is indeed a game. There is no place in it for anything impolite or uncivil.

[el cid again]

The Val had different listings on different lines for different targets.
It had the 250 kg AP for naval/port attacks
but the 250 lb HE for land attacks, which was an error:
it should have read 250 kg HE for land attacks.

I am not following your discussion of different weapons on different lines.
Surely the point of the filters is that we can use torpedoes, AP, HE,
or in my case, other weapons (mainly ASW types) on a given target.
If we cannot list weapons for only certain targets, what is function of a filter.
Also, I am not showing a problem with tests using beta code and filters.
Looks like they drop torpedoes on naval targets unless there are no torpedoes
available for example. But thanks for pointing out possible issues. I will
continue to look at this until I fully understand it.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

5.241 mostly involves updating really small things

pwhex eratta

a strange kind of ship eratta - only affecting even numbered scenarios -
eliminating ships from landlocked river systems and from the most Northerly
of the riverine systems (those that only are open to the Arctic Ocean in
the Fall season). No game but RHS has these vessels, and they are the
most marginal even in RHS. Usable as land locked vessels only in Monsoon,
and as ocean access only in Fall. Land locked vessels confuse AI, and 102
and 106 are AI oriented. 104 isn't, but is still simplified to the same degree (having
active Russians, that makes it not suitable for AI either) but some players may like no training air units, and elimination of small sail ships, no RR units, and other features of "simplified" (even numbered) scenarios.

there is also a very small amount of new material

a few, mostly US Army, sailing ships - including one new class - and a couple of PG - one sold by the Army to the Chinese before WWII - and another operated by USCG - similar to USS Lanokai (which is USN and already present)

the addition of the Korps Insulinde - two Dutch SOF units - one in 1942, the other in 1945 -

three new locations in Alaska - one on the Yukon River, two on its tributary the Tanana River - all very near to Fairbanks - to facilitate airfield construction or logistic flows - these meant to enhance the otherwise fully developed Alaska/Canada defensive set of units and locations. We already have the wartime mobilization of Canadian and US airlines - similar to the Japanese airline system - which was almost entirely used to feed the war effort NW of the NW USA. Together with massive infrastructure projects, the addition of local defense forces in Alaska and Canada, the area has substantial development over the starting point of stock: It is almost as badly defended as the South Pacific, and much worse than the SRA is, but there were some capabilities and these are now substantially modeled. A similar, and larger, effort was made in Siberia - which is now developed all the way to the map edge - although wether this is actually needed is hard to say. Japan never hoped to advance much past Chita - but if it did - the Russians should have a series of fall back positions and supporting airfields - such that there should not be any end to them until pushed off the map.

The real purpose of 5.241, aside from improving the details of pwhexe files, is to make the AI scenarios run better, and to get rid of all sorts of minor eratta.

Hi el cid again

Where can I download the scenario and art files?

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: el cid again



If you wish to be unhappy with my writing style, don't read what I post. If you wish to comment,
always be constructive, complete, as clear as possible, and honor the forum rules - which means
be civil. This is indeed a game. There is no place in it for anything impolite or uncivil.

You should take heed of your own advice. You are rarely constructive (and rarely correct) when you toss out criticism of the game and the development choices.

[el cid again]

One of our testers is on the road until Wednesday. Tests will resume probably on Thursday or so.

I am using the time to integrate extensive official information from what turns out to be official ROC history - The History of the Sino-Japanese War 1937-1945 turns out to be a one volume summary of the 100 volume version of the same name - and the formal name of the short version isn't used in translation! ["A Concise History of the Sino-Japanese War" was supposed to be its name]

This material is extensive and includes economic, technical, unit and situation map data.

Perhaps the most significant finding is that Sinkiang (and the Northern part of Kansu) provinces should start the game as Soviet controlled. Still classified as Chinese territory, but under the Soviet Far East Command. There is only one Soviet military unit in the area - an NKVD regiment at Hami - which guards vital enterprises in tin, tungsten and petroleum (and which for that reason should be modeled in the location data - but were not). The "Chinese troops" in Sinkiang are actually Chinese - but loyal to the USSR - until late in the war. These units are brigades with simple numbers - e.g. Sinkiang First Brigade, Sinkiang Second Brigade - not the numbers listed in stock OBs. Some units previously shown in the area were removed - e.g. the 9th Separate Brigade went to defend Nanking years before the game began - and never returned to Sinkiang. I also learned that these brigades have only two "regiments" (battalions) - possibly related to why Japanese cavalry "brigades" have two battalions.

Another interesting finding is that there was a ROC First Separate Marine Brigade under ROC Navy command. Unlike the brigades described above, this one has four 'regiments' (battalions). The few non-Chinese references that mention them maintain they were just regular soldiers. That isn't quite right - they were riverine marines.

The biggest naval finding is that the ROC Navy was very successful with mine warfare. The NRA (ROC Army's official name is National Revolutionary Army) also had specialized coast defense units - composed mainly of combinations of 3 inch naval guns and similar caliber (actually 77 mm) Army howitzers. A "regiment" generally had around 5 batteries in the sense we use the term - but often these were broken into what were called 2 "batteries" each of 2 or 3 different firing units - a modern Chinese term that does not translate well (sections perhaps?). Typically each firing unit would have at least 3 guns. A typical regiment would then have about 15 mixed weapons, all substantially 3 inch caliber, but not identical in range or shell weight or even shell type (naval guns have AP, but river craft often are better engaged with HE anyway). The regiment also would have minimal security troops for each battery - perhaps a MMG and a platoon of infantry - as well as a proper fixed optical fire control position for each - networked by telephone. These regiments were in most cases not tested (the First was defeated at the battle of Ichang in 1940) - because ROCN mine warfare was so successful the enemy never proceeded far enough upriver to engage them.

I also learned the details of a typical Chinese river steamer. Two such, being converted to minelayers, were captured at Hong Kong and given to Japanese forces. Their details permit a general definition of the type. The AKL form is pretty efficient as a transport. It will be allowed to convert to gunboat or to coastal minelayer forms. I have selected a Russian WWI vintage river mine (formally called R no less) for general use by the ROC Navy.

The mine review was comprehensive. Both Allied and Japanese players have noted it is excessively hard to rearm minelayers in many cases. While SOME of those cases are justified - in others there were thousands of mines available. So ALL mine inventories and production rates have been reviewed, and several new ones added. I found stock data also failed to properly relate the influence mine chances of a hit relative to other influence or to contact mines - and introduced a uniform rating system (instead of just accepting the data as was). IF you use the attached device files, the mine reload situation will be even better than it was with the previous releases, which substantially addressed this issue.

I have twice in the last week issued revised device files, reflecting mainly

1) changes in names, for clarity and/or flavor

2) additional mines or Chinese weapons (today a 20 mm AAA gun)

3) corrections to certain technical eratta in the data set

Both times I thought it was final - but I found cause for more changes last night - so the new "final" device file for 5.25 are attached here. Some of these changes will impact ongoing games - and that is better than not having them.

Another change was in the nature of ROC AAA. There were very few AAA guns in China - and only seven AAA regiments (battalions). There were so few heavy AAA guns that each "regiment" got only one battery (probably excepting the first, at the capital, which probably controlled the one extra battery). But each regiment also got a battery of medium AAA, and two more of light AAA guns (20 mm and .50 cals). On top of that, NRA had a very efficient .303 or 7.92 mm AAA gun, and each regiment had perhaps ten of these - possibly divided up with two per battery of larger guns rather than operating as an independent battery. This understanding caused me to create more AAA regiments (up from three) - but to strip or reduce AAA in other units. Thus ROCAF units generally have no heavy or medium AAA at all at start (there are exceptions, for example at Chunking) - and eventually get only tiny amounts of these weapons. Some start with 1 to 4 AAMG - and all eventually end up with numbers of both .50 cal and .30 cal class weapons - as they become available. Similarly, I have had to reinterpret the AAA unit organic to Army Group "Headquarters" units - which have organic infantry, cavalry and other units - not like most game HQ. These are now single companies entirely of AAMG - not battalions. And War Area HQ lost their 40 mm in favor of .50 cal AAMG - the .40 mm became popular after the war and one always finds them to this day outside a ROC HQ building - often in singles and twins. But in WWII the "standard" ROC AA gun was the .50.

In a similar way, China had astonishingly few engineers. There were three regiments - again a term meaning battalion. So now we have two flavors -- engineer regiments and construction regiments (some of the latter are also included in Army Group HQ units). This has some impacts on combat. RHS pioneers will build - but cannot reduce fortifications as well as "proper" engineers can (the anti-armor rating is 7 mm - the penetration power of a .30 cal rifle or MG. Proper engineers are rated at 25 mm - based on stock - and assumed to represent explosives. Pioneers build with hand tools - and don't have explosives.)

I still expect to issue the update "tomorrow" - which I have said for three days or so. But this time I mean it I think. I am running out of material.

We have updated locations in Northern China (Sinkiang) not only to be under Soviet command (but ROC command for the downfall scenario - ROC takes it back in 1944) - but also with respect to what is where? Hami has some oil, for example, giving the NKVD what it was there to protect. The "Chinese" units in Sinikang are also under SOVIET command! But this can be changed by paying political points - and that is how we model when they change commands. The Allies - which have lots of reasons to spend pp - must invest them to convert these guys back. A location will revert to China command if a suitable unit is present in it (I think). It doesn't matter much - economics works for the allies in any case.

The arrival of Idaho, New Mexico and Mississippi will all now be at Panama on 20 January 1942 - instead of different dates and locations - because this is firm data.

The location files have most of the changes. Also ship files. But some additions occurred to leader (H) files, class files, and device files - the latter attached here. This is formally microupdate 5.243 - but these files should be part of 5.25 tomorrow. We also will update air groups - adding one.

[el cid again]

Dear Sulu Sea:

Unfortunately, communication is subjective as well as objective. I hope it helps you to know that I always intend any criticism to be constructive. I understand the cost prohibition, not just in money but time, to do exhaustive research for such a vast data set. I also understand information theory says that it is never, ever possible to get it perfect. Most of all, I understand that only negative feedback can improve any system. It is not useful to read into a statement "this isn't correct" to be somehow derogatory. As for being "rarely correct" - I suppose that might also be subjective. Just because I read something different from what you think you know or even have read doesn't mean my information is wrong. But at least I will listen to CONSTRUCTIVE comments - offered WITHOUT insults - and fold them in where I can justify them. I estimate slightly more than half of RHS came from non-RHS team members suggestions - openly and privately. Because it is RHS policy - in the RHS manual of old in fact - to listen to information from anyone. We are not defensive about our data. Even if something isn't entirely appropriate for a strictly historical scenario, we may well use it in a variant scenario. All we ask is (a) be nice and (b) help us understand why you think your understanding is better than ours is (plural because we are a team, not a single person; it isn't a royal we).

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: el cid again



If you wish to be unhappy with my writing style, don't read what I post. If you wish to comment,
always be constructive, complete, as clear as possible, and honor the forum rules - which means
be civil. This is indeed a game. There is no place in it for anything impolite or uncivil.

You should take heed of your own advice. You are rarely constructive (and rarely correct) when you toss out criticism of the game and the development choices.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: el cid again

5.241 mostly involves updating really small things

pwhex eratta

a strange kind of ship eratta - only affecting even numbered scenarios -
eliminating ships from landlocked river systems and from the most Northerly
of the riverine systems (those that only are open to the Arctic Ocean in
the Fall season). No game but RHS has these vessels, and they are the
most marginal even in RHS. Usable as land locked vessels only in Monsoon,
and as ocean access only in Fall. Land locked vessels confuse AI, and 102
and 106 are AI oriented. 104 isn't, but is still simplified to the same degree (having
active Russians, that makes it not suitable for AI either) but some players may like no training air units, and elimination of small sail ships, no RR units, and other features of "simplified" (even numbered) scenarios.

there is also a very small amount of new material

a few, mostly US Army, sailing ships - including one new class - and a couple of PG - one sold by the Army to the Chinese before WWII - and another operated by USCG - similar to USS Lanokai (which is USN and already present)

the addition of the Korps Insulinde - two Dutch SOF units - one in 1942, the other in 1945 -

three new locations in Alaska - one on the Yukon River, two on its tributary the Tanana River - all very near to Fairbanks - to facilitate airfield construction or logistic flows - these meant to enhance the otherwise fully developed Alaska/Canada defensive set of units and locations. We already have the wartime mobilization of Canadian and US airlines - similar to the Japanese airline system - which was almost entirely used to feed the war effort NW of the NW USA. Together with massive infrastructure projects, the addition of local defense forces in Alaska and Canada, the area has substantial development over the starting point of stock: It is almost as badly defended as the South Pacific, and much worse than the SRA is, but there were some capabilities and these are now substantially modeled. A similar, and larger, effort was made in Siberia - which is now developed all the way to the map edge - although wether this is actually needed is hard to say. Japan never hoped to advance much past Chita - but if it did - the Russians should have a series of fall back positions and supporting airfields - such that there should not be any end to them until pushed off the map.

The real purpose of 5.241, aside from improving the details of pwhexe files, is to make the AI scenarios run better, and to get rid of all sorts of minor eratta.

Hi el cid again

Where can I download the scenario and art files?

Anyone who wants scenario and art files may contact Mifune or myself. Mifune manages a download site, but it is generally not as up to date as what I can send out on any given day. The project is winding down (for Level 1),
but still changing daily with new data, or with reported eratta or issues. That is general information - I will contact you directly now.

[el cid again]

RHS: 5.251 Plan and Aircraft Loadout Codes


There were a couple of different issues involved in the problem of some attacks carried duplicated weapons. Although there appear to be code issues, the greater portion of these are my fault.

First, so many of the technical changes in the beta updates work so well, I trusted too much, and ignored Joe Wilkerson's Law - TEST, TEST, TEST. Don't trust until you build a box and see it work, if it is new.

Second, every last air unit using a changed aircraft needs to be updated - or the code never sees the right data at all. Sometimes I changed a plane but not every unit using it (there are after all thousands of slots times six scenarios). That led to inconsistent code execution of attacks masking other issues - and making them harder to understand.

Third, it appears that the new code has some limits. It DOES work, at least if you keep it simple. I tried, in many cases, to get a little too sophisticated - with three, four or even five different weapon codes for a single type. Code more or less expects to manage two per aircraft. You may have more than one line with the same code - so for example 250 HE plus 100 pound HE coded for land (40) and 250 AP and 100 SAP coded for sea (22) - no problem. But try to make it a torpedo, an alternate to the torpedo, big bombs for some land targets and little ones for airfields or troops - it gets mixed up.

Bottom line - I need to revise every aircraft with bomb codes. I need to revise every air unit using those aircraft in every scenario.

The aircraft will instantly update and backfit into existing games - but ONLY get used when you upgrade aircraft in an air unit. Of course, new games will always be right in respect to both aircraft and air groups.

For this reason, I will issue a 2.251 update - likely tomorrow - and any game about to start should wait for that. Test 9 will not start construction of the start turn until after that.

Meanwhile, we have had a few eratta reports and a couple of enhancements. Two Chinese gunboats - fine ones - of WWI construction (six were built but only 2 survived 1938) - have been added. If we get real lucky we will also fold in revised aircraft filmstrips of an updates sort - luck is required because Mifune is having hardware issues.

[el cid again]

RHS runs to the end of Monsoon 1946. It features late war aircraft, ships and weapons - including exotic weapons under development. Many of these were Axis, which had a lead in jet and rocket propelled aircraft, and in missiles. But SOME Allied weapons were developed - so were some aircraft but mostly they are not worth as much as the fine piston engine types of the period. We have the first practical USN SAM - the Taylos and Terrier systems had origins in WWII but took a decade to field - and still didn't work well for a decade after that (I served on a SAM ship in the 1960s). But to deal with kamakazes we did devise a simple, subsonic SAM - with radio control - that could work - so we have it. The first SSM was a copy of the V-1 - we have it too. And Bat was a practical ASM - we have that as well. But I didn't know about Felix- it is described here;

The VB-6 Felix was a precision guided munition developed by the United States during World War II. It was one of the precursors of modern anti-ship missiles.

Created by the National Defense Research Committee, Felix relied on infrared to detect and home on targets, in clear weather, especially ships at sea at night. It was this property which earned the weapon its name, after the ability of cats to see in the dark.

Felix was a 1000 pound (454 kg) general purpose (GP) bomb with an infrared seeker in the nose and octagonal guidance fins in the tail. Unlike other weapons, such as the German Fritz X, Felix was autonomous (what a later generation would call fire-and-forget), though there was a flare in the tail for tracking.

Successful trials led to Felix being put in production in 1945, but the Pacific War ended before it entered combat.
It will be part of update 5.26

[el cid again]

A) Turns out the US started smart weapon development BEFORE WWII - and at the same time Germany did. There were at least 13 different weapons - the last being a multi-sensor package for a winged 16,000 pound Tallboy - which gave the beaste a 11 km range and the ability to home on a target.

I have selected three early generations of these weapons and carriers for them -

the VB-1 Azon radio controlled bomb

the VB-3 Razon radio controlled bomb with slightly more sophisticated electronics

and the VB-6 Felix infra red homing bomb

all based on the standard 1000 pound bomb with attachments able to fit in the space of a 2000 pound bomb (requiring a special mounting rack, limiting number carried)

These were generally carried by B-24s, but the B-29 could also be fitted for them. Trained crews were limited - starting with ten.

These weapons all have 1945 operational dates in PTO (although VB-1 was operational in the fall of 1944 in ETO and so gets that in Scenario 105).

As well, certain naval aircraft fitted for Bat at normal range carry a Azon or Razon at extended range. Again, not many of these special aircraft are produced - but there are enough to keep at least one squadron operational per type no matter its losses.

These changes have delayed issuing of 5.26 - research and modeling take time.

Yesterday, similar data on Japan came in - so 5.27 will be a few days later - to fold it in. In general, there was even more cooperation with Germany than I understood - starting well before WWII. Some decisions not taken will be revised for Scenario 105.


B) I have found that there is a hex side pair error in Japan

between 103/58 NW and 102/57 SE

The pair is coded as Ocean but should be blocked.

This error permits to sail through land from Iki Island to Kurume Kyushu.

It is probably an error in every AE pwhexe.dat file of every kind - since it is inherited by RHS from stock, and presumably every other pwhex file also has the same coding.

C) There is a problem with all RHS winter files in the Winter areas of the map, in ports which have naval units in them (locked in place for the season). With a couple of mysterious exceptions, such ships are teleported out of the hex at the end of turn one, to the default location for their nation. This is because of the way code treats hexes with certain seasonal codes in Winter seasons. It is much more significant in odd numbered scenarios, because even numbered scenarios have no ships at all in the Northern most river systems (those which open on the Arctic Ocean, directly or indirectly). Still - even the even numbered files have some vessels at Fairbanks, Whitehorse, Magadan and other locations which are affected by this problem.

I can fix it. And will. But it is one reason why all winter files must be reissued.

[el cid again]

These documents affect USAAF and JNAF aircraft

Adding four kinds of B-24 and B-29 variants with smart bombs. [A few USN aircraft add smart bombs, but as alternates at extended range to carrying BAT at normal range, so no new types were added]. These carry three generations of Radio Controlled or Infra-Red guided bombs - limited here for anti-shipping use (although the R/C types were also used vs bridges, these are not possible targets in AE).

Changing the nature of G7M1 variants and (scenario 105 only) adding two more.

At long last, I have been able to sort out the three G7M1 designs - I did not even realize there were three! I had, in fact, detected elements from each design, and could not reconcile them!

I selected two to present in RHS.

For strictly historical scenarios, I selected the final Mitsubishi design, the one that was fully developed and ultimately rejected. This is a twin engine aircraft very similar to the He-177 in appearance, but smaller and using an 18 cylinder 2000 hp radial engine available in Japan. The long gestation of the design, and war experience, led to it being the most heavily armed for defense. The weight and drag of these weapons ultimately caused it to be rejection for production. At the same time, it had the least amount of offensive armament - an identical bomb/torpedo load as the Betty (although truly interior). Think of it as a faster, well armed, armored G4M with hardly any more range. Because it is the third design, I designate it G7M1c - although the c isn't official. There are three variants - bombs only (with AP or HE bombs), torpedo bomber (with AP at extended range and HE for non-naval targets - but not many - only large 250 kg bombs), and recon variant (with cameras, similar to the Nell G3M2 KAI).

For Japan enhanced scenarios, I selected the original Mitsubishi proposal for a four engine configuration. This was immediately rejected, partly because it was assumed (in 1941) that the G5N project would work out sooner. I worked it up with the same engine as was used by Mitsubishi for the second version of the Betty - except four of them - and honoring the original specification - which only demanded speed (313 knots) and range (about 4000 nautical miles). It remains primarily a naval attack bomber, but is large enough to permit a range/payload tradeoff unusual in Japanese bombers of the period: it can carry to extended range the normal load of a Betty, but it carries twice as much to normal range. It is able to lift a 21 inch torpedo with five times the standoff range as an 18 inch torpedo has - at normal range - or carry an 18 inch torpedo all the way to extended range. And for land targets, it adopts the standard of 16 bombs - although in this case smaller 100 kg (or 60 kg) bombs - not 250 kg like the later G8M uses. Being an early design, and not constrained by specification requirements, the defensive armament is very light (actually derived from the second design, since this one never got fleshed out). There are only 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 7.7 mm MG. By the time it enters service, in 1943, it will be obvious this is a mistake, so a later version appears in 105 with the 7.7 mm guns upgraded to 13 mm,
and also adding radar, which by then is available. It has virtually the range of a G8N1, but less than half the payload and not much defensive armament: the specification for speed and range being too literally honored. Even so, it carries twice the warload of the twin engine version.

The second design was a proposal which required development of a "Nu" engine - a pair of horizontal stroke engines each with 12 cylinders - 24 total - arranged back to back. This was not possible to develop for lack of machine tools when the invasion of the USSR prevented their import from Germany. It also might have been plagued by heat issues like the He-177 - with its dual engines of a different sort. It was a remarkably specialized aircraft built around delivering a single standoff weapon - a torpedo and it had early war ideas of minimal defensive armament - but at least had armor.

[el cid again]

This material reposted after significant updating at the end of the thread.