RHS 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final?

[el cid again]

I don't think you need to disband a squadron to get a carrier to upgrade. But lots of things go wrong if you ever send carrier planes ashore. I have a hard time getting them back on their carrier. And they tend to resize by mysterious rules - as you see.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I don't think you need to disband a squadron to get a carrier to upgrade. But lots of things go wrong if you ever send carrier planes ashore. I have a hard time getting them back on their carrier. And they tend to resize by mysterious rules - as you see.

Ahhh, I see the problem. I never meant 'disband squadron', I only meant 'disband TF'. And I never send carrier aircraft ashore because things get all screwed up - just ask Joe. [:D]

My bug report regarding CVL Hermes is strictly that the CVL (as part of TF) was moved to Trincommalee and TF was disbanded there. Subsequently, the squadrons (on board the CVL) underwent a re-sizing (both reduced from 6 a/c to 2 a/c), even though the closest theater command HQ is in another port (Colombo). I'm sure this is program code not the mod, I just reported it here because it shows that the procedure we thought was a useful work-around actually fails at least sometimes.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I see the problem: the plane is defined right - you probably can see it under aircraft data reports -
but the squadrons are not updated. Ugh. See x.17 update.

Thanks!

[Don Bowen]

There are several things that you-all need to be aware of concerning carrier air groups:

A carrier air group is an entity - moving it around does not break that relationship.

The carrier air groups reconfigure at various times (with some random factor involved in when). These reconfigurations change the mix of fighters, bombers, torpedo planes in the carrier air group. Note that this is the CAG and not the aircraft on the carrier. If one moves a squadron off of the carrier, it will still resize as part of the CAG (as of 1.8). If one moves other squadrons onto the carrier they will not be considered in the calculation of the CAG size and the carrier may become overloaded.

In order for reconfiguration to occur the CV must be at a well-supplied port, not badly damaged, and the CAG squadrons must have Replacements allowed.

Calculation of carrier air group squadron size is based on a percentage of home carrier capacity. Formulas vary with time of war, size and type of carrier, and nationality.

The old problem of unexpected growth of carrier airgroups temporarily based ashore was addressed in 1.8. EVEN IF NOT ON THEIR HOME CARRIER THEIR SIZE IS CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE HOME CARRIER'S CAPACITY. Up side of this is the ability to move the squadron back to the carrier is not impeded. Down side is that the squadron will not grow, even if permanently detached (or the carrier is sunk).

As of 1.8.0.2, carrier squadrons of HUMAN players are not re-headquartered when moved ashore.

There are several other ways this could have been done, but this is the way it is.

So:
Keep you carrier air groups intact and on their original carriers.

Only move them ashore if the carrier is lost.

You can safely disband your carriers for repairs, upgrades.

You can prevent carrier squadron resize by leaving the replacement control in "No Replacements".

[witpqs]

Sid,

Here is Joe Wilkerson's reply to my PM on the CVL Hermes thing:

Well sounds like the routine may be working as design (haha) even if the design isn't working for what you guys were trying to do. My data is that at least for 2-3 years before her sinking that Hermes airgroup had 12 Swordfish period. WIth a small detachment of Walrus' aboard on occasion. The game is apparently designed to support a single airgroup of swordfish .. or a hypothetical airgroup of fighter and torpedo bombers. This mixture is obviously a generic one (more related to the RN CVE).

Personally I favor removing the auto-resizing completely and giving the players some (restricted) ability to resize airgroups depending on the situation. But while there is a case for this, there are also fears that it will be abused. And given the current "uber cap" capability that everyone will opt for max fighters with no questions asked. And there is a case for this as well. So that is kind of where things stand at this point. So until we have a fix for uber cap - the resizing probably stays like it is and I would suggest giving Hermes back her single swordfish group or giving her a second group of fighters.

[witpqs]

Don,

Thanks much for the info. Just FYI, at no time were any parts of the carrier's airgroup ashore or disbanded. It looks like it was the fourth item on your hit-parade (below) - replacements were certainly 'ON'. The air group consists of two 6-plane squadrons of Swordfish torpedo bombers (total of 12 a/c on the carrier). They both re-size to 2 a/c each (total of 4 a/c on the carrier).

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

So:
Keep you carrier air groups intact and on their original carriers.

Only move them ashore if the carrier is lost.

You can safely disband your carriers for repairs, upgrades.

You can prevent carrier squadron resize by leaving the replacement control in "No Replacements".

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


There are several things that you-all need to be aware of concerning carrier air groups:

A carrier air group is an entity - moving it around does not break that relationship.

The carrier air groups reconfigure at various times (with some random factor involved in when). These reconfigurations change the mix of fighters, bombers, torpedo planes in the carrier air group. Note that this is the CAG and not the aircraft on the carrier. If one moves a squadron off of the carrier, it will still resize as part of the CAG (as of 1.8). If one moves other squadrons onto the carrier they will not be considered in the calculation of the CAG size and the carrier may become overloaded.

In order for reconfiguration to occur the CV must be at a well-supplied port, not badly damaged, and the CAG squadrons must have Replacements allowed.

Calculation of carrier air group squadron size is based on a percentage of home carrier capacity. Formulas vary with time of war, size and type of carrier, and nationality.

The old problem of unexpected growth of carrier airgroups temporarily based ashore was addressed in 1.8. EVEN IF NOT ON THEIR HOME CARRIER THEIR SIZE IS CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE HOME CARRIER'S CAPACITY. Up side of this is the ability to move the squadron back to the carrier is not impeded. Down side is that the squadron will not grow, even if permanently detached (or the carrier is sunk).

As of 1.8.0.2, carrier squadrons of HUMAN players are not re-headquartered when moved ashore.

There are several other ways this could have been done, but this is the way it is.

So:
Keep you carrier air groups intact and on their original carriers.

Only move them ashore if the carrier is lost.

You can safely disband your carriers for repairs, upgrades.

You can prevent carrier squadron resize by leaving the replacement control in "No Replacements".

IF I understand this - and I am not sure I do understand it completely? = RHS is NOT compatable with 1.8 UNLESS we read the above like data lawyers and NEVER have "replacements allowed set" when a carrier might resize. Unless you know what will happen in this particular case is acceptable to you.

We CANNOT permit carrier squadron resizing because we are being historical. We do not have the regulation number of squadrons on a carrier - nor the names required for code to ID them (under the old system at least). We are putting four squadrons on most Japanese and some British CV - we would use 5 if we could - and the code simply is not geared for any number other than 3 squadrons per CV (except it did allow 4 on US CVs in some years and not in others under the old system). Did the combining of US carrier squadrons go away? While we do use 4 for US carriers - we don't change that to 3 and then back to 4 - and we don't use the names code needs to know which two squadrons to combine. [The service abbreviator USN kills the recognition of the unit]

This requires some analysis - and note I am not yet seeing this problem in 1.8 level tests.

We used to know what the resize rules were - and conditions (which is why WITPQS is writing about disbanding in a port with a command HQ). Can we know the new rules?

And - slight frustration here - what is wrong with letting us set the unit sizes correctly and leaving them alone? A recon flight need not resize as if it were a squadron, etc. It is much harder to write a general rule which is always true than to let the data entry people enter the right data - and leave it alone.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

Here is Joe Wilkerson's reply to my PM on the CVL Hermes thing:

Well sounds like the routine may be working as design (haha) even if the design isn't working for what you guys were trying to do. My data is that at least for 2-3 years before her sinking that Hermes airgroup had 12 Swordfish period. WIth a small detachment of Walrus' aboard on occasion. The game is apparently designed to support a single airgroup of swordfish .. or a hypothetical airgroup of fighter and torpedo bombers. This mixture is obviously a generic one (more related to the RN CVE).

Personally I favor removing the auto-resizing completely and giving the players some (restricted) ability to resize airgroups depending on the situation. But while there is a case for this, there are also fears that it will be abused. And given the current "uber cap" capability that everyone will opt for max fighters with no questions asked. And there is a case for this as well. So that is kind of where things stand at this point. So until we have a fix for uber cap - the resizing probably stays like it is and I would suggest giving Hermes back her single swordfish group or giving her a second group of fighters.

Joe has forgotten that (in the old system at least) a CVL MUST have two squadrons. We (CHS and RHS) DO give Hermes 12 Swordfish - in two "squadrons" of 6 - and we (both Andrew and I) tried to do it as one - and it does not work. Similarly, some other vessels (notably CVS types) MUST have two squadrons. In general (again in the old system) a CV MUST have 3 squadrongs - unless it is US - when it may have 4 to begin with - and 4 at the end of the war - but 3 in the middile (Go figure). Maybe all this changed - but I missed the notice. Anyway - I see no reason for a Hermes unit to resize as WITPQS reported here. What could possibly cause code - or a code writer - to want both squadrons of a CVL to resize to 2 planes each? [explitive deteted]

[witpqs]

Sid,

Joe understands about two squadrons on a CVL, he pointed out in another message that the code expects to size things (something like) 60% fighters 40% bombers. It seems like that might be the code pathway happening.

[el cid again]

Yea - but the way he explains it does not make sense. He said 6 times .4 = 2.4 round to 2. But the .4 is of group size, not squadron size. Otherwise how would 60 plus 40 = 100? His theory does not explain what happened to you.
Does not matter - it is intolerable. We need to figure out how to avoid it - or not use 1.8 at all. Too many ill effects of this stuff.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Sid, please reread Don's post again. System wasnt changed in 1.8, only minor fix was done to carrier units landing in a base.

Name of ship 3586 "SN Razyashtchi": Разящий

Code: Select all

 Р а з я   щ   и й
 R A Z Ya Shch Y Y (last Y in most transcriptions is ommited)
 

so Razyashchy without T.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yea - but the way he explains it does not make sense. He said 6 times .4 = 2.4 round to 2. But the .4 is of group size, not squadron size. Otherwise how would 60 plus 40 = 100? His theory does not explain what happened to you.
Does not matter - it is intolerable. We need to figure out how to avoid it - or not use 1.8 at all. Too many ill effects of this stuff.

Sid you don't understand.

The calculation FOR EACH SQUADRON is based on total carrier capacity.

Hermes has a capacity of 20 (or 18??). With one fighter squadron and one bomber/toprpedo squadron the calculation is:
Fighter: .6 times 20 = 12
Bomber: .4 times 20 = 8.

If it had a single squadron, the factor is .9:
.9 times 20 = 18

The calculation does indeed truncate, so capacity 21 would be the same as capacity 20:
21 times .9 = 18.9 truncate to 18 (etc)

These calculations set the maximum aircraft value for each squadron. Normal resizing will take at least one day and maybe more to reset the squadron to this size.


witpqs

I am travelling and do not have access to my test facility. Please post a screenshot of one of the squadrons so I can see what you are seeing. If there is a problem, please retain your save until I get back in November.

[witpqs]

Don,

I didn't notice when they re-sized but I believe I can reproduce it at will with just 2-3 days of a new game. Contact me when you get back and I willl make one for you.

Also, FYI CVL Hermes (in RHS at least) has capacity 12. It begins populated with 2 x squadrons. Both squadrons are 6 x Swordfish torpedo planes (total 12 planes on board). No fighters.

[el cid again]

I have sent out all 12 Level 5 and 6 scenario file sets - which should appear in due course on the RHS site.

This includes a major update of Soviet Air Forces and ground infrastructures (so you can actually operate the planes).
With two exceptions, Soviet ground units support air divisions, rather than groups. [The exceptions are in places forever supply limited]. One unit - at a point that could never be supplied ever (except by air transports - which Russia had none of to start with) - was moved. Unit designations are converted to Russian language terms but using English letters rather than Cyrillic. All units except independent ones (which have the prefix O) have a division affiliation following the unit name: 216th/20 IAP is the 216th Fighter Air Regiment attached to 20th Division (we don't say what kind: it might be a fighter division with two or three fighter regiments, an assault division with only one fighter regiment, or a composite division with only one fighter regiment). We used every possible slot - and unless we find duplicate units to replace - additional units must come at the expense of something else.

It includes a good deal of eratta - nothing particularly critical - the most significant of which are probably elimination of duplicate units (RAF 8 Squadron is also RAF 200 Squadron - an error in stock, CHS, RHS, everything; two different versions of the same Chindit Brigade). Also we converted all Swordfish Squadrons to use the Swordfish I - which was in the data set but not implimented in the squadrons. The Toyoda engine is once again in use for Japan (don't get rid of those engine plants UNLESS you don't want the G7M1) - which I bet you do - it is probably the best torpedo bomber in the world.

There is a bit more work on Commonwealth units - but not much. More is required - but I felt enough here warranted release - and I need to do the CW for the Level 7 work anyway. Basically you picked up a reserve brigade earlier, and maybe a regiment or so otherwise (= battalion - you know how those Brits are with words like "regiment"). India is still understrength - but I have the data now (thanks to this Forum) - and just need to get it sorted out.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yea - but the way he explains it does not make sense. He said 6 times .4 = 2.4 round to 2. But the .4 is of group size, not squadron size. Otherwise how would 60 plus 40 = 100? His theory does not explain what happened to you.
Does not matter - it is intolerable. We need to figure out how to avoid it - or not use 1.8 at all. Too many ill effects of this stuff.

Sid you don't understand.

The calculation FOR EACH SQUADRON is based on total carrier capacity.

Hermes has a capacity of 20 (or 18??). With one fighter squadron and one bomber/toprpedo squadron the calculation is:
Fighter: .6 times 20 = 12
Bomber: .4 times 20 = 8.

If it had a single squadron, the factor is .9:
.9 times 20 = 18

The calculation does indeed truncate, so capacity 21 would be the same as capacity 20:
21 times .9 = 18.9 truncate to 18 (etc)

These calculations set the maximum aircraft value for each squadron. Normal resizing will take at least one day and maybe more to reset the squadron to this size.


witpqs

I am travelling and do not have access to my test facility. Please post a screenshot of one of the squadrons so I can see what you are seeing. If there is a problem, please retain your save until I get back in November.

Oddly enough, I do understand and we are saying the same thing. Ship capacity = air group size.
One confusion though: Hermes ship capacity is only 12. She was rated at 15 until 1935 and was once rated more than 20 - long before that. When she went over to "modern" Swordfish she could only handle 12! So both CHS and RHS rate her at 12.

The question is this: if 40% was of ship capacity - how did WITPQS end up with 2 planes per demi-squadron?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Sid, please reread Don's post again. System wasnt changed in 1.8, only minor fix was done to carrier units landing in a base.

Name of ship 3586 "SN Razyashtchi": Ðàçÿùèé

Code: Select all

 Ð à ç ÿ   ù   è é
 R A Z Ya Shch Y Y (last Y in most transcriptions is ommited)
 

so Razyashchy without T.

Too late for x.17 - but noted.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Don,

I didn't notice when they re-sized but I believe I can reproduce it at will with just 2-3 days of a new game. Contact me when you get back and I will make one for you.

Also, FYI CVL Hermes (in RHS at least) has capacity 12. It begins populated with 2 x squadrons. Both squadrons are 6 x Swordfish torpedo planes (total 12 planes on board). No fighters.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Oddly enough, I do understand and we are saying the same thing. Ship capacity = air group size.
One confusion though: Hermes ship capacity is only 12. She was rated at 15 until 1935 and was once rated more than 20 - long before that. When she went over to "modern" Swordfish she could only handle 12! So both CHS and RHS rate her at 12.

The question is this: if 40% was of ship capacity - how did WITPQS end up with 2 planes per demi-squadron?

We put a change into airgroup size calculation in 1.8 to support single squadron airgroups (specifically for Hermes, Hosho, and a few CVEs). For a reason that I no longer recall, we (I) set the calculation at 90%.

So, I'd recommend changing Hermes' airgroup to a single squadron (No. 814 if I recall) and setting the capacity to 14. (14 * .9 = 12.6 = 12). A capacity of 12 would only net 10.

I have no idea why witpqs is seeing the anomaly he describes. If both squadrons are Swordfish they should each get 40%. 12 * .4 = 4.8 = 4 so the max aircraft should be 4 each. Not historically correct but mathamatically so. I'd like to see his results.

[witpqs]

Well, since I'm getting 2 each that 2 + 2 = 4 (what a cliche!), so maybe the routine takes total # of the plane type into account?

[BigJ62]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well, since I'm getting 2 each that 2 + 2 = 4 (what a cliche!), so maybe the routine takes total # of the plane type into account?

It's almost like the routine thinks there is a fighter group onboard(.6) and whatever is left over is divided between the bomber groups .2 per group out of a truncated 10 or something.

[el cid again]

Oddly I once set the Hermes to only one squadron, but Andrew wrote it had to be two demi-squadrons for the resize routine (no doubt true at that time). If a CVL can have one squadron - that is fine - and if resize puts it at 90% - that is close enough to live with. We can say it simulates lost capacity if the group upgrades to bigger planes - which most of the time it will in games. In fact - rating it as 12 for Swordfish and 11 for something else is probably right anyway. We didn't understand the function was (greatest intiger). Joe had used in his example the (round off) function. But it is nice to know the real function - so we have more influence.

Still - the problem remains - what of other air groups and resizing. Is there a way to avoid it and not kill off all replacements forever? We have air groups that won't get along well with this code. What would it do with a recon unit? It isn't fighter, VT or VB. Then there is the matter that late war carriers appear with the correct groups - so why would we want to change them anyway?