Page 22 of 24
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:19 am
by Bliztk
No.52 Squadron RAF (device 1396) has a delay of 40715, should be 4x0715
No.211 Squadron RAF (device 1430) has a delay of 4210120
AA 7th AIF Div (Device 2852) has as parent HQ 214 = USSR Pacific O Fleet
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:42 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Bliztk
No.52 Squadron RAF (device 1396) has a delay of 40715, should be 4x0715
REPLY : Should be 45 = 1945
No.211 Squadron RAF (device 1430) has a delay of 4210120
REPLY: So it seems: corrected.
AA 7th AIF Div (Device 2852) has as parent HQ 214 = USSR Pacific O Fleet
REPLY: This is true in 3 of 6 scenarios - it should be parent HQ 104 - and will be.
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:51 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
In RHS EOS 4.12, the two air groups on the CVL Hermes have reverted back to maximum size of '2'. In recent versions thay had been increased to '6' each (capacity of Hermes is 12 a/c).
Slot 2217 - FAA 1 Flt/814 Sqdn
Slot 2218 - FAA 2 Flt/814 Sqdn
Something is wrong with your file copy: None of the 6 scenarios has this issue.
RE: RHS EOS 4.12 Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:55 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Noticed something strange near Vladivostok (which is hex 65,33).
In hex 66,33 - which is a land-locked hex behind the city - there is a static CD unit 100% prepped for Vladivostok.
There are other units in the same hex, all prepping for Vladivostok (but they are mobile and can be adjusted by the player). Below is a list of all the units in hex 66,33.
Slot/Unit
2194 USSR 102nd Regional Fortress - CD
2198 USSR 549th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2197 USSR 199th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2196 USSR 273rd Gun Regiment - ART
2195 USSR 50th Gun Regiment - ART
2190 USSR 59th Rifle Division - INF
2189 USSR 39th Rifle Division - INF
I am not sure if this is an issue or not? The code cannot show a non-location hex directly, so it shows the "nearest" location. Perhaps they cannot plan to defend their hex? This is common for static fortification devices in RHS - we set them to be planned for local defense. It needs to be examined in some detail.
2182 USSR 58th Tank Brigade - ARM
I only confirm this issue for 2194 - the other slots have zero planning. On the other hand, other "fortress" units are the same. For safety I set them to zero - until we understand this setting is OK.
RE: RHS EOS 4.10 Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:08 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Sid,
I should have bolded this to make it stand out since it was a copy with addition from a previous message.
ORIGINAL: witpqs
- KGV class battleships point to the wrong art (they point to the correct art in CVO). KGV class 187 points to bitmap 183, should point to bitmap 187.
This was right in CVO and RAO, but wrong in the others.
RE: RHS 4.07 Series (tested case by case)
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:10 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog
4.08 Scen 60 - In Japanese Wake Island TF on Dec 7, 4 Cl and 6 DD. No AP ot ground pounders.
In another WITP copy it has 3 CL 6 DD 2 AP and Maizuru 2nd SNLF.
Did not find Maizuru 2nd SNLF in unit list.
Probably that is why no ground combat on Wake on Dec 7
The stock game, CHS and most RHS scenarios assign an NLF to Wake.
RHSEOS is different - it assigned the Maizuru 2nd SNLF - and supported them better. This is supposed to be a Japan enhansed scenario - with better planning.
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:15 pm
by el cid again
OK -
There are some eratta in some scenarios - so I will issue a correction for anyone who wants it. It is called 4.13.
The worst case may be the I - 1 Shotai - a two plane unit of E16A1 for a late war Type AM submarine. This submarine only exists in 2 RHS scenarios - and in others the air group should be 9999ed out. It is not and the group may appear on land: I have not found it myself - it will be anywhere AI wants to put it. The unit should not be used before 10/43.
Some other Glen groups of one plane may appear on land - no problem if they do - in scenarios where attack subs are built in leiu of aircraft carrier subs.
RE: RHS 4.07 Series (tested case by case)
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
by Ol_Dog
Yes, my point was in Scen 60 (CVO) there were no troops assigned to Wake - iust a transport TF of CLs and DDs
RE: RHS EOS 4.12 Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:29 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Noticed something strange near Vladivostok (which is hex 65,33).
In hex 66,33 - which is a land-locked hex behind the city - there is a static CD unit 100% prepped for Vladivostok.
There are other units in the same hex, all prepping for Vladivostok (but they are mobile and can be adjusted by the player). Below is a list of all the units in hex 66,33.
Slot/Unit
2194 USSR 102nd Regional Fortress - CD
2198 USSR 549th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2197 USSR 199th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2196 USSR 273rd Gun Regiment - ART
2195 USSR 50th Gun Regiment - ART
2190 USSR 59th Rifle Division - INF
2189 USSR 39th Rifle Division - INF
I am not sure if this is an issue or not? The code cannot show a non-location hex directly, so it shows the "nearest" location. Perhaps they cannot plan to defend their hex? This is common for static fortification devices in RHS - we set them to be planned for local defense. It needs to be examined in some detail.
2182 USSR 58th Tank Brigade - ARM
I only confirm this issue for 2194 - the other slots have zero planning. On the other hand, other "fortress" units are the same. For safety I set them to zero - until we understand this setting is OK.
Perhaps you misunderstand my comment - It is the positioning of the
CD unit in a landlocked hex that I presume to be an error. The other information I provided for your convenience in looking at the issue.
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:33 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
In RHS EOS 4.12, the two air groups on the CVL Hermes have reverted back to maximum size of '2'. In recent versions thay had been increased to '6' each (capacity of Hermes is 12 a/c).
Slot 2217 - FAA 1 Flt/814 Sqdn
Slot 2218 - FAA 2 Flt/814 Sqdn
Something is wrong with your file copy: None of the 6 scenarios has this issue.
I copied 4.12 (all files, all scenarios) right from your email messages and then started a new game with it. Maybe you are looking at a different file than you sent out? [&:]
Just to be clear (in case I wasn't), my message is that (presumably) each of the two squadrons should be max size 6, but are instead max size 2 in EOS v4.12.
I will look at the next version you send out.
EDIT: Okay, I checked and this is fixed in 4.13.
RE: Scenario Screen
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:11 pm
by witpqs
Sid,
This is just FYI in case it helps you track down any file issue.
Under 4.12, all but one scenario said '4.12' on the scenario screen. The other one said '4.11' (sorry but I forget which one).
Now, under 4.13, all six scenarios say '4.11'.
As I said, this is just FYI in case it helps you.
RE: RHS 4.07 Series (tested case by case)
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:42 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog
Yes, my point was in Scen 60 (CVO) there were no troops assigned to Wake - iust a transport TF of CLs and DDs
OK - Go to Location File slot 1121 (51 Naval Guard Unit)
and check the planning field: it is for Wake. Also check the load unit field: it is for the Wake Island Invasion Force. In 104 tests, the problem with this is not that it does not go - it is that it does not survive more than a few days: If you don't support this unit, it dies - just as in history!
You can see this unit planning in the game too - in the lower right side of the 51st Naval Guard Unit screen.
RE: RHS EOS 4.12 Errata
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:45 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Noticed something strange near Vladivostok (which is hex 65,33).
In hex 66,33 - which is a land-locked hex behind the city - there is a static CD unit 100% prepped for Vladivostok.
There are other units in the same hex, all prepping for Vladivostok (but they are mobile and can be adjusted by the player). Below is a list of all the units in hex 66,33.
Slot/Unit
2194 USSR 102nd Regional Fortress - CD
2198 USSR 549th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2197 USSR 199th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2196 USSR 273rd Gun Regiment - ART
2195 USSR 50th Gun Regiment - ART
2190 USSR 59th Rifle Division - INF
2189 USSR 39th Rifle Division - INF
I am not sure if this is an issue or not? The code cannot show a non-location hex directly, so it shows the "nearest" location. Perhaps they cannot plan to defend their hex? This is common for static fortification devices in RHS - we set them to be planned for local defense. It needs to be examined in some detail.
2182 USSR 58th Tank Brigade - ARM
I only confirm this issue for 2194 - the other slots have zero planning. On the other hand, other "fortress" units are the same. For safety I set them to zero - until we understand this setting is OK.
Perhaps you misunderstand my comment - It is the positioning of the
CD unit in a landlocked hex that I presume to be an error. The other information I provided for your convenience in looking at the issue.
OK - I looked at this a couple of times before. The ENTIRE Soviet border area on BOTH sides has LOTS of static forts classified as "CD" units. Some also have naval guns! They work fine. It is deliberate and it is from stock. We just follow this practice - and added the special 410 cm gun at Houtou Fort for example.
RE: Scenario Screen
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:49 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Sid,
This is just FYI in case it helps you track down any file issue.
Under 4.12, all but one scenario said '4.12' on the scenario screen. The other one said '4.11' (sorry but I forget which one).
Now, under 4.13, all six scenarios say '4.11'.
As I said, this is just FYI in case it helps you.
OK - I sent out 4.13 twice - the second time saying I had failed to update the series 60 files used for distribution (I work in series 30 files).
This indicates the distribution was wrong. I create a separate note in the comment file saying the version number. Also, separately, the gross version number (the last digit may be missing) is in the camxxx.dat file - because I put it in a line of the Scenario Editor naming the scenario.
Since I have found some things wrong with unit planning I will issue a 4.14 before I leave. Just looking for more eratta to include. For example, a single ROC corps has a single squad - of Aussies! [Mercinaries?]
RE: Scenario Screen
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:27 pm
by Bliztk
Device 1028 USSR 249th Fighter has as HQ 871 "IJN Kainan SNLF" Should be 128 USSR Far East Command
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:09 pm
by witpqs
In latest RHS EOS (4.13), The following Allied carriers are slated to arrive with no aircraft. Is this intended (the a/c arrive on land?) or is it an error?
CVE - USN
Long Island
Nassau
Copahee
Barnes
Breton
Prince William
Alava Bay
Alazon Bay
Natoma Bay
Chapin Bay
Tananek Bay
Takanis Bay
Thetis Bay
Ulitak Bay
Windham Bay
Didrickson Bay
Tonowek Bay
Kasaan Bay
Vermillion Bay
Willipa Bay*
Frosty Bay
Hobart Bay*
Elbour Bay
CVE - UK
Arbiter
Striker
Activity
Ruler
Begum*
CVL - USN
Cabot
CVL - UK
Unicorn
CV - UK
Illustrious*
* The 4 carriers with the asterisk have 1 squadron each (grossly under-populated).
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:09 pm
by Bliztk
AA 3rd Tank Bn and 2nd Tank Bn have a TOE of a Philiphine Infantry Company.
All of the RAAF Australian Base Forces have a TOE of a Coastal Battery...
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:21 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Bliztk
AA 3rd Tank Bn and 2nd Tank Bn have a TOE of a Philiphine Infantry Company.
Didn't know that. Seems wrong! When I get a system working it will change. Down for now. - traveling.
All of the RAAF Australian Base Forces have a TOE of a Coastal Battery...
This is apparently correct - it is strait up CHS at least. We found two errors - important ones - and CHS and RHS changed them at PM and Rabaul.
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:22 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
In latest RHS EOS (4.13), The following Allied carriers are slated to arrive with no aircraft. Is this intended (the a/c arrive on land?) or is it an error?
CVE - USN
Long Island
Nassau
Copahee
Barnes
Breton
Prince William
Alava Bay
Alazon Bay
Natoma Bay
Chapin Bay
Tananek Bay
Takanis Bay
Thetis Bay
Ulitak Bay
Windham Bay
Didrickson Bay
Tonowek Bay
Kasaan Bay
Vermillion Bay
Willipa Bay*
Frosty Bay
Hobart Bay*
Elbour Bay
CVE - UK
Arbiter
Striker
Activity
Ruler
Begum*
CVL - USN
Cabot
CVL - UK
Unicorn
CV - UK
Illustrious*
* The 4 carriers with the asterisk have 1 squadron each (grossly under-populated).
OK - ignoring Illustrious - this is all right. It is a major RHS reform that carriers with no groups are used that way. Illustrious varies with scenario. Back later.
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:44 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: el cid again
OK - ignoring Illustrious - this is all right. It is a major RHS reform that carriers with no groups are used that way. Illustrious varies with scenario. Back later.
Thanks for the reply. Could you please explain what this means (bolded above)? Were these carriers used with a/c transferred in from land arrivals? I thought that carriers without airgroups were used for:
1) ferrying aircraft
2) target practice - by the enemy!
Anyway, there are somthing like 20 USN CVE's (not counting Long island) plus 1 USN CVL without a/c, plus 4 UK CVE and 1 UK CVL, and that seems like more than is needed for ferry duty.
Also, I went in and looked at the db, CVL Cabot's a/c are delay=9999, so that one seems to be an error (Cabot did have an airgroup, yes?).