Page 23 of 24
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:37 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: 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!
REPLY: I think you misunderstand the UK CVL case: she is not technically a CVL - she is a bit like Shinano - a repair ship! She repairs planes!
Otherwise, you have it pretty close: they were ferry planes. And it is not enough - never mind too much. IF you operate like the Allies did, these are very useful ships.
And you do NOT have to leave them without air groups either. I transfer planes to carriers all the time.
Wether it is the right amount or not - it is taken from Aircraft Carriers of the World - it is what they did. END of REPLY
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?).
Actually, I think the Cabot is an error - she is in the game twice. It depends on the scenario. In a CVO type scenario she is present with planes. In a BBO type scenario she is present under a different name as a CL. And in EOS she should be present with planes - maybe I un-9999ed the ship but failed to un-9999 the planes? When I get a machine working for WITP (tomorrow???) I will look at that.
RHSBBO (and RPO which is similar with passive Russian) assume different shipbuilding decisions - and so 3 CVLs appear as CLs (and a Japanese CVL appears as a CA). EOS is supposed to be like CVO for the Allies.
RE: Coronado
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:11 am
by witpqs
I've noticed that the PBY Coronado has reverted back to short range (6/8). A few releases ago you had updated it to be somewhat longer ranged than the Catalina.
RE: Carriers Cabot
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:13 am
by witpqs
In EOS it seems that there are two Cabots defined as carriers, one a CVL, one a CV. No idea which one is supposed to be there (or both?). I do not know about a CL Cabot, but I will look.
RE: Carriers Cabot
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:17 am
by Terminus
The Essex-class carrier Lexington was laid down as Cabot, being subsequently renamed Lexington.
RE: Carriers Cabot
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:43 am
by el cid again
USS Cabot was originally a CL - all these CVLs were converted cruisers.
It did not have that name, and RHS uses the historical name for the cruiser - which I cannot look up where I am. [EDIT USS Wilmington]
I need to check the concept of two USS Cabots out - or even three (in the form of a different named CL) -
before I release 4.14 - which has now repaired most of the issues noted (which were valid) - including most of the Chinese army planning points and the formations of two Australian tank battalions. Thanks for pointing this out.
OK - RHSBBO, RHSRPO and RHSPPO were right: no CVL - no air squadrons for it. RHSCVO, RHSRAO and RHSEOS were wrong - yes CVL but still no air groups - will be fixed in 4.14 - which will release as soon as I fix all the Chinese units planning fields. Looks like ALL scenarios have the CV Cabot - which must be a rename of an Essex - it should have some other name.
EDIT: USS Cabot was originally CV-28 - later redesignated CVL-28 - there was apparently not an Essex type USS Cabot - but RHS uses ORIGINAL names for Essex - and it may be one of these was Cabot? I am not sure why I have a CV and a CVL - running it down.
OK - USS Lexington (the second) was originally USS Cabot (the first)!!!
RHS uses original Essex names - so we have a problem in three scenarios. No problem in BBO, RAO or PPO - there is no CVL Cabot!
But in CVO, EOS and RPO we need a different name - so we will use USS Wilmington! Thanks .
RE: Carriers Cabot
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:47 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Essex-class carrier Lexington was laid down as Cabot, being subsequently renamed Lexington.
Correct. Note that in RHS all the Essex class CV are given their ORIGINAL names - so we will retain this convention here. This does cause a conflict in the case of CABOT - so the CVL - in the 3 scenarios that use it - will from now on call her by her original name - Wilmington.
Players complained about not getting all the Essex carriers in CHS and stock. And if we don't use the respawn rule, we cannot know what ships are sunk - risking duplicated names. So we use the original names - and you don't have a problem - except you may not know which ship is intended in history without looking it up.
RE: Coronado
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:48 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
I've noticed that the PBY Coronado has reverted back to short range (6/8). A few releases ago you had updated it to be somewhat longer ranged than the Catalina.
I fixed this as you say - and it somehow got lost. I will fix it again. This also involves increasing the weapons load of Coronado. It is a virtual heavy bomber - of the flying boat variety - a sort of American Emily. A fine plane - if you let her have her true range - which is 2310 miles.
RHS 4.14 [Eratta; Chinese Army planning]
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:04 pm
by el cid again
I am uploading (only to a very few) the 4.14 - since I do not have my regular list (not being home).
This includes various eratta I found or which were reported - and a total revision of Chinese (ROC and PLA) planning - which was very wrong. That was painful - too many slots for fun.
The USS Cabot CVL - in the 3 scenarios in which it appears - is called USS Wilmington. This because in those same scenarios there is a USS Cabot of Essex class - we use ORIGINAL names - and an Essex was so named. Also, the USS Cabot air group will appear with the ship (where appropriate - when the ship does). The other 3 scenarios have USS Wilmington in her CL form.
Australian Army tank units (2nd and 3rd) now point at the right formation and will get their tanks. 1st is reorganized - it won't lose its original tanks when it gets the standard ones. These units are very weak and build up to their correct values (too fast - but it is the best we can do).
The Coronado has (for the second time) had its range extended - not sure how it lost it ? It is a fine plane.
Other minor eratta - particularly of the supply sort - and a few command assignments - corrected.
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:12 pm
by CobraAus
RHS v4.14 posted on download link page
Cobra Aus
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:24 pm
by drw61
Just a couple of small things I've seen for RHSCVO/RHSBBO
Ship slot 4226 is coming up as a Ognyevoi DD, the slot is the header for the PG’s. (it arrives in Tokyo).
Locations Slot 2839 for the US Army 111th base force has IS-III Heavy Tanks in slot 3 (should be device 403 not 503).
(I personally think this is a great upgrade but all my other base forces are fighting over them) [:D]
The bit map for the Alaska class BC is set to 205 which is the Omaha class CL picture. The Omaha class uses bit map 204, which is correct.
Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this mod, I'm really enjoying it.
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:00 am
by el cid again
The
ORIGINAL: drw61
Just a couple of small things I've seen for RHSCVO/RHSBBO
Ship slot 4226 is coming up as a Ognyevoi DD, the slot is the header for the PG’s. (it arrives in Tokyo).
Locations Slot 2839 for the US Army 111th base force has IS-III Heavy Tanks in slot 3 (should be device 403 not 503).
(I personally think this is a great upgrade but all my other base forces are fighting over them) [:D]
The bit map for the Alaska class BC is set to 205 which is the Omaha class CL picture. The Omaha class uses bit map 204, which is correct.
Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this mod, I'm really enjoying it.
The latter issue is indeed an issue. So it has been fixed. The former one makes no sense to me at all - and might be bad files. This isn't a Soviet ship at all - but a Japanese one - with a different name. OK - got it - and fixed it. It is a label slot - but when you set it to 000 it reverted to class slot 4226. Every time. So I copied a different label - and renamed it PG - and that stays 000.
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:48 pm
by Jo van der Pluym
El Cid
I have find the following errors.
British Indian anzac etc units have in youre scenario's the 45mm AT Gun. Must that not be 2pdr AT Gun.
device slot 517 Overvalwagen has build rate
And if you need device slots under 517. Then have I the following suggestions.
The following device can replace above 517
1. slot 460 355mm CD Gun. No build rate
There is no unit who use this equipment.
2. slot 461 15in CD Gun. No build rate
Only 2402 Singapore Fort use this.
3. slot 462 12in CD Gun. No build rate
Only 2655 US Mills/Hughes/Wint; 2672 HI Seperate CA Brig; 2714 USA San Francisco and 2719 US Army Puget Sound use this.
4. slot 490 Marmon-Hrringtn Tank. No build rate
Only 2458 KNIL Mobiele Einheid has it.
Mayby can you add for these the following device.
- Late War Dutch Rifle Squad
- Early and Lat War Canadian Rifle Squad.
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:24 pm
by CobraAus
RHS v4.15 for all scenarios + PWHEX file posted on download link page
Cobra Aus
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:01 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
El Cid
I have find the following errors.
British Indian anzac etc units have in youre scenario's the 45mm AT Gun. Must that not be 2pdr AT Gun.
REPLY: Yes - and I have fixed that - TWICE. I am beginning to wonder if we have a code issue -
some fields CHANGE under hard code control. I will check.
EDIT: Mostly no. But 1st and 2nd Burma Rifles had it - and that is wrong. So sometimes yes. Thanks.
device slot 517 Overvalwagen has build rate
REPLY: Should not. Did in CHS - but it was a fixed buy and I set it to zero - also twice. Ugh.
EDIT: Nope. It is NOT a build rate - it is a pool. And the pool is perfect- the real number - it is in a book
I have - so I used it.
And if you need device slots under 517. Then have I the following suggestions.
The following device can replace above 517
1. slot 460 355mm CD Gun. No build rate
There is no unit who use this equipment.
REPLY: I don't remember. I found many unused devices - and many false devices - and removed them all.
This one probably remains because it IS used somewhere. But maybe it is one that "reappeared" for
some reason. Will look.
2. slot 461 15in CD Gun. No build rate
Only 2402 Singapore Fort use this.
REPLY: Right on all counts. SHOULD be no build rate - none can be made. It is only for the Singapore forts.
3. slot 462 12in CD Gun. No build rate
Only 2655 US Mills/Hughes/Wint; 2672 HI Seperate CA Brig; 2714 USA San Francisco and 2719 US Army Puget Sound use this.
REPLY: Right on all counts. It is an old gun not in production and should not build. But guns in stock can be used as replacements.
4. slot 490 Marmon-Hrringtn Tank. No build rate
Only 2458 KNIL Mobiele Einheid has it.
REPLY: Right - also correct. It is in the game for that reason - and no other - and no one would consider building any by WWII.
Mayby can you add for these the following device.
- Late War Dutch Rifle Squad
- Early and Lat War Canadian Rifle Squad.
REPLY: There is a Dutch Rifle Squad - and a Dutch Marine Squad - and a Canadian Rifle Squad. I think sometimes these will upgrade too - to late British or something like that.
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:50 pm
by Jo van der Pluym
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
El Cid
I have find the following errors.
British Indian anzac etc units have in youre scenario's the 45mm AT Gun. Must that not be 2pdr AT Gun.
REPLY: Yes - and I have fixed that - TWICE. I am beginning to wonder if we have a code issue -
some fields CHANGE under hard code control. I will check.
EDIT: Mostly no. But 1st and 2nd Burma Rifles had it - and that is wrong. So sometimes yes. Thanks.
There are more errors with the Allied AT-weapons.
By locations
1. Some US units has 2pdr AT-Gun. Must be 37mm AT-Gun
2. The 45mm AT-Gun as known by Australian/New Zealand etc. Must be 2pdr AT-Gun
By Devices:
1. The 2pdr AT-Gun upgrade to 57mm M1 AT-Gun Must be 6pdr AT-Gun
2. The 45mm AT-Gun upgrade to 6pdr AT-Gun. Must no upgrade. The 45mm still exist in the 50ties
3. The 37mm M3 AT-Gun does not upgrade. Must be upgrade to 57mm M1 AT-Gun.
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:57 pm
by Jo van der Pluym
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
El Cid
REPLY: There is a Dutch Rifle Squad - and a Dutch Marine Squad - and a Canadian Rifle Squad. I think sometimes these will upgrade too - to late British or something like that.
I have look. There is no late war Dutch Rifle Squad. And there are no Canadian Squads
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:06 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
El Cid
REPLY: There is a Dutch Rifle Squad - and a Dutch Marine Squad - and a Canadian Rifle Squad. I think sometimes these will upgrade too - to late British or something like that.
I have look. There is no late war Dutch Rifle Squad. And there are no Canadian Squads
The Canadian Squads are now Commonwealth Rifle Squads. And there is both a Dutch Rifle Squad and a Dutch Marine Squad - but neither upgrade. I had the impression you liked these squads as well. The Marine squad is a late war organization - so we could make it a late war Dutch Squad - and have the early one upgrade to it. Is that correct in terms of weapons?
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:06 pm
by turkey1
EL CID
V4.15 in RHS BBO and RHS CVO ( could be all scenarios)
ALL Jap subs YU series have no torpedo armament just a schnorkel
ALL Jap LSMs have 150 AIRCRAFT capacity ( should be cargo capacity ?)
Jap minelayers MA1 MA2 MA3 MA4 appear twice in the ship availability list]
Thanks
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:09 pm
by turkey1
RHS 4.15 all scenarios
Why do CW squads have an anti armour value of 75
Anti armour for late war Anzac and British squads anti armour also 75
These values are higher than US & russian squads . What weapon is generating these high anti armour values ?
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:18 pm
by turkey1
Cobra
RHS scenarios V 4.15
G4M2m22 Betty ( whatever that is ?) has no plane side graphic.
Thanks