Matrix Games Forums

Device 212

This device almost certainly is the Mark 29 bomb which weighs 500 pounds vice 400 pounds.

It contains 90 bomblets of roughly 2 pounds (1.8 pounds).

Device 211, described as a 100 pound bomb, is almost certainly the Mark 28, which indeed weighs
100 pounds.

Device 197 is new. It is a 50 kg German BSK bomb containing 36 1 kg bomblets.

Otherwise, we are converting the former "ground support packages" to
Ground and City Bombing Packages (of four HE bombs of various sizes from 20 pounds to 242 kg).
UNLESS a bomber uses the ICB packages listed above (which is rare), it generally will use
the Ground and City Bombing package of appropriate size for its bomb bay.

The exceptions are

The B-25G Mitchell ICB, the B-29B Superfort ICB, the RAF Lancaster PFF and the Ki-80 Helen ICB. These will use
the same ICB used for most land attacks on cities as well. The Mitchell and Helen can still
make ground support attacks. The B-29B cannot - due to doctrine and control by a separate
air force dedicated to strategic rather than tactical bombing. [On that basis, it likely should
not have an anti-naval capability either, but we cannot know if in a game Japan might not still have
significant ship assets late in the war - so the capability was left in].

RHS Comprehensive Update 4.08

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update only includes changes in scenario and documentation files.
Most of the work was another complete rework of bomb filters - so that
city bombing works reasonably. The general solution involved using the
former composite "ground attack package devices," unaltered but renamed
"ground and city attack packages." These work around a code problem
we cannot fix directly rendering ground and city attacks at least 16 times
too effective. Now they are in the ball part (but at least one tester
thinks still somewhat too high based on his study of bombing in real life).

There were changes to aircraft, class, device, group, location and ship files.

There were changes to aircraft documentation files.

This work included a good deal of analysis and reworking of two special cases:

incendiary bombers (there are four basic kinds - B-25G, B-29B, RAF Lancaster PFF,
and Ki-80) if used for city bombing are do NOT use the composite devices described
above. Instead, they use actual incendiary bomb devices - one (new) Axis type -
two Allied types. [One of the two Allied devices is, however, reworked - described
as a 400 pound weapon in stock, it really weighed 500 pounds. That forced changing
all the loadouts using it.]

biological warfare bombers (there are two basic types; The "Unit 731 Light plane"
is retained from before - but now remains in production for longer than one month;
it is considered the primary type and if players want more they can build more; and
a different type described below). The Unit 731 Light Aircraft" represents a number of
civilian light planes, and is unarmed, slow, and has very little durability. It is
not suitable for use in contested airspace, and we were forced to model the effects of
its 25 kg "Uji" ceramic bombs up front - all the casualties over the next few days occur
on day one. The bombs carry about 30,000 fleas that "vector" (deliver) anthrax by biting.
The ceramic bombs disappear on impact, leaving no trace, and not harming the fleas.

We used to allow a BW version of the Ki-36 on the basis that it is a military light plane suitable
for such application if Japan wanted to mass produce a military BW bomber in the same league as
the civilian aircraft of Unit 731. But I decided there is no reason to do that: the light plane
is actually slightly better in most senses, even if unarmed. Instead, I decided to model the other
Japanese military BW bomber. In real life this was a balloon system, launched by two submarines -
both B-1 types with aircraft hangers. Curiously, they did NOT store the balloons in the hanger,
and designed a special kind that could be loaded via a normal hatch in the deck. But it is very
hard to model an unguided balloon and its "effective range" is about that of the Glen. So I created
a BW only version of the Glen, and issue it to the "air groups" of one plane on each submarine on the day
they were commissioned (31 August, 1943). By then, the performance of the Glen is such that its prospects
for success in daylight are dim, but it MIGHT sneak in at night on a city sized target and at least survive
long enough to drop its bombs. If it survives, it could repeat the process, simulating an attack by "another
balloon." Such limited performance aircraft in limited numbers are not important to the game. They are pure
chrome - present only to model in some basic sense a real capability which had no hope of winning battles.
The head of the Army BW program, on the occasion of the Soviet invasion, decided that to use BW weapons would
only make things worse - the Allies might decide to take extreme measures in retaliation. He was right - they
were not going to win - even though he had enough anthrax in theory to wipe out the population of the planet.
They failed to develop effective delivery systems - for example larger, faster, bombers armed for self defense.

A different rework was done for what might be called "the Japanese Me-262" - variously known as "Kikka" or "Kikutsa"
in three variations. A trainer that can be a light fighter bomber, a pure (unarmed but fast high altitude) bomber,
and eventually, a proper fighter bomber - all ultra short range due to the limitations of the engines developed
in Japan. But delivering an 800 kg bomb might matter! This was done because of discovery of considerable technical
data related to these aircraft. Curiously, the trainer actually entered production even though the first flight
of a prototype was not until 7 August, 1945. The design was fairly sound - the trainer could have been used.
Again, this is more chrome - not likely to matter unless Japan has functioning industry in mid and late 1945 and early
1946. [RHS scenarios usually end in 1946]

Some land units were better aligned with their formations. Some ship eratta was corrected. Some location eratta
was also folded in.

Will any of Andy's Ironman mods work with the RHSAIO

Straight answer, I don't think so. Andy's scripts are written for AE not RHS. I know they are both based on AE but RHS is completely different....GP

Thank You

I have been doing a cursory review of some of the RHS carrier aircraft carrier capacities and find them short in various degrees, especially when it comes to upgrades. Should any care to compare here is an excellent site from actual records of the time

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... ar-ii.html

Buck

I seem to be having issues in playing the RHS mod, i have it installed on a seperate drive to my Vanilla WITP:AE.

First issue, is that my usual shortcut fix is not working ( "D:\War In The Pacific RHS MOD\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -altFont -fixedArt -noFire -w -px1920 -py1080 ), the game will launch in the wrong resolution.

Second, when i try to launch a game using the A.I oriented scenario the game crashes upon the loading screen ( can't actually enter a game ).

Help ha.

Thank you.

Does the -w windowed mode actually support specific resolutions defined by players? Tr to run the game in -w mode without the -px1920 -py1080.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Does the -w windowed mode actually support specific resolutions defined by players? Tr to run the game in -w mode without the -px1920 -py1080.

Yes it does, I run mine at 2540 x 1530( native is 2560 x 1600 )

RHS Comprehensive Update 4.09

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update only includes changes in scenario and documentation files.

The only documentation file change is the RHS Ship Bind List.
This list is useful for ANY modder because it has stock binds -
at least - unless they are wrong. [Data entry using volunteers with
no supervision reviewing them produces files with many errors]

The scenario file changes are to aircraft, class and ship files.

The only ship change is for AP, CVE, and AKV versions of Shinyo
(previously named Scharnhorst - a German Ocean Liner). The changes
are related to armament and to the conversion or upgrade options.

These are complicated. I should review ALL bind list options - purging the
records of the many errata - both stock and my own. It is a very confusing
feature of code. Some people - including me years ago - misunderstood how
to make these work. Never mind one could convert a ship back and forth between
forms - and carriers in particular CAN DO THAT (becoming very efficient transports)
- it is dangerous to code it that way. If an AP can become a CVE - fine. But
if the CVE and AKV and AP all share the same bind number, a player might elect
to convert to an AKV in just a few days - instead of taking half a year to convert
to a CVE. Next, the player could convert the AKV to a CVE. [In RHS, AKV's are
modeled on real world use of CVEs as transports. They have very large troop and
cargo capacity in addition to transporting non-carrier aircraft that unload without
needing re-assembly = "damaged." But when stripped of their aircraft support equipment
and maintenance crews, and given extra messing and birthing facilities, they are not
suitable for use as carriers.]

There is also a change to a Japanese Navy aircraft so it uses Navy type machine guns
rather than Army type machine guns.

Certainly not.

RHS/AE Level II has its own enhanced version of Andrew Brown's extended map system.
[RHS/AE Level I uses the stock map system]

The pwhexe.dat, pwzlink.dat, and pwzone.dat files are not compatible.

As well, if you do not use the (non-hex) maps provided by RHS, you will lose a vast
amount of player information. Such as where the ice is in the Winter. And the names
of roads, railroads, or other things of interest. NO OTHER MOD has swamp, or mountain,
or other errors corrected. NO OTHER MOD uses the actual transit distances between off
map links. [Only four of Andrew's links match standard shipping distance tables used for
marine navigation.]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Will any of Andy's Ironman mods work with the RHSAIO

This is quite deliberate - and strictly historical - in a technical sense. Back in pre AE days there
were extensive Forum discussions with Mifune and I advocating a realistic system.

The technical problem is that the USN in particular used something called "deck parks" which permit
what might be called "extra planes" on an aircraft carrier. But these planes - unable to fit in a hanger -
would be lost in bad weather. Because of that, a commander would NOT go into bad weather and lose, say,
35% of the aircraft. There is NO way to model that in game terms. Players go where they please, oblivious
to the weather, and with zero penalty if they run into a storm. We ONLY use hanger capacity, period.

A different problem occurs with the Midway class. The HANGER capacity is TOO LARGE. In 1945 terms (it changes
over time as aircraft "grow" in size), Midway could carry 135 aircraft. But lacking an angled flight deck, it
could not OPERATE that many. If it tried, it would take too long to assemble an air strike, and the lead planes
would not have enough fuel for the nominal operational range required. So we rate the ships at 120 - their
effective operational strength. The goal here is to have the game model realistic and typical numbers rather
than maximum theoretical numbers.

Note that there is a bit of fudge in the rating. Code permits you to conduct flight operations until you
have one more than 7/6 of the rated capacity. So our Midway actually works if you have 120/6 x 7 = 140 planes.
That is actually MORE than its 135 hanger capacity. And far more realistic than giving the ship a rating of
135, which would mean players could operate 158 aircraft!

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I have been doing a cursory review of some of the RHS carrier aircraft carrier capacities and find them short in various degrees, especially when it comes to upgrades. Should any care to compare here is an excellent site from actual records of the time

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/h ... ar-ii.html

Buck

I will test Scenario 122 to insure that it works at source. This is really only used as a test scenario -
AI is misnamed and isn't intelligent - so it is a poor opponent. RHS uses stock script - so it is just
as good (or bad) as stock if AI controls the game.

FYI ONLY AI as Japan comes close to working, and only for the first few months of the war. AI as Allies
is more or less hopeless.

Screen resolution is a local problem. I can specify any resolution - and do use different ones on different
machines. It is sometimes difficult to get the right combination.

But it is possible ArtFixed does not work with RHS. I do not know about it and never tested using it.
And we do NOT use normal art.

ORIGINAL: XTRG

I seem to be having issues in playing the RHS mod, i have it installed on a seperate drive to my Vanilla WITP:AE.

First issue, is that my usual shortcut fix is not working ( "D:\War In The Pacific RHS MOD\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -altFont -fixedArt -noFire -w -px1920 -py1080 ), the game will launch in the wrong resolution.

Second, when i try to launch a game using the A.I oriented scenario the game crashes upon the loading screen ( can't actually enter a game ).

Help ha.

Thank you.

It appears that the resolutions that will work depend on the graphics adaptor in a specific machine.
Many theoretical combinations - including those I prefer (1920x1200) do NOT work on most machines - but
do on some.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Does the -w windowed mode actually support specific resolutions defined by players? Tr to run the game in -w mode without the -px1920 -py1080.

Appears that this thread on another site adds some support to your analogy.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/debunki ... htx5p9loo2

Given the actual historical "Air Group and Aircraft" records on the previously submitted link, one wonders how many A/C were lost to storms and deck storage.

Thank you for your response.

Buck

Sid...I have played pretty much nothing but CHS and RHS for the last 10 years, (give or take), concerning WITP and AE.
Of course I enjoy every bit of map and unit correctness you have managed, but I am not on board with the four seasons.

Is it possible for you to release the files which for simplicity sake will just leave the ports accessible?

I believe I am referring to the PWHEXE.DAT...PWZLINK.DAT and PWZONE.DAT files?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

These files ARE public. Use the link for the RHS installer. Just go to the PWHEXE & PWLINK folder.

The base start of game files are for Winter season = December. In these MANY ports in the North are closed
and will NEVER open if you don't change seasons. But it is in my view quite wrong to allow one to sail to any point
that is iced in during winter. IF you really want to compromise with a stock like map for ports, THEN DO NOT
use the start of game pwhexe.dat file in RHS. INSTEAD, copy and rename the 42MONSOON file. This is essentially
identical to the stock map, but corrected and expanded to include some off map areas and many rivers. You will LOSE
a lot of functionality re the USSR - its Arctic access will never be what it should be in Fall - so changing ships
between theaters in some cases becomes awkward. You can sail from Murmansk around the world, however, and still
reach the Pacific eventually. The NW Passage is essentially useless - just present as chrome - only one ship made
the passage during the war - a Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner. She actually was the first ship to
circumnavigate North America and is in the game purely as chrome - of no import and can function well enough
without the passage. But the interior river system of the USSR is only fully functional in Fall. So you lose that.

Oddly, the upper Irrawaddy is NOT navigable in Monsoon - due to TOO MUCH water! You will be stuck with that.
The narrow canyons above Mandalay prevent navigation when the flow is too fast.

Failure to use the seasons has a far greater impact. You will NEVER get new roads or railroads.
Andrew Brown compromised - one map for the entire war. RHS start of game map GETS RID OF roads and railroads
NOT present in 1941. You will NEVER get the ones build in the war if you don't update the seasonal files. This
is a LOT. I don't think the game is playable in later years without these in several places. Logistics won't allow
enough supply flow. But for short games - it is better to play with the start of war map. You might pick a later year
MONSOON map if you insist on just one. You will have too many roads in 1941, just like Andrew, only even more so,
the later the year you pick, the more roads you get.

But RHS has several variants to facilitate player choices. We do NOT dictate "one size fits all."

I hope this helps.

PWZLINK and PWZONE files are not really seasonal in such a case.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sid...I have played pretty much nothing but CHS and RHS for the last 10 years, (give or take), concerning WITP and AE.
Of course I enjoy every bit of map and unit correctness you have managed, but I am not on board with the four seasons.

Is it possible for you to release the files which for simplicity sake will just leave the ports accessible?

I believe I am referring to the PWHEXE.DAT...PWZLINK.DAT and PWZONE.DAT files?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

More important than "how many planes were lost"

in my opinion

is the effect of "we cannot go there or we will lose the deck park."

Since there is no practical way to simulate that, I prefer to sail without one all the time.

Besides, you ARE allowed to sail with 1/6 extra planes over what we define. If we used a larger
base value, 1/6 more than the 4/3 of hanger capacity a deck park allows would mean you had fully
150% of hanger capacity ALL the time, if you wanted. I think that is unrealistic.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Appears that this thread on another site adds some support to your analogy.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/debunki ... htx5p9loo2

Given the actual historical "Air Group and Aircraft" records on the previously submitted link, one wonders how many A/C were lost to storms and deck storage.

Thank you for your response.

Buck

ORIGINAL: el cid again

These files ARE public. Use the link for the RHS installer. Just go to the PWHEXE & PWLINK folder.

The base start of game files are for Winter season = December. In these MANY ports in the North are closed
and will NEVER open if you don't change seasons. But it is in my view quite wrong to allow one to sail to any point
that is iced in during winter. IF you really want to compromise with a stock like map for ports, THEN DO NOT
use the start of game pwhexe.dat file in RHS. INSTEAD, copy and rename the 42MONSOON file. This is essentially
identical to the stock map, but corrected and expanded to include some off map areas and many rivers. You will LOSE
a lot of functionality re the USSR - its Arctic access will never be what it should be in Fall - so changing ships
between theaters in some cases becomes awkward. You can sail from Murmansk around the world, however, and still
reach the Pacific eventually. The NW Passage is essentially useless - just present as chrome - only one ship made
the passage during the war - a Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner. She actually was the first ship to
circumnavigate North America and is in the game purely as chrome - of no import and can function well enough
without the passage. But the interior river system of the USSR is only fully functional in Fall. So you lose that.

Oddly, the upper Irrawaddy is NOT navigable in Monsoon - due to TOO MUCH water! You will be stuck with that.
The narrow canyons above Mandalay prevent navigation when the flow is too fast.

Failure to use the seasons has a far greater impact. You will NEVER get new roads or railroads.
Andrew Brown compromised - one map for the entire war. RHS start of game map GETS RID OF roads and railroads
NOT present in 1941. You will NEVER get the ones build in the war if you don't update the seasonal files. This
is a LOT. I don't think the game is playable in later years without these in several places. Logistics won't allow
enough supply flow. But for short games - it is better to play with the start of war map. You might pick a later year
MONSOON map if you insist on just one. You will have too many roads in 1941, just like Andrew, only even more so,
the later the year you pick, the more roads you get.

But RHS has several variants to facilitate player choices. We do NOT dictate "one size fits all."

I hope this helps.

PWZLINK and PWZONE files are not really seasonal in such a case.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sid...I have played pretty much nothing but CHS and RHS for the last 10 years, (give or take), concerning WITP and AE.
Of course I enjoy every bit of map and unit correctness you have managed, but I am not on board with the four seasons.

Is it possible for you to release the files which for simplicity sake will just leave the ports accessible?

I believe I am referring to the PWHEXE.DAT...PWZLINK.DAT and PWZONE.DAT files?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sid...As ever, you are a Prince!...Of course your logic and research makes sense, and you have given me options.[&o]
FWIW, I continue to do research on oob's, etc.
Just recently started looking into ships again, but my forte is still U.S. army.
( I served in the 2/503rd PIR in my army, and was proud the first time I saw it employed in this game, lol)

I am already at that "old age" thingee and apparently have taken a big heaping hanful of "feeble" as well.

I have copy/pasted the pwhexe.dat, pwzlink.dat, and pwzone.dat files into the MAIN folders of the RHS folder and the Alaska ports are still mostly closed.
(The error message I get on them is that I cannot assign ship movement to blocked hexes.)
As you know, in an attempt to "open" the ports, I renamed the MONSOON43 pwhexe.dat file but it did not open all the ports.
Dutch harbor is still closed, as is Anchorage, Sitka, etc.
Did I put them in the wrong folder?...Thank you..
EDIT:..I used the MONSOON 43 file to get "some" of the later roads, etc, but not "all" of the later roads, railroads, etc.

I have found I cannot assign U.S. subs to patrol in the Kuriles area (correctly) and the error message on that one is very detailed, telling me I cannot assign patrols to *POLAR REGIONS*....That is chrome and detail..Thank you!