Did someone pork the CHS data?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

He's working on supply "sink holes" though.
That would help to gobble up the supplies being created at resource centers.
That's a step in the right direction, anyway.

I hope![:D]

I'm hoping Frag and the boys allow supply to be disconnected from resources using the editor. Will make everyone happy. Then we won't need the sink holes.

[m10bob]

Several really fine people put the original CHS pack together, and several others joined in to add to the revised version, but now I believe any further "enhancements" need to just stop using the title "CHS", and do as Nikedemus did and call it something altogether different.
IMHO, Ron was correct to add "armor" to the subs, and it was done with a reason, and explained in depth, publicly, on these forums.
I share Lemurs thoughts, and feel the prior work IS being trashed.
Recently, I expressed my concerns and was met with a seemingly hostile remark that "OUR" mod included such and such, so it would be alright to expound on it.
Not sure what the poster meant by "OUR", since I was around early on to add info to CHS by way of research, and have been a constant supporter of CHS, (till recently when I began reading of proposed sci fi and other fantasy features to come.)
While 1946 is included in the original CHS, I am concerned that legit and historical units will be deleted just to appease these "1946" units which were "might-be's", and "were gonna be's"..
1946 is only 1 year, and proportionately getting more airplay recently than genuine concerns.
The soapbox is free now.[;)]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

El Cid,

I really do not enjoy you trashing my work... I guess i was not around when you were given permission to redo aircraft, and your data is incorrect.

El Cid vs Lemurs...... the match of the heavyweight know-it-alls.

<grabs popcorn>

This is going to be fun. You all know where my sympathies are. Go El Cid Go!! [:D] LOL

(Also, I find this "I didn't give you permission" thing hilariously funny, when we are talking about MODS. You're not going to tell me there are TWO possible versions of *HISTORY* for CHS? LOL [:D])

O.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
(Also, I find this "I didn't give you permission" thing hilariously funny, when we are talking about MODS. You're not going to tell me there are TWO possible versions of *HISTORY* for CHS? LOL [:D])

The only thing that determines who is allocated to revise what part of CHS is available time - not only for the person doing the work, but time for others to review that work. The next release of CHS is already overdue, by a long way, and although the number of things that we are looking at has expanded, if we continue to revisit every aspect of the scnario then it would be released a lot later, if at all. It is prefereable to place some limits on what is being reviewed, release the scenario, then keep working on it as time permits.

Furthermore we always try to ensure that any work proposed for CHS is reviewed by someone else before it is added.

Having said that, if errors are found we do our best to correct them, as we always have.

So why do you think that approach is hilariously funny?

Also, What do you mean by the comment "You're not going to tell me there are TWO possible versions of *HISTORY* for CHS?"?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Having said that, if errors are found we do our best to correct them, as we always have.

So why do you think that approach is hilariously funny?

Also, What do you mean by the comment "You're not going to tell me there are TWO possible versions of *HISTORY* for CHS?"?

My post, as any other post from me containing name "Lemurs" was meant as joke, as denoted by use of numerous [:D]s

Does anyone need permission to mod the game or modify the mods to the mods to the mods to modded game? I think not. In that sense Lemurs' (serious) remark that "he wasn't around when el cid was given prermission" to do this and that (presumably hinting that permission would not be given if only HE had been around) *IS* hilariously funny. As if anyone needs any permission to do anything using an editor supplied with the game?!

But, now that you asked this, who exactly is "WE" in this case, and who is the Permission Granting Authority (PGA) that asked, or authorised el cid to do this and that? No need to answer, I am just trying to point out the absurdity of the above discussion.

My "history" remark was sarcastic: we have two know-it-alls with obviously diverging opinions on some "historic facts" to be implemented in "combined historic" mod. Well, now lets grab popcorn and see how will they "combine" their "history" [:D] (with "permission" from some higher authority, of course [:D])

So yes it is all hilariously, Python-esquely funny in my book, thanks for asking.

Just so you don't get any of this too seriously, here are couple more smileys for good measure: [:D][8D][;)]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Does anyone need permission to mod the game or modify the mods to the mods to the mods to modded game? I think not.

No they do not, of course. But that is not what Sid was saying. He was referring to what work gets added to CHS itself. Obviously if a scenario is being worked on by more than one person, there needs to be some sort of coordination, so that various people are not overwriting the work of others, and without others knowing about it. If there was no coordination between the contributors the result would be fairly chaotic.

You seem to be saying, or at least implying, that if Sid takes CHS and modifies it himself to make a variant of it, that he is not "allowed to". To me that seems like an absurd claim. I have never seen anyone make it. He can modify the scenario as he wishes and make his own version of it.

But, now that you asked this, who exactly is "WE" in this case, and who is the Permission Granting Authority (PGA) that asked, or authorised el cid to do this and that? No need to answer, I am just trying to point out the absurdity of the above discussion.

I will answer anyway. As of now, the "Permission Granting Authority (PGA)" is me, "officially". In practice, what tends to happen is things are added or not depending on how comprehensive and accurate the work is, whether other interested people agree that something should be added, and whether there is enough time for the work to be done and, hopefully, reviewed.

Nevertheless if a goup of people are working on a project together, such as a scenario, then it is a very good idea to have some sort of decision making process about what will be worked on. Without such coordination the project could easily end up as a mess, with different people working against each other or duplicationg effort. I am not sure why you think that trying to coordinate work being done by various people is absurd. In my view it is necessary.

In that sense Lemurs' (serious) remark that "he wasn't around when el cid was given prermission" to do this and that (presumably hinting that permission would not be given if only HE had been around) *IS* hilariously funny. As if anyone needs any permission to do anything using an editor supplied with the game?!

Again, it should be obvious that nobody needs permission to use the game editor, nor has anyone involved in CHS, at least that I have seen, claimed that people need permission to use the game editor. That claim is absurd. Or have I misunderstood your comments?

You may think that it is funny to make innacurate claims about a volunteer project such as CHS, or misrepresent how the project is run, and excuse it as being sarcastic, but I don't share that view.

Andrew

[el cid again]

Otay....so you've barely played the game.

We need to switch languages. I have thousands of hours of playing the game - if UV counts that includes PBEM. I carry a laptop and when stuck somewhere I play one of several running games. Not sure why you are having trouble with this concept - but to say "barely played the game" might get me accused of purjury.

[el cid again]

Pretty moot unless the 1 supply: 1.25 resource ratio is left tied together.

Boy am I confused. I thought you did not want them tied together? And I thought there is no one with a rational reason to tie them together either. You got one? Lets hear it.

My idea is not quite to untie them. It is to evaluate them, case by case, and to taylor the supply to the center. That is, IF there is local supply, allow that to generate - but no more. I stipulate, however, it will NEVER even be 1 to 1 - much less MORE supply than resources. However, there are indications resource levels may be wrong - as low as 10% - given the way lift works it should be ton for ton. So maybe resource levels will go up some places? It is a monsterous data job, but the idea is to figure out what is generated where and not to make it some arbitrary, fictional number - and definitely not local supply OUTWEIGHS resources in colonial areas!

[el cid again]

I'm hoping Frag and the boys allow supply to be disconnected from resources using the editor. Will make everyone happy. Then we won't need the sink holes.

I agree - but I am unwilling to wait. WITP has been out a long time and it is not fixed yet. And I have one clear official statement it won't be fixed too. And another that support is going away after the next round. So waiting seems a bad idea.

Meanwhile, it appears that the supply sinks are so useful we may keep them anyway! I have found two NONSUPPLY functions that seem worthwhile - and I bet we find more. The destruction of resource centers in the DEI will be accomplished by these non-units - just as civil experts really did.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Pretty moot unless the 1 supply: 1.25 resource ratio is left tied together.

Boy am I confused. I thought you did not want them tied together? And I thought there is no one with a rational reason to tie them together either. You got one? Lets hear it.

My idea is not quite to untie them. It is to evaluate them, case by case, and to taylor the supply to the center. That is, IF there is local supply, allow that to generate - but no more. I stipulate, however, it will NEVER even be 1 to 1 - much less MORE supply than resources. However, there are indications resource levels may be wrong - as low as 10% - given the way lift works it should be ton for ton. So maybe resource levels will go up some places? It is a monsterous data job, but the idea is to figure out what is generated where and not to make it some arbitrary, fictional number - and definitely not local supply OUTWEIGHS resources in colonial areas!

I meant to say it is moot IF they are left tied together! LOL I think I need a beer and a smoke![:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I'm hoping Frag and the boys allow supply to be disconnected from resources using the editor. Will make everyone happy. Then we won't need the sink holes.

I agree - but I am unwilling to wait. WITP has been out a long time and it is not fixed yet. And I have one clear official statement it won't be fixed too. And another that support is going away after the next round. So waiting seems a bad idea.

Meanwhile, it appears that the supply sinks are so useful we may keep them anyway! I have found two NONSUPPLY functions that seem worthwhile - and I bet we find more. The destruction of resource centers in the DEI will be accomplished by these non-units - just as civil experts really did.

Cool. What happens when the sink from one side is destroyed.? We will need another to take it's place somehow for the opposite side or some such. This is where I am confused.

[el cid again]

IMHO, Ron was correct to add "armor" to the subs, and it was done with a reason, and explained in depth, publicly, on these forums.

There is zero chance it is working fairly - since it is not uniformly present.
It is a skew unfairly in favor of some classes of merchant ships and submarines - and not for most. IF you adopt a standard, it must be a standard - and clearly defined so anyone who comes along can go to real world data - apply the standard - and get the same result. Thus, when asked to add Soviet ships, I would need to know the principle - which was not stated in CHS documentation. Being intimately familiar with the fields now, I seriously doubt there ever was a standard. In any case, with respect to what I did do, CHS managers clearly indicated "go with real data" and NEVER suggested some fictional variation on it. Assigned to do the Soviet Fleet, the major part of which is submarines, no one said "don't forget to armor them!"

I can see some justification for modifying fields in some cases. I am more willing to do this for fields hidden from players than those that appear on unit data tables - which I believe should be honest and accurate. But, for example, I would like to modify the ceilings of AA weapons to reflect effective rather than theoretical ballistic data. So long as it is UNIVERSALLY applied - and STATED in the notes - I think it is a legitimate modification. What I do not see is any justification for adding armor to submarines. It was the dread fear of a sub skipper he would take just one hole from a high velocity gun of any caliber. The hull of a famous German submarine was about 5/8 inch thick steel - and that not armor steel. IF you wanted to discount that - I might say it is fair - but ONLY if you apply it universally to all such vessels. This was not done as far as I can tell.

[el cid again]

The only thing that determines who is allocated to revise what part of CHS is available time - not only for the person doing the work, but time for others to review that work. The next release of CHS is already overdue, by a long way, and although the number of things that we are looking at has expanded, if we continue to revisit every aspect of the scnario then it would be released a lot later, if at all. It is prefereable to place some limits on what is being reviewed, release the scenario, then keep working on it as time permits.

I have been very frustrated that Andrew has been committed to these principles. I have not been able to address what most consider serious errors. And the rule that we document and review slows down modding.
But I know he is right to insist on some management - if you EVER want to see a release! And I have done better work because I had to justify it with sources - I learned things I didn't know or had forgotten. I think complains must be from those not working with Andrew - else they would know how well he manages. And as a map maker - no one can say he didn't do trench detail work either.

[el cid again]

I meant to say it is moot IF they are left tied together! LOL I think I need a beer and a smoke!

Good news: Andrew likes the idea. He is unwilling to put it in CHS yet - too much work - and he wants it tested. But IF it works, he indicates it will go in a future CHS. So lets make it work.

[el cid again]

Cool. What happens when the sink from one side is destroyed.? We will need another to take it's place somehow for the opposite side or some such. This is where I am confused.

I am not sure I want to answer that question! I fear gamey behaviors. But I do have a plan...

[Lemurs!]

You are missing my point. What i would like is a list of each change, one at a time, with a comparison of the CHS original and what you would like it changed to. Do not just start many threads saying that you can't believe how bad the research was.

That kind of attitude is not going to make you many friends.

I am looking at Conway's at the moment and the Tone has 76mm turret faces, 85mm casemate.
Also in the US Naval interrogation documents. And in William Green.
That is enough for me.

If you would like to email me every change you are proposing and keep it organized and use spacing so i can read it clearly i will look it over for possible inclusion.
I will tell you right now on ship cruising speeds the 15kt speed was done for game play reasons for the AI. If we fool with that the AI will mismanage it's TFs even more than it already does. Believe it or not we have also read a book or two and also have military experience and we realize that old American BBs cruised at 10kts and the Japanese cruised at 18kts. When we started this mod it was an attempt to combine as much history with the game system.

I am not against your work, i am against poorly written changes with no real log.
When you say 'Aircraft altitudes are incorrect', what are you proposing changing?

Mike

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I meant to say it is moot IF they are left tied together! LOL I think I need a beer and a smoke!

Good news: Andrew likes the idea. He is unwilling to put it in CHS yet - too much work - and he wants it tested. But IF it works, he indicates it will go in a future CHS. So lets make it work.

Actually I haven't gone that far. I am interested in your ideas, but that doesn't mean I think that they should be added to CHS. I would need to see some details of what you are proposing, but in general I am not a fan of the idea of using "units" specifically designed to chew up supply. If you thought otherwise then I have probably not expressed my views well enough.

My preference is for a "decoupling" of supply generation from resource generation (and possibly linking supply generation to manpower). But of course such changes require code changes...

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I think complains must be from those not working with Andrew - else they would know how well he manages.

Actually I don't think I do a very good job. My main problem is lack of time. Combined with a lack of specialised expertise, it means that I need to rely on others to do the reviewing. That is not easy to arrange most of the time.

jwilkerson, on the other hand, has been doing an excellent job in helping to coordinate the current CHS work. A public thankyou to him from me.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
What i would like is a list of each change, one at a time, with a comparison of the CHS original and what you would like it changed to.

Mike - if you and el Sid can get together and look at the proposed changes, I for one would be extremely happy. Even if you "agree to disagree" at least I would know that the data has been looked at.

Andrew

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I think complains must be from those not working with Andrew - else they would know how well he manages.

Actually I don't think I do a very good job. My main problem is lack of time. Combined with a lack of specialised expertise, it means that I need to rely on others to do the reviewing. That is not easy to arrange most of the time.

jwilkerson, on the other hand, has been doing an excellent job in helping to coordinate the current CHS work. A public thankyou to him from me.

Andrew

That's part of the point - you are doing a good job managing the project. [:)]