CHS errata

[VSWG]

6th and 7th Division AIF arrive in Feb./March in Aden as SWPac Units. They are also scheduled to auto-switch HQ to SWPac several months later. This could cause some major irritation should an Allied player decide to pay lots of PPs in order to change their HQ upon arrival, only to have those units switch back to SWPac later on.

[rockmedic109]

AK Diamond head?  I don't know for sure, but shouldn't the "h" be capitalized....AK Diamond Head? 

[bradfordkay]

"AK Diamond head? I don't know for sure, but shouldn't the "h" be capitalized....AK Diamond Head?"

Well, since most diamonds are given as a result of thinking with the little head, perhaps this is appropriate...

[rockmedic109]

[:D]

It's a good thing my wife doesn't read these forums. Domestic tranquility might take a hit.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

6th and 7th Division AIF arrive in Feb./March in Aden as SWPac Units. They are also scheduled to auto-switch HQ to SWPac several months later. This could cause some major irritation should an Allied player decide to pay lots of PPs in order to change their HQ upon arrival, only to have those units switch back to SWPac later on.

That does seem a bit odd. I will take a look.

Edit: I just looked - this was inherited from scenario 15. In that scenario the LCUs arrive in Oz, of course, so it is not much of an issue. I think I will remove the auto assignment but leave them assigned to SWPAC. (I also wonder if there are any other LCUs with the same problem?)

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
(I also wonder if there are any other LCUs with the same problem?)

So far, I've only looked at the Allied entries in the database, as I don't want to gain excessive information on the Japanese military while playing a PBEM game as Allied player. But in this case I made a small exception:

Unit ID 1616, 46th Division, is the only other unit with the same problem: assigned to Southern Area HQ, scheduled to switch to Southern Area HQ.


I have a question regarding these "free" HQ switches: do they only affect units controlled by the AI? This is the relevant paragraph in the editor, I'm not sure how to interpret the bolded parts:

For many ground units, the AI uses the otherwise unused Port and Airfield fields together to determine
when to change their HQ, as follows:
􀂃 The Port value is the month the change will happen based on the beginning month in the
scenario (e.g., based on January 42 equal to month 1, January 43 to month 13, and so forth).
􀂃 The Airfield value is the Location number of the HQ that the unit will report to after the change
occurs. This allows the scenario designer to set up certain “free” HQ changes at a specific time
in the game for an AI player using these units.

[Sardaukar]

Sub air-search radars might still need some toning down. Snorkel is probably OK, but SD and SV about totally prevent subs to be attacked by aircrafts under 1.801 and CHS 2.07. Have played against AI and not truly tested it yet, though.

 And Balao class lacks SD from start but gets SV in 1944 update. 

[VSWG]

Australian HQs:
Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the restricted Australian HQ (Anzac Command HQ) into a static unit at Sydney instead of Australia Command HQ, which is not restricted?

Another question:
Does the anti-Zero bonus still apply to AVG in CHS? The unit is not in its original slot and divided into three squadrons. I searched the documentation and the forums, but couldn't find an answer.

And yes, I'm asking because Zeros just massacred AVG in my PBEM... [:(]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Sub air-search radars might still need some toning down. Snorkel is probably OK, but SD and SV about totally prevent subs to be attacked by aircrafts under 1.801 and CHS 2.07. Have played against AI and not truly tested it yet, though.

And Balao class lacks SD from start but gets SV in 1944 update.

I might nudge their effectiveness down slightly just as a precaution. I would rather have the radar not effective enough as opposed to being too effective.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Australian HQs:
Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the restricted Australian HQ (Anzac Command HQ) into a static unit at Sydney instead of Australia Command HQ, which is not restricted?

I think it would be best for both of them to be static.

Another question:
Does the anti-Zero bonus still apply to AVG in CHS? The unit is not in its original slot and divided into three squadrons. I searched the documentation and the forums, but couldn't find an answer.

And yes, I'm asking because Zeros just massacred AVG in my PBEM... [:(]

I can't answer that, because I am not certain how the AVG v Zero bonus works. If it is database slot based, then the answer would be that the AVG would NOT get this bonus in CHS. This is because the AVG in CHS is divided into three squadrons, all of which occupy different slot numbers in the air group data.

If this indeed the case, then the only real solution would be to combine the AVG back into a group and restore it to its old slot.

I will have to find out whether this is the case or not.

Andrew

[Herrbear]

My understanding is that the AVG is slot dependent. It is exempt from Zero Bonus as long as it is in the same slot as showing in the stock scenario. Sid in RHS put 2/3 in the stock slot and 1/3 in a different slot.

As you said that CHS has them split into 3 groups, unless one of them is in the stock numbered slot, then none of them will be exempt from the Zero Bonus.

[jwilkerson]

AVG exemption from zero bonus is slot dependent, as is zero bonus. But zero bonus has no direct impact on zero offensive power only defense (zero is less likely to be shot down.

[bradfordkay]

I can accept the loss of the AVG exemption from the Zero bonus, as they really didn't encounter many (any?) Zeros wile incorporated as the AVG. The real question is which air unit does occupy the slot that gets the exemption?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I can accept the loss of the AVG exemption from the Zero bonus, as they really didn't encounter many (any?) Zeros wile incorporated as the AVG. The real question is which air unit does occupy the slot that gets the exemption?

I looked that up. The lucky "super" air unit in CHS is the 73rd Fighter squadron, starting in PH and equipped with P-40Bs.

Obviously the AVG hard coding wasn't taken into account by whoever reordered the air groups for CHS (was done for CHS 1.0, I think). Now we know better.

I am not sure whether the AVG should be reinstated to its former slot for CHS or not, but if not, then I will move a late-arriving reinforcement group into the special slot (1071) to make sure it is not used.

Andrew

[bradfordkay]

Your last idea works for me. I'm not keen on rejoining the AVG (few bases in the area can handle that many a/c at once - at least during the Zero Bonus period), and if it's not rejoined then who gets the exemption? The Adam and Eves? The Hell's Angels? ... rats, I can't recall the other squadron's name at the moment...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Your last idea works for me. I'm not keen on rejoining the AVG (few bases in the area can handle that many a/c at once - at least during the Zero Bonus period), and if it's not rejoined then who gets the exemption? The Adam and Eves? The Hell's Angels? ... rats, I can't recall the other squadron's name at the moment...

What would be preferable - remove the bonus entirely? Or give it to one of the AVG squadrons?

Andrew

PS: While looking at this I also took a look at my scenario conversion scripts for CHS, and found a nasty bug in the removal of the Zero bonus for the experimental CHS scenarios. That might prompt me to bring out an updated CHS sooner rather than later.

[Sardaukar]

When checking the Zero-factories, will you also adjust the sub radars ? Balao and one other older class that get SJ lack SD. They should have it since especially Balao comes in 1943 and other is upgraded to SJ in 1943. Nothing else critical I can think of now.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Your last idea works for me. I'm not keen on rejoining the AVG (few bases in the area can handle that many a/c at once - at least during the Zero Bonus period), and if it's not rejoined then who gets the exemption? The Adam and Eves? The Hell's Angels? ... rats, I can't recall the other squadron's name at the moment...

But you can still divide AVG into three parts when it is rejoined in its old slot. I guess the bonus would apply to all three parts, in contrast to separate squadrons defined in three different slots. If that's the case, I'd vote for rejoining AVG in its old slot. If not, use it for some late Patrol squadron. The bonus should IMO apply to the entire AVG, or not at all.

[DD696]

One minor change....ship slots 8096 "Cold Brook" and 8097 "Coldbrook" does appear to be a duplicate of the same ship.

[bradfordkay]

" What would be preferable - remove the bonus entirely? Or give it to one of the AVG squadrons? "

I'm rather neutral on the Zero bonus. Sometimes it irritates me, other times I feel that it's an okay mass generalization. I like your idea of putting a late war squadron into the AVG slot - or maybe it should be whatever PH P-40 squadron that Ben & Josh flew for in the "movie that shall remain unnamed"!!