Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

You can't? Well, Dili is seeing the same thing with the 5.53 scenario (I am using CVO 6.53). I am going to re-install and see what happens. Just in case.

EDIT 10 OR 15 MINUTES LATER: confirmed, sorry [:(] Re-downloaded the file again (from the Send Space site). Unzipped (Winace), pasted, etc. There is damage in Japanese, Allied airfields (as mentioned, NOT on the 1st turn, but on the 2nd). Maybe you should be calling Houston [:)]

Just checked at 5.55 level - reached Jan 28 with NO damage. It is NOT in source. So I will check again in plus four hours - and if OK - REUPLOAD.

...Oh my god....

Okay seems that i am not being understood so will revert to a simple question: Why IJN Truk Base Fortress ; IJN Truk SGNF; IJN Truk NGF and IJN Truk AA Rgt arent 4th Fleet units since Truk is a 4th Fleet base? 


[blockquote]
Leaving 4th Fleet with no home. Poor 4th Fleet. It is like Northern Command in all mods but RHS - it has
very little resources to play with! And no obvious home until Rabaul is taken. Then - if it falls to SE Fleet command units - it won't even be 4th Fleet I suspect - unless a HUMAN changes it. But AI won't do that - so AI is really messed over - one of the major command areas with NO home at all! Some day I will figure this out. But meanwhile the base and static units are the same command. Happy?

 
For God sake listen to what i am telling i dont F***** care if Truk is 4th Fleet since it is probably the best solution. What i wanted is that the units that belong to Truk garrison would be 4th Fleet too. They werent!
 

Someone is confused. There are two sets of fuel/range data for all these vessels - one as built (using oil sprayed coal) and one as operated a generation later (without coal). It is impossible for anyone to get all this data right - even the guys who spent almost 40 years doing the Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War - which I love. They have quoted original data - and maybe properly too at that spot - but I am not dealing with that data in 1941. You should not be either.

 
After that i dont have anything more to say. I will follow my own path.
 
 
 
 [/blockquote]

Rating ships which have a practical range of 6000 nm - a 20% improvement over the designed 5000 nm -
at 4000 nm - isn't quite as bad as the stock/CHS (and in some uncorrected sub variants RHS) as 9000 nm -
but it is almost as bad. Instead of 50% too much, it is 33% too little - and THAT is a big deal (either way).
You properly challenged the 9000 figure - and I have corrected it in the sub classes that were wrong - so thank you for that. And you properly stated 4000 miles for Kitakami - in one sub variant - and I think we had that right - but I am glad to reconfirm it. When I first looked at WITP the fuel/speed/range data was grossly wrong - and 9000 nm at 18 knots is worse than it sounds like - for a ship that really cruised at 14 knots. There are lots of errors of this sort - and
I have systematically attempted to get fuel capacity - range and cruising speed right. We have a great deal of
material about these ships - and I don't think there is a lot of room to think they were not (for Japanese naval
engineering of their period) quite long legged - even if nothing like 9000 nm (at 15 or 18). They really did
exceed their design by a significant amount - and that speaks volumns.

RHS 5.55 is a bit hard to get to: Takes three steps: download 5.50 comprehensive, then 5.54 microupdate, then 5.55 microupdate. Same for 6.55. So a single step 5.55 and 6.55 comprehensive for each scenario would be nice anyway.

Some people seem to have problems with things - damage to San Francisco and Saigon for example - after executing the game - which is not in the database. It also is NOT happening at source - after many hours of tests.

So I am reuploading the entire set - scenario by scenario - as a comprehensive update.

I also will send directly to anyone who sends me an email address - trevethans@aol.com

El Cid
 
I have found an error sorry, on the Allied Industrial Units/Fortress they all have as there objective Magadan/Siberia, I hope this is just an error and nothing to sinister to keep us on our toes:-)
 
Thanks for the excellant work!!!
 
Drew

6.55 (CVO) did not fix the problem, sorry [&:] The same damage in the same Japanese and Allied airfields.

ORIGINAL: DrewBlack

El Cid

I have found an error sorry, on the Allied Industrial Units/Fortress they all have as there objective Magadan/Siberia, I hope this is just an error and nothing to sinister to keep us on our toes:-)

It`s intended. If a unit has as target the same hex where it is, the % of prepparation is added to the combat value.

Having all the industrial forts prepping for Siberia ensures that no one doubles it defense after three months

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

6.55 (CVO) did not fix the problem, sorry [&:] The same damage in the same Japanese and Allied airfields.

Can you be more clear with the steps for making this bug appear. I will try to reproduce it in a fresh installation tomorrow

Bliztk, easy. Install that scenario, load it (head to head), click on "End Turn" and that's all. On the next turn (the second) you will notice the damage in Japanese (Saigon, Formosa) and Allied (San Francisco, Sidney) airfields.

I did the following though. I downloaded a previous version (6.5) and have noticed the bug was present as well.

I cannot reproduce it.

You have to run with 1.804, maybe unistalling WITP and doing a fresh install solves it.

RHSBBO and CVO 5.5
This is probably already a known issue, but the following ship weapon slots are now coming up as radars in the ship class menu:
 
172 (New York) Wpn slot 3
1205 (North Carolina) Wpn slot 1
1206 Wpn slot 1
1208 Wpn slot 3
1222 Wpn slot 1
1308 Wpn slot 1
1405 Wpn slot 1
1410 Wpn slot 2
1622 Wpn slot 8
1626 Wpn slot 2
1634 Wpn slot 2
1636 Wpn slot 3
1637 Wpn slot 7
1654 Wpn slot 5

I saw some like that - but they are fixed.

I will fix these - and correct - in plus 9 hours. WOrking now.

I fixed the listed errors for ship classes for RHSBBO - and issued it as 6.552 - because I had a request for BBO - and too little time to do more.

This update - and the next of course - also have the PBJ as "carrier capable"

It also addes 6 battalions to the Indian Army (called "rgt") - division or corps troops - not local forces - and renames 4 others ]

I plan to add an ancient Soviet giant transport (ANT-6) and a squadron using it in Central Asia - and to put the regiment of Li-2/DC-3 at Vladivostok back to the correct date of appearence - but the art for the plane will be wrong - it will be LB-30 art - until Cobra gets it right. That means there will need to be a microupdate to fix the art pointer later.

I am going to issue a comprehensive update to fix all identified isses. We are NOT having data washing done yet - unfortunately - so we are on our own - but I will fix all identified problems. About plus six hours. [Working still]

Bliztk, you fixed the problem, thanks a lot [&o] I was not using the patch 1.804 (but the 1.801). I did want to keep the "named pilots" feature, so I avoided 1.804. Yes, I know the "named pilots" toy does not work, since all the pilots will disappear on the next turn (in fact, on the same turn if you use that tool). I just forgot to download the new patch. I was being cautious as well: I think I read somewhere there were some problems with this new patch. Good to know you must have it. Yes or yes.

Thanks again [:)]

I reviewed BBO 6.553 when not tired - and found a few missed ship class/ship updates.

Meanwhile Cobra did art for the ANT-6 - so we had to reissue to get the pointer right.

I then applied all the updates to all Level 6 scenarios - and am uploading now.

You MUST use RHS plane art level 7.02 with this file set - OR if you look at the ANT-6 it will crash (new art slot -
a call to an empty slot is a guaranteed crash - Matrix gave modders 4 more plane art slots).

Now for EOS.

If we ID the Doolittle squadron I will put that in x.555 - along with any eratta.

No other plans to change things.

I hope we can utility wash these files and get to x.60

CVO 5.51:
- class 635 (PG Ratanakosindra) and 636 (PG Sri Ayuthaya) upgrades to class 1551 PG Soemba. Both classes are lacking their small 40mm and 20mm guns. They should be made CL and CA respectively (you are making AMCs as CLs, and minelayers - so they also deserve as being cruisers).

Instead of 50% too much, it is 33% too little - and THAT is a big deal (either way).

 
Your evidence is?
 
 
It's for me clear that no serious work was made on CLs; right now most still have the 36kt from begin of career and  when they had 5500t instead of 7000t and 32kt  of end of 30's ; still without 25mm guns. In RHS almost identical ships with 1580-1645 t fuel and 6000nm range and  1260t fuel  and still the same 6000nm ...  And Kitakami /Oi came in RHSCVO with a Type11/12/13 set in 1941.
 
 

- class 172 (BB New York) wpn slot 3: 356mm guns replaced with radar.