Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: treespider

Other than Ulithi and Truk are there any other ports in CHS 2.08 that appear "out of sorts" I just did a very quick and dirty review of some of the port sizes in CHS and they by and large appear ok. Most ports were downgraded in earlier versions of CHS.

Ports are easier to evaluate than airbase sites. I believe that information may be readily available.

ORIGINAL: veji1

regarding the problem of the functionnalities entailed in the port size that would "force" the game to be overly generous with many ports ( ie "they could reload torpedoes here so it should be an 8" ), maybe you could consider multiplying the number of support vessels at anchor there game start with supplies and all (AD, AE, etc...) so you could make Truk a 6 (sps 4) port for example ?

I guess this will imply lots of testing, but I am starting to salivate about a potential mix between your mod, CHS and BigB's (China and all)... Could make for a great new feeling...

Thing is as usual testing will be the hard part, specially late war testing.. It isn't that hard to see how a mod works in 1942.. But to get to test it in 1944 or later is hard, while it is so very important...

Truk had been developed into a major fleet base, able to handle the entire IJN. It had an enormous lagoon and lots of land. Only four mineable entrances, and the Japanese fleet could anchor out of range of naval gunfire. Treat it as a 9(6) in 1941.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: treespider

Other than Ulithi and Truk are there any other ports in CHS 2.08 that appear "out of sorts" I just did a very quick and dirty review of some of the port sizes in CHS and they by and large appear ok. Most ports were downgraded in earlier versions of CHS.

Ports are easier to evaluate than airbase sites. I believe that information may be readily available.

And they apparently already have been in 2.08. I was given some documentation earlier indicating that most but not all of the ports had been looked at...and my quick glance through them seems to be that they are accurate in CHS 2.08.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: veji1

regarding the problem of the functionnalities entailed in the port size that would "force" the game to be overly generous with many ports ( ie "they could reload torpedoes here so it should be an 8" ), maybe you could consider multiplying the number of support vessels at anchor there game start with supplies and all (AD, AE, etc...) so you could make Truk a 6 (sps 4) port for example ?

I guess this will imply lots of testing, but I am starting to salivate about a potential mix between your mod, CHS and BigB's (China and all)... Could make for a great new feeling...

Thing is as usual testing will be the hard part, specially late war testing.. It isn't that hard to see how a mod works in 1942.. But to get to test it in 1944 or later is hard, while it is so very important...

Truk had been developed into a major fleet base, able to handle the entire IJN. It had an enormous lagoon and lots of land. Only four mineable entrances, and the Japanese fleet could anchor out of range of naval gunfire. Treat it as a 9(6) in 1941.

Correct. It also was the keystone of Japan's PTO strategy: the heart of the "interior lines of communication" naval wise.
It was long assumed in the Manhattan Project it would be the first target of the atomic bomb. But the bomb took too long to build, and Japan lost its fleet as a functional threat - at least after Leyte Gulf. So it no longer was germane as a target (unless we wanted a demonstration). Truk itself is an atol - but a gigantic one - with its own local ethnic group (the "Trukese") - and a micro economy in its own right. In bast terms Herwin is right - it is a 9 (6) - or should be (never looked at it - thought it was obvious).

EDIT: Turns out Truk is an 8 (6) - in stock - CHS and RHS - and so probably most everything based on any of them. That isn't horribly unreasonable either.

[font=georgia]World War II Resources of Truk [/font]
[font=georgia]The great lagoon of Truk provides one of the best natural anchorages in the world. The Japanese military realized this when Truk first came under their control in 1914, but made no attempt to build any fortifications there for quite some time. It was not until the 1930's that Imperial Japan began to build the large navy which would eventually use Truk Lagoon as its most important advanced base. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Due to its great natural advantages Truk Lagoon was easily developed into a large naval base. The barrier reef encompasses a protective lagoon approximately 140 miles in circumference with only a few navigable breaks in the reef to allow ships to enter. The lagoon was large enough to easily accommodate the entire Japanese Imperial Fleet. It was easily defended; ships attempting to attack the fleet by entering the lagoon would have to enter through one or more of the four main passes which could be easily defended by fortifying the small islands and islets located along the reef. The protecting barrier reef allowed ships anchored within the lagoon to be outside the range of all but the guns of large battleships. Even those ships within range could be protected by the high islands. Truk Lagoon, prior to February 1944, was perceived by the U. S. as an impregnable fortress. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Truk's development as a naval base did not reach its peak until 1943. It was not until January 1944 that the Japanese Army began preparations for an expected invasion by the U. S. By that time the military installations spread over the larger islands of the lagoon consisted briefly of the following facilities and defensive fortifications: [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Dubon: ship repair, docks, seaplane base, submarine base, fleet headquarters, a 2,500-ton floating drydock, torpedo storage dumps, torpedo boat base, hospital, aviation repair and supply station, fuel storage, coastal communication center, coastal defense, and anti-aircraft guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Moen: bomber field, seaplane and fighter base, torpedo storage, torpedo boat base, radio communications center, and coastal and anti-aircraft batteries. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Fefan: supply center, piers, warehouses, barracks, ammunition dumps, and dual-purpose guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Etan: fighter base, hangars, administration building, barracks, dual-purpose guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Param: bomber base, coastal defense and anti-aircraft guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Tol: torpedo boat base, coastal defense and anti-aircraft guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Ulalu: radio direction finder station, barracks, and warehouses. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Udot Island: Coastal and anti-aircraft defenses. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Work on these fortifications had not been completed when the U. S. carrier forces attacked Truk in February 1944. [/font]
[font=georgia][/font] 
[font=georgia][/font] 
[font=georgia]In game terms perhaps a 7(6) at start or a 7(5). [/font]

In my version of the game the Ki-43-I will have sharper teeth!!!

The Ki-43-1a was initially fitted with a fixed-pitch, two-bladed wooden propeller which was soon replaced with a two-pitch metal unit. The armament consisted of two 7.7-mm Type 89 machine guns mounted in the upper cowling and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. There were two attachment points for fuel tanks underneath the wing center section.

The first Ki-43-Ia fighters were delivered to the 59th and 64th Sentais in October of 1941, only eight months after production had begun at Ota. They were transferred to China shortly before the war with America broke out.

The next version was the Ki-43-Ib which differed from the Ia in having a heavier armament in which one of the Type 89 machine guns was replaced by a 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine gun. The Ki-43-Ic which followed it had two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns, and was the major production variant of the Model 1 series.

In CHS 2.08 players are provided with the K43-Ib the up-gunned version of the Ki-43-1a. However both are probaly not accurate for game purposes as the major production variant was the -Ic. So the Oscar gets two 12.7mm Type 1 MG.

I am planning on dropping the Liz from the rolls in favor of a production variant of the KI-44.
 
The Ki-44-IB. Approx. 40 were built. The unit in China with the Tojo would be assigned this version. Low production numbers would allow the unit to receive replacements. It would be slightly slower and not have the legs of the current -IIb.

A small note. Bomber bomb load doesnt means that the takeoff weight/runway is less/short some had fuel tank bags to put in bomb bay.

ORIGINAL: treespider

In my version of the game the Ki-43-I will have sharper teeth!!!

The Ki-43-1a was initially fitted with a fixed-pitch, two-bladed wooden propeller which was soon replaced with a two-pitch metal unit. The armament consisted of two 7.7-mm Type 89 machine guns mounted in the upper cowling and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. There were two attachment points for fuel tanks underneath the wing center section.

The first Ki-43-Ia fighters were delivered to the 59th and 64th Sentais in October of 1941, only eight months after production had begun at Ota. They were transferred to China shortly before the war with America broke out.

The next version was the Ki-43-Ib which differed from the Ia in having a heavier armament in which one of the Type 89 machine guns was replaced by a 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine gun. The Ki-43-Ic which followed it had two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns, and was the major production variant of the Model 1 series.

In CHS 2.08 players are provided with the K43-Ib the up-gunned version of the Ki-43-1a. However both are probaly not accurate for game purposes as the major production variant was the -Ic. So the Oscar gets two 12.7mm Type 1 MG.

In practical terms, the main production version was the Ib. This is because, aside from being produced as such, almost all the Ic in the field were backfitted to Ib standard. The .30 was far more effective than the particular .50 being used - in the context of the peculiar mounting situation where the weapons were fired THROUGH the propeller. The ROF of the .30 was easily synchronized, but the .50 wasn't, and had to be slowed so much it greatly reduced the practical firepower. If you combint the number of Ib with the number of Ic converted to Ib standard, you have the vast majority of all Oscar Is.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In practical terms, the main production version was the Ib. This is because, aside from being produced as such, almost all the Ic in the field were backfitted to Ib standard. The .30 was far more effective than the particular .50 being used - in the context of the peculiar mounting situation where the weapons were fired THROUGH the propeller. The ROF of the .30 was easily synchronized, but the .50 wasn't, and had to be slowed so much it greatly reduced the practical firepower. If you combint the number of Ib with the number of Ic converted to Ib standard, you have the vast majority of all Oscar Is.

According to Francillon all production variants of the Ki-43 series from the -1c and until the -IIIb mounted the dual 12.7mm Type 1 MG. Evidently the designers didn't see a problem.


EDIT: In furthering the reasearch I came across this website:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdun ... i43arm.htm Which discusses the armament...the author concludes it was mixed.

There's enough source material to support the change. I did so for my mod (Ic version @ game start) The Oscar needs the two 12.7's to be more competitive under the game engine.

While the primary actual I in the field was de facto the Ib, RHS also uses the Ic armament - because Nik is right: in game terms the penalty for the .50 does not exist - and the .30 armed version is nothing like as effective as even the Ia was IRL. The Oscar was "almost as big a surprise as the Zero" - and in game terms using the Ic armament is a technical trick to achieve something close to that. It is still light enough not to be impressive later in the war. So is the lack of armor. But in 1941 it is a fine plane.

After too many late nights and a word from Andrew... I've gone back and readjusted my endurance values. I took the original CHS values for Endurance and placed them back into the game. However I multiplied the endurance value by 1.15 to account for the fact that the new range that is calculated by the code is in nauts, so to get it to correspond to the map I need to multiply by 1.15 to make the nauts statute miles. In any event some of the Endurance values in CHS 2.08 are wrong so I will need to revaluate them anyway. The A6M3a should have about 100 more statute miles range than the A6M2. In addition I will have to go back and re-evaluate the Drop Tanks to account for the range that they add.

The game however still thinks the speed is mph and not nauts so the affect should be interesting because the Speed differentials have now been compressed. Whereas previously if the speed differential was 100mph it will now be 100/1.15=86.9. Not sure if the code will care.

Except you have it backwards! IF the game map is done in statute miles - and it is - and if you want planes to move with the same penalty as ships do (pretending the hexes are in nautical miles when they are not) - you have to DIVIDE by 1.15. You are still giving the planes too much range - not just relative to the ships - but now also with respect to real ranges!

Another approach is just to reduce the speeds of the planes to knots - and then endurance increases by your 1.15 - and everything works out perfectly.

Joe Wilkerson and I - who discovered this discrepency - argued passionately for converting the maps to nautical miles. I think it will happen some day. Hasn't happened yet. If it does - look for plane speeds to reduce in this way - to knots.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Except you have it backwards! IF the game map is done in statute miles - and it is - and if you want planes to move with the same penalty as ships do (pretending the hexes are in nautical miles when they are not) - you have to DIVIDE by 1.15. You are still giving the planes too much range - not just relative to the ships - but now also with respect to real ranges!

Another approach is just to reduce the speeds of the planes to knots - and then endurance increases by your 1.15 - and everything works out perfectly.

Joe Wilkerson and I - who discovered this discrepency - argued passionately for converting the maps to nautical miles. I think it will happen some day. Hasn't happened yet. If it does - look for plane speeds to reduce in this way - to knots.

Nope you have to multiply ENDURANCE by 1.15.

I have already converted speeds to knots which essentially means dividing the existing speed by 1.15 to get the knot value.

Since I am dividing speed by 1.15 I have to multiply endurance by the same value to maintain the range in statute mile format.

Mentioned a few hundred posts back, the difference in the ability to build Airbases between Japanese & Allied engineers.
 
Can you lower the number of devices in a Japanese engineer unit so that they dont build as quickly?

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Except you have it backwards! IF the game map is done in statute miles - and it is - and if you want planes to move with the same penalty as ships do (pretending the hexes are in nautical miles when they are not) - you have to DIVIDE by 1.15. You are still giving the planes too much range - not just relative to the ships - but now also with respect to real ranges!

Another approach is just to reduce the speeds of the planes to knots - and then endurance increases by your 1.15 - and everything works out perfectly.

Joe Wilkerson and I - who discovered this discrepency - argued passionately for converting the maps to nautical miles. I think it will happen some day. Hasn't happened yet. If it does - look for plane speeds to reduce in this way - to knots.

Nope you have to multiply ENDURANCE by 1.15.

I have already converted speeds to knots which essentially means dividing the existing speed by 1.15 to get the knot value.

Since I am dividing speed by 1.15 I have to multiply endurance by the same value to maintain the range in statute mile format.

This is correct: the item quoted didn't say you had gone over to knots - something I proposed a year ago and got a lot of grief about. In this case - you are moving planes in sync with ships - and everyone has a 15% penalty except land units (a different story we cannot change). The problem is - the map distances are still in statute miles - so in effect you have "grown" the globe by 15% - except for land units. It is possible to change the map - but it is an awful job.

A side effect is you can use the new data to reduce maneuverability for aircraft - which factor is related to speed. Wether or not you do, code uses both kinds of speed - and lower numbers are going to reduce air air lethality of fighter planes.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Mentioned a few hundred posts back, the difference in the ability to build Airbases between Japanese & Allied engineers.

Can you lower the number of devices in a Japanese engineer unit so that they dont build as quickly?

Sure you can. It is not a good idea, but you can do so.

Know, however, that CODE gives the Japanese a lower rate for lots of things like this - construction, ASW, name it.

Also know that the real penalty is well reflected in the data - at least if you use an OB based on actual data. As far as I know Matrix used - and CHS kept - a principle "no engineer vehicles in Japanese engineer units" as a sort of trick to get where you want to go. I did an actual review of these units - and found that this isn't their real problem exactly.
Japanese engineer units ALWAYS have SOME engineer vehicles - but they are fewer than US units - and they differ between types of engineer units. Thus a construction battalion is very vehicle light - on top of which the Army/Air Force versions also are not even Japanese in the usual sense. [Composed mainly of Koreans, these were often the only "troops" to surrender in a Pacific Island battle. I give them special officers, and a special national classification to involk a bad combat modifier.] A "road construction regiment" is better in two senses - more vehicles - all Japanese.
An "independent engineer regiment" is better still (and so would a RR regiment- but I have been persuaded not to let you have any) - vehicle wise. But ALL these units suffer from a lack of support. Make that gross lack of support. This is inherent in their design philosophy (OB wise). They are INTENDED to draw "support" from regular units, civilians, prisoners, something else. So I made ALL these units grossly weak support wise - and ONLY if they are colocated with support will they build/repair at the rate their inherant expertise/mechanization permits - and then only at the (lower) Japanese rate.

There is a more general problem which may be confusing you: construction in the game is too fast for everyone. This is both hard code and because locations are not defined with enough 0 level airfields - which code makes very hard to change - as it should. While I have taken out a lot of "dots" - and defined infrastructure missing that matters in their slots - in that great "desert" of the South and Central Pacific - I have often reduced airfield sizes. We also have been reducing some in the Indies - Borneo is the latest place. The lower ratings will help slow down the rate at which bases get bigger. But a problem remains: players vs AI will ALWAYS force EVERY base building at the rate supplies permit - AI cannot be set otherwise - a very bad issue (for lots of reasons - not just base size - it means AI lacks the supplies it needs for operations too). But these issues are not related to Japan per se.

These are the preliminary values for the Japanese Aircraft converted to nauts. Data for cruise speed and range is 95% from Francillon...if he had it I used it. MxSpd was generated by simply dividng CHS 2.08 values by 1.15. A review of Max Speed will also be done in the future. These values are pre-Drop Tank....which brings up the next discussion...how to implement the drop tanks... lets look at the A6M2. Francillon rates its Max range as 1675 nautical miles. Because I am using nauts as my speed component of the range calculation I have to multiply the range by 1.15 to compensate for the map being in Statute miles. So the formula I used was (Range in Nautsx1.15x60) / Speed in Nauts. In the case of the A6M2 - (1675x1.15x60)/180= 642.

In any event Larry Bond rates the A6M2 with a cruising range of 1010 nautical miles (Same as francillon). Looking at our A6m2 in the game has an extended radius of 10 hexes= 600 statute miles / 1.15 = 521 nautical milesx 2 = 1042 nautical miles...very similar and our numbers are based on Francillon. Now where Bond differs is in the drop tank - He says that a 330L DT on the A6M2 will add 465nm to the range so a total of 1475 nm ....200 nm shy of Francillons max of 1675 (EDIT: In all other makes of the A6M Bond indicates a range add of 539nm which would total 1549nm - 125nm shy of Francillon's max) What to do about DT's...???

So to implement Drop tanks will take a little work...
 
1. Identify which planes used them and what size they used.
2. Identify the "effect" of the drop tanks.
3. If the games effects values are accurate...then subtract the effect rating of the drop tank carried from the Endurance Value of the plane.
 
I may have to adjust drop tank effects by multiplying by 1.15 to account for the fact that my speeds will be in knots.
 
So looking at the A6M2 the effect of the 330L drop tank is 87, which would be added to endurance. If I mulitply 87 x1.15 = 100. Then subtract the 100 from the END of 642 will give the A6M2 a new Endurance of 542. Resulting in values of 27 hexes max range , 9 hexes extended, 6 hexes normal without Drop Tank.
 
So presuming the code knows when the plane should carry a drop tank or not the Zero should carry a drop tank to travel 7-10 hexes and will not carry one with less than 6 hexes to travel.