CHS Mod Proposal

[jwilkerson]

As i stated previously I think that Nik's A to A mods have some merit, however, I everything i read indicates to me that there really was an anti-aircraft gap in the sky where light AA was ineffective and heavy AA could not adequate deal with, primarily over land. Naval is a different matter.. In both cases heavy AA was basically almost useless against the dive bomber while it was in its dive.

Also I read the read me Elf posted above an extracted one quote

Land based AA has always been rather anemic in the game since UV days. Players can attack bases at as low as 6000 feet and suffer negligible results even if that base has stacked multiple heavy AA battalions there. In return they plaster the base, Allied of course more than Japan given the bomb loads of Allied level bombers.

And I'm talking about land based AA for the rest of this. Sea based attacks for the most part had different attack profile ...

I looked into the "AA gap" issue as a part of responding to a thread started by Apollo11 a few weeks back and learned almost as much as I ever wanted to know about AA ( land-based ) during WWII ... some sources ( Ian Hogg ) state there was an AA gap - at least pre-war. Others ( USAAF training film ) insist there was no AA gap. But what is clear is that there is an alitude below which the heavy AA guns cannot effectively engage, primarily due to inability to track low flying targets across the engagement horizon. In german use, heavy AA was only used rarely against low flying attacks and when it was, it was done with barrage fire where the guns were pre-aimed in a "scatter" pattern and fired 1-2 rounds as the strike flew over. This tactic is described as unable to get hits - but it is hoped that it "scares" the enemy !
Further there is a range/altitude beyond/above which "light" AA cannot engage, stated to be about 1600 meters at the outer edge.
German 88 fuses for the HE ( flak ) round - came in a number of flavors, a 2 second minimum and a 1 second minimum and even a 0 minimum. The 1 second minimum would've caused the round to go off at roughly 3000 feet and the 2 second minimum at roughly 6000 feet ...

Given the time required to perform directed fire however, the amount of time an attacking air element spends inside the engagement envelope, much below 10,000 drops off quite quickly. So somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 feet seems likely. And it is also clear that first line German heavy flak, rarely fired barrage fire - and that is stated doctrine.

So at least for the Germans by mid-war .. the "flak gap" maybe have been minimal or even zero ... but heavy flak should have a "floor" below which its effecctiveness drops off.

And again, rightly or wrongly one of the ( several ) factors which led LeMay to decide to risk the low level night attacks was a belief that the Japanese were optimized for high level AA. Later in the summer of 1945 when he was getting away with day light attacks at 15,000 feet ( which should be the optimal altitude for heavy flak ) one ccould argue that Japanese flak was ineffective any ANY altitude. But this wasn't known in early March when the night bombing decision was made.

I'm ok with increasing Japanese flak a little bit below 6,000 feet .. because the allies at least ought to be able to tell the difference ... and not sure they can now. Everyone seems to know that in the game 6,000 feet is the magic altitude, things weren't nearly that simple IRL. But I wouldn't want to create a "Hanoi in the Pacific" ... at least not during WWII !!!

So in reading through the Nik read me .. it sounds like he increases flak effectiveness and then backs off a little .. but there is also a warning about players not stacking their flak units. Well in general if you give us players a hole - we will "drive a Pz division through it" ... so this concerns me a bit. I'm ok with a slight increase - but feel that it should be tested or we should be ready to back it out if we release it and everyone comes back with data indicating the Forts are Falling.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Don, A.B., Treespider, Ron-fighter, A-warrior, El cid, Nik, everyone...

I'd like to start a discussion on the inclusion of Nik's A to A tweaks in the next version of CHS. I am in favor of the very accurate OOB and I have a minimalist approach too. But I also hear what El Cid is saying about ship hulls that were never completed IRL due to RL issues, and that those issues may not be present in a given PBEM.

My question is, and this is directed mostly at A-Warrior, as far as accuracy and legitimacy, don't the ends justify the means? That is, if Nik's A/A mod works, and the results are good, why shouldn't we implement them?

Good question.

Have you read my previous comments on Nik's mods? My current thinking is that I would like to see the following added to CHS (and I have already experimented a little with one or two of these):

- Increase aircraft durability by 50%.
- Increase naval AA effectiveness by 50% to compensate.
- Double land AA to overcompensate (ie. make it more effective).

That is only a little of what Nik has done, but I am not sure that we should just take what he has done and add the lot to CHS. There are a few contentious issues, such as the existence, or non-existence, of the "flak gap", and the apparently significantly higher effectiveness of his AA vs dive bombers.

I haven't considered the various ratings of individual aircraft because that is not my area, but don't forget that there are already a LOT of such changes in CHS, so you would need to be sure that any new changes don't clash with the ones already made.

If the main goal is to reduce unrealistically high losses in air-to-air combat, why not just fiddle with weapons accuracy? It's one step, and easier to undo if/when necessary than the two-step durability + flak changes.

Not meant to detract from anybodies mods, per se. I tend to agree with Blackhorse on this, in the obviously more simplistic approach.
The Hayabusa "Oscar" was a very maneuverable plane, but the Japanese planes tended to be nothing more than very light aluminum gun platforms, without self-sealing tanks, nor armor of any kind, until maybe 1943,( and even then not as protected as the contemporary Allied planes, so any hits at all would be more destructive than similar hits on Allied planes.)
Too, the early Hayabusa only had two (2) machine guns, which was no improvement from WW 1 aircraft !!
With rare armour capability, no self-sealing tanks, and the Japanese pilots' refusal to wear (or sometimes be provided with parachutes till mid war), it should be little wonder that the Japanese suffer from combat attrition, (if C *H* S) is seeking "historical truth"..........
If any plane in the entire game is "under-represented" in it's durability rating, it would be the P 47, hands down...........

[Ron Saueracker]

Yes we do need to be able to remove the changes as well, as with the submarine armour - I have removed that now that Matrix have tweaked the ASW routines. Reducing the aircraft endurance and AA effectiveness values will be a bit of a pain, but not insurmountable, when compared to the other tasks that come up in CHS...

I'm not so sure about removing the submarine "armour" guys, or any added to previously "unarmoured" ships. While it is referred to as armor, really what it represents is the pressure hull vs small arms, shell fire. With zero "armour" a hull is paper thin. Seeing as each incremental digit is a mm thick, I suggest that much of the "armour added to DDs, SSs, merchants etc remain. If the odd DC does not get a penetration well, too bad...it adds just that much more variance to a model which could use all the variation it can get. Not once have I come across any ASW device which is incapable of penetrating the values added to subs in the CHS. I'd leave it in and see how it pans out with the new ASW. The stock scenarios don't have armour so we'll actually get to see a comparison.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yes we do need to be able to remove the changes as well, as with the submarine armour - I have removed that now that Matrix have tweaked the ASW routines. Reducing the aircraft endurance and AA effectiveness values will be a bit of a pain, but not insurmountable, when compared to the other tasks that come up in CHS...

I'm not so sure about removing the submarine "armour" guys, or any added to previously "unarmoured" ships. While it is referred to as armor, really what it represents is the pressure hull vs small arms, shell fire. With zero "armour" a hull is paper thin. Seeing as each incremental digit is a mm thick, I suggest that much of the "armour added to DDs, SSs, merchants etc remain. If the odd DC does not get a penetration well, too bad...it adds just that much more variance to a model which could use all the variation it can get. Not once have I come across any ASW device which is incapable of penetrating the values added to subs in the CHS. I'd leave it in and see how it pans out with the new ASW. The stock scenarios don't have armour so we'll actually get to see a comparison.

I agree with Ron on this totally..The concept of the "armor" on the subs (IMHO) was a stroke of genius to represent different hull/depth capabilities..

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown



Good question.

Have you read my previous comments on Nik's mods? My current thinking is that I would like to see the following added to CHS (and I have already experimented a little with one or two of these):

- Increase aircraft durability by 50%.
- Increase naval AA effectiveness by 50% to compensate.
- Double land AA to overcompensate (ie. make it more effective).

That is only a little of what Nik has done, but I am not sure that we should just take what he has done and add the lot to CHS. There are a few contentious issues, such as the existence, or non-existence, of the "flak gap", and the apparently significantly higher effectiveness of his AA vs dive bombers.

I haven't considered the various ratings of individual aircraft because that is not my area, but don't forget that there are already a LOT of such changes in CHS, so you would need to be sure that any new changes don't clash with the ones already made.

If the main goal is to reduce unrealistically high losses in air-to-air combat, why not just fiddle with weapons accuracy? It's one step, and easier to undo if/when necessary than the two-step durability + flak changes.

Not meant to detract from anybodies mods, per se. I tend to agree with Blackhorse on this, in the obviously more simplistic approach.
The Hayabusa "Oscar" was a very maneuverable plane, but the Japanese planes tended to be nothing more than very light aluminum gun platforms, without self-sealing tanks, nor armor of any kind, until maybe 1943,( and even then not as protected as the contemporary Allied planes, so any hits at all would be more destructive than similar hits on Allied planes.)
Too, the early Hayabusa only had two (2) machine guns, which was no improvement from WW 1 aircraft !!
With rare armour capability, no self-sealing tanks, and the Japanese pilots' refusal to wear (or sometimes be provided with parachutes till mid war), it should be little wonder that the Japanese suffer from combat attrition, (if C *H* S) is seeking "historical truth"..........
If any plane in the entire game is "under-represented" in it's durability rating, it would be the P 47, hands down...........

M10bob,
I hear what you saying Re: the Oscar, but tend to agree with Nik that the Oscar is a useless A/C in the game. I think a lot of people feel that way. I personally have not played with it in WitP yet as the Japs, but as the allies I certainly don't fear it. That isn't saying much when the game is in 43', I don't think it should be feared in 43', just respected

As it stands now it isn't even respected in 41', and that is the point of Nik's tweak on it. I have no qualms about sending ANY allied fighter up against the Oscars as do Zeros. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Recently in my PBEM (stock 15 game) i got my P-38Gs on line. I now send a Green (EXP 58)squadron over Kendari every other day to "Bag" Oscars that I assume to be in the 70's EXP Range. I'll have to ask my opponent about this. I have yet to lose a single Lightning and regualrly take down 3-4 Ki-43s. This is too lopsided even for me as the allied player. Where is the challenge?

The changes to aircraft such as the Tojo, Tony, and Oscar are meant to give them a fighting chance when piloted by capable aicrew. If the game plays out the way RL did then I think you'll find that those inexperienced pilots will be just as vulnerable as they should be.

I recommend checking out Nik and Speedy's AAR using the Mod. THe air combat results are encourageing, and it is refreshing to see the Oscar performing, not well mind you, just performing...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'm not so sure about removing the submarine "armour" guys, or any added to previously "unarmoured" ships. While it is referred to as armor, really what it represents is the pressure hull vs small arms, shell fire. With zero "armour" a hull is paper thin. Seeing as each incremental digit is a mm thick, I suggest that much of the "armour added to DDs, SSs, merchants etc remain. If the odd DC does not get a penetration well, too bad...it adds just that much more variance to a model which could use all the variation it can get. Not once have I come across any ASW device which is incapable of penetrating the values added to subs in the CHS. I'd leave it in and see how it pans out with the new ASW. The stock scenarios don't have armour so we'll actually get to see a comparison.

The armour was added to subs to cut down on the effectiveness of ASW attacks. In the latest patches ASW effectieness has also been reduced. If the armour is now not removed, then the subs are "double dipping". Do you believe that the original effect of adding the sub armour was actually inadequate, and the current effect of armour plus reduced ASW effectivess is the correct tweak?

What gets done depends on game results. These need to match reality, at least approximately. If the new AW routines DO match reality reasonably well - and keep in mind that it looks like Mike Wood is also going to reduce search effectiveness as well now - then the sub armour is not required. I have read comments that the new ASW routines DO make a difference, but I would like to see any further comments om thsi from anyone who has played enough to notice anything.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
If the main goal is to reduce unrealistically high losses in air-to-air combat, why not just fiddle with weapons accuracy? It's one step, and easier to undo if/when necessary than the two-step durability + flak changes.

I thought of that, but I am concerned that reducing aircraft weapon accuracy may have an impact on air to surface (air to ground and air to ship) effectiveness. I do not know if that is the case, as I don't have time to test it, but that was my concern.

Secondly, if accuracy is reduced, then hits on aircraft will increasingly be "all or nothing", with the result either being an aircraft shot down or an aircraft undamaged. If relative weapon effectiveness is reduced instead (by increasing aircraft durability), then there should be more aircraft that end up damaged, which I was hoping would help to slow down the pace of air operations in the game. That is the theory, anyway.

Andrew

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'm not so sure about removing the submarine "armour" guys, or any added to previously "unarmoured" ships. While it is referred to as armor, really what it represents is the pressure hull vs small arms, shell fire. With zero "armour" a hull is paper thin. Seeing as each incremental digit is a mm thick, I suggest that much of the "armour added to DDs, SSs, merchants etc remain. If the odd DC does not get a penetration well, too bad...it adds just that much more variance to a model which could use all the variation it can get. Not once have I come across any ASW device which is incapable of penetrating the values added to subs in the CHS. I'd leave it in and see how it pans out with the new ASW. The stock scenarios don't have armour so we'll actually get to see a comparison.

The armour was added to subs to cut down on the effectiveness of ASW attacks. In the latest patches ASW effectieness has also been reduced. If the armour is now not removed, then the subs are "double dipping". Do you believe that the original effect of adding the sub armour was actually inadequate, and the current effect of armour plus reduced ASW effectivess is the correct tweak?

What gets done depends on game results. These need to match reality, at least approximately. If the new AW routines DO match reality reasonably well - and keep in mind that it looks like Mike Wood is also going to reduce search effectiveness as well now - then the sub armour is not required. I have read comments that the new ASW routines DO make a difference, but I would like to see any further comments om thsi from anyone who has played enough to notice anything.

That's why I suggest leaving the armour values in the CHS as it will give us something to compare to the stock subs with 0 deck and belt. I suspect that the armour will have little enough effect if the ASW has changed the way I think it has.

One thing to think about is depending on how Mike has altered the accuracy and yield of ASW weapons we may have to bring the DC ammo on the ships back up to actual numbers, or close to them. Right now the DC ammo basically represent abstract "DC Patterns"...and attempt to bring the original model back to earth.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I thought of that, but I am concerned that reducing aircraft weapon accuracy may have an impact on air to surface (air to ground and air to ship) effectiveness. I do not know if that is the case, as I don't have time to test it, but that was my concern.

I forget whether ship-borne AAA have a separate effect rating against aircraft. If not, Nik's method would presumably also make these guns more effective against surface targets?

Personally, making it more difficult strafe any kind of target is a price I'm willing to pay pay reducing A2A lethality (if indeed reducing aircraft weapon accuracy is the way to go).

Secondly, if accuracy is reduced, then hits on aircraft will increasingly be "all or nothing", with the result either being an aircraft shot down or an aircraft undamaged. If relative weapon effectiveness is reduced instead (by increasing aircraft durability), then there should be more aircraft that end up damaged, which I was hoping would help to slow down the pace of air operations in the game. That is the theory, anyway.

The admittedly very preliminary testing I've done on reducing aircraft weapon accuracy doesn't suggest to me that it produce a "all or nothing" situation. Rather the no. of kills went down while the proportion of damaged aircraft in broad terms remained the same. However your second point is well taken.

Saudarkar and I hope to be able to present some more comprehensive testing in the not too distant future.

Tom

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse




If the main goal is to reduce unrealistically high losses in air-to-air combat, why not just fiddle with weapons accuracy? It's one step, and easier to undo if/when necessary than the two-step durability + flak changes.

Not meant to detract from anybodies mods, per se. I tend to agree with Blackhorse on this, in the obviously more simplistic approach.
The Hayabusa "Oscar" was a very maneuverable plane, but the Japanese planes tended to be nothing more than very light aluminum gun platforms, without self-sealing tanks, nor armor of any kind, until maybe 1943,( and even then not as protected as the contemporary Allied planes, so any hits at all would be more destructive than similar hits on Allied planes.)
Too, the early Hayabusa only had two (2) machine guns, which was no improvement from WW 1 aircraft !!
With rare armour capability, no self-sealing tanks, and the Japanese pilots' refusal to wear (or sometimes be provided with parachutes till mid war), it should be little wonder that the Japanese suffer from combat attrition, (if C *H* S) is seeking "historical truth"..........
If any plane in the entire game is "under-represented" in it's durability rating, it would be the P 47, hands down...........

M10bob,
I hear what you saying Re: the Oscar, but tend to agree with Nik that the Oscar is a useless A/C in the game. I think a lot of people feel that way. I personally have not played with it in WitP yet as the Japs, but as the allies I certainly don't fear it. That isn't saying much when the game is in 43', I don't think it should be feared in 43', just respected

As it stands now it isn't even respected in 41', and that is the point of Nik's tweak on it. I have no qualms about sending ANY allied fighter up against the Oscars as do Zeros. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Recently in my PBEM (stock 15 game) i got my P-38Gs on line. I now send a Green (EXP 58)squadron over Kendari every other day to "Bag" Oscars that I assume to be in the 70's EXP Range. I'll have to ask my opponent about this. I have yet to lose a single Lightning and regualrly take down 3-4 Ki-43s. This is too lopsided even for me as the allied player. Where is the challenge?

The changes to aircraft such as the Tojo, Tony, and Oscar are meant to give them a fighting chance when piloted by capable aicrew. If the game plays out the way RL did then I think you'll find that those inexperienced pilots will be just as vulnerable as they should be.

I recommend checking out Nik and Speedy's AAR using the Mod. THe air combat results are encourageing, and it is refreshing to see the Oscar performing, not well mind you, just performing...

Elf, I agree, none of the Japanese army planes you mentioned should be a "cakewalk", by any means..If it is felt the Oscar is not a challenge to any kind of Allied fighter, then something is definitely amiss. It's ONLY real superior quality however was it's dogfighting capability, and about 6 months (or so) into the war, the smarter Allied pilot had learned not to attempt to dogfight Japanese fighters, but to use speed and heavier gunpower to their advantage, but before the Allies learned that lesson, the Oscar was a tiger in the air.
I know the game engine will never be absolutely accurate (historically), and NO game ever will be, likely, but IMHO all of the mods have served to improve an existing product,(WITP).
Perfection would include the ability to *never* allow Japanese army and navy planes in the same aerial formation.........
Since early war Zekes are getting a bonus, I wonder if maybe early war Japanese pilots should not be getting a similar bonus ??
It certainly was not just the Zero that was an astounding success early on. ??

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: timtom
The admittedly very preliminary testing I've done on reducing aircraft weapon accuracy doesn't suggest to me that it produce a "all or nothing" situation. Rather the no. of kills went down while the proportion of damaged aircraft in broad terms remained the same. However your second point is well taken.

Yes, I should have worded my comment better. I don't meant that reducing weapon accuracy will increase the destroyed to damaged ratio, which should remain the same as you say. But using the other method of increasing durability should result in a decrease of the ratio, which I consider a good thing.

And I have also wondered about the use of ship borne AA or DP weapons on other ships when their effectiveness is increased. That is perhaps a question for Nik to answer.

It seems that there is no perfect way of doing this, since everything that is changed affects something else...

Saudarkar and I hope to be able to present some more comprehensive testing in the not too distant future.

I look forward to seeing the results!

[Alikchi2]

Since early war Zekes are getting a bonus, I wonder if maybe early war Japanese pilots should not be getting a similar bonus ??
It certainly was not just the Zero that was an astounding success early on. ??

It would be excellent if we could get the developers to code the Zero Bonus to apply to all Japanese fighters in the beginning of the war.

[jwilkerson]

There was a bit of discussion about this oh about a year ago - some folks were agreeable to a bonus for all Japanese fighters - but perhaps only for the first month. However, the bonus is in the code, not something we can change either way. So keep it in mind as an ask - but don't wait on it before starting your next game !!!

[el cid again]

My proposal was to increase land AA effectiveness somewhat, but not by a huge amount, as many people have concluded that land AA is too weak overall (of course that is open to question).

In one sense ALL AA seems too effective: altitude. For example, we have the case of Clark AAF raids coming in at 25,000 feet - 2000 feet ABOVE the effective reach of the 75mm guns. But WITP data has the guns able to reach much higher altitudes in most cases. That is, the guns, firing at maximum altitude, achieved bursts that were 2000 to 4000 feet BELOW the bombers - and Saburo Sakai says this was WHY the attack came in at 25000 feet. And it was ACCURATE from that altitude - WITHOUT Norden bomb sights.

Sid

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

My proposal was to increase land AA effectiveness somewhat, but not by a huge amount, as many people have concluded that land AA is too weak overall (of course that is open to question).

In one sense ALL AA seems too effective: altitude. For example, we have the case of Clark AAF raids coming in at 25,000 feet - 2000 feet ABOVE the effective reach of the 75mm guns. But WITP data has the guns able to reach much higher altitudes in most cases. That is, the guns, firing at maximum altitude, achieved bursts that were 2000 to 4000 feet BELOW the bombers - and Saburo Sakai says this was WHY the attack came in at 25000 feet. And it was ACCURATE from that altitude - WITHOUT Norden bomb sights.

Sid

Exactly a point I argued and was hammered on in return months ago. Effective altitude instead of max altitude needs to be used for AA. For instance, the 40mm Bofors ammo auto destructed between 4500-5000 meters (US) horizontal at tracer burnout, thus even though the gun can theoritically shoot further, its ammo won't, unless one is shooting AP. Vertical range appears to be approx 75% of hrizontal. When a book I have on order on artillery and AA gun ballistics calculation arrives I will have a mathematical basis to calculate this.

[el cid again]

Exactly a point I argued and was hammered on in return months ago. Effective altitude instead of max altitude needs to be used for AA. For instance, the 40mm Bofors ammo auto destructed between 4500-5000 meters (US) horizontal at tracer burnout, thus even though the gun can theoritically shoot further, its ammo won't, unless one is shooting AP. Vertical range appears to be approx 75% of hrizontal. When a book I have on order on artillery and AA gun ballistics calculation arrives I will have a mathematical basis to calculate this.

It is very strange, but AAA is actually more effective in altitude than in range. IF a target is at great altitude, but not much range, getting a shell to a predicted future point on the target's course (assuming it stays on course) is not as hard as if the target is at low altitude, but longer range. At longer ranges, the shell actually rises above a direct line from gun to impact point, and then falls back to meet the line just at that point. Calculating this is not as easy as when you have a much shorter lateral range. In the extreme case - a strait up shot - there is zero lateral range - zero lateral movement of the target - and no calculation is required at all - any and every shot from the gun must and will hit the target at some point along its trajectory, provided only the target is not above the maximum altitude the gun can reach. The greater the horizontal range, and the greater the horizontal movement of the target (bearing drift), the more difficult the fire control problem becomes.

Even so, fire control is well understood, and it is possible to achieve first shot kills with AAA. My first ship had four gun mountings - 3 inch 50s in twin mountings - and the gunnery chief ran competitions between the mount crews - with rewards like liberty for the winning crew. He forbade shooting more than one round per tube - so he could tell for sure if your first shot was a hit - on the logic that "if you solved the fire control problem correctly the first shot SHOULD hit." In a typical shooting session it was NORMAL for ALL the mountings to hit on the first shot most of the time. We scored the misses to tell who won! Of course, those were very skilled crews, but it shows what can be done with what was basically WWII era predictors and fine AA guns. The ship was USS Francis Marion (APA-249) - the very last traditional APA ever built, by the way.

[Ron Saueracker]

The ship was USS Francis Marion (APA-249) - the very last traditional APA ever built, by the way.

Had to look it up. It's laid up as a training hulk for the Spanish Navy. Named Aragon.

[TheElf]

Potential compromise. Not one to create more work for others [;)]I think I have a solution regarding Nik's A2A model. Before I present it however I think I have made a pretty good arguement as why we at the CHS should just flat out adopt his A2A work at a minimum, but.....

The compromise: If in fact we still have a large number of dissenters, I propose a CHS Ver. XX.Xb. "XX.X" of course being the standard CHS Mod as it is now. "b" being the sub-variant of the CHS which has the Nik mod incorporated. Given the CHS's exhustive OOB changes I think that it should be the platform from wich we all deviate or mod. At least all that OOB stuff will make it into whichever sub variant players choose to play. Theoretically we could have three parallel line of the CHS

Ver XX.X = the standard CHS
Ver XX.Xb = the CHS/Nik Mod
Ver XX.Xc = the CHS PRY mod

thoughts?

[el cid again]

Given the CHS's exhustive OOB changes I think that it should be the platform from wich we all deviate or mod.

Concur with the addition that the map is at least 100% superior as well. I won't consider any stock scenario - except as a foundation for a CHS mod. CHS has fixed many amazing errors - it is very frustrating such a fine model as WITP was not more diligently executed.

[ragtopcars_slith]

Elf, I think you got it spot on!

Using CHS as the base with other varients would definitely simplify things overall.
Continue the awesome work!

derek[&o]