Matrix Games Forums

Sid has a problem with that carrier. Possibly the air units. PM him to look at this....GP

RHS Comprehensive Microupdate 6.41

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... g?e=qtTQLP

This is a significantly improved variant of 6.40, which included a quick and dirty rebuild of Scenario 129.
Aided by an old copy found by Mifune, 129 is now better than it was at any time. The old files premitted rebuilding
of the task forces and ships - the main difference between 125 (my Japan Enhanced Scenario, permitting better planning
only from the decision to mobilize in July, 1941) and 129 (Mifune's based on a rationalization of the AltWars version,
assuming what the Allies believed was true in 1941: That Japan had planned for a long time - ten years in this case -
not because that is a round number but for engineering reasons related to standard hull and engine designs.

One difference is that for the first time we have included de Zeven Provencien class battlecruiser. Art was long
done, as were specifications for the earliest form (the only one which might have been built in time for the war,
if begun soon enough - something we allow here because of a more obviously growing IJN). Partly this is a reacton
to the amazing construction of a 1/3 scale (that is. 33%) model of the ship in the Netherlands! No other RHS scenari
can rationalize this ship.

Another difference is detail review of difference between Full RHS scenarios (odd numbers) and Simplified RHS scenarios
(even numbers). In Full RHS there are now River Boom Task Forces (think The Sand Pebbles for an example) at start.
The boom barges do not exist in Simplified scenarios. [The existed before in both, but non started the game
as functioning barriers to river traffic]. We have three - one for RGC (the primary Japanese allied Chinese Navy),
one for ROC Navy - and one for the very tiny Red Navy (which is misleanding insofar as it didn't yet have a name,
but it best describes the ad hoc collection of vessels in Red service).

Many US bombers - for all three services operating such (USN, USAAF and USMC) - were reworked for sensors, production
rates, upgrades, etc.

RHS Comprehensive Microupdate 6.42

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... g?e=FMWDGf

This important updated includes extensive changes to Scenario Files,
as well as RHS Documentation files and pwhexe.dat files.

Begun as a major effort to review most of the remaining Allied aircraft types
(to integrate new or changed sensors, improve upgrade paths, improve and
to the greatest extent possible automate production of aircraft, to recalculate
aircraft payload ratings, and to improve performance of code with respect to
drop tanks), major problems (dating from stock) related to the Canadian Air Force
forced a review of related aircraft types. These in turn caused significant
revisions in RHS documentation files. A few other issues were addressed,
including device, location, air group, task force, ship and class eratta.

It was found that the RCAF, which becomes the fourth larges air force in the world
by 1945, was poorly modeled. Due to a lack of slots and the fact the RCAF is
substantially integrated with the RAF, this was difficult to address. In particular,
a review of Lancaster and Lincoln aircraft was undertaken which resulted in
comprehensive changes. RAF, RAAF, RCAF & RNZAF were revised such that, late in
the war, they can all share the same Lancaster FE and Lincoln aircraft model.
One other case has the Lancaster X model shared with RAF and RCAF. Art issues
were also discovered: we had a brown color scheme (vice white) for Lincoln,
and several cases of Lancasters with the wrong color scheme and/or the wrong
turret art. These were integrated using the existing art. This was easier
because Lincoln is a renamed Lancaster variant. Indeed, counter-intuitively,
the many Lancaster names differ mainly in respect to the origins of the engines
or the subsystems (which can be British, Canadian or US), and sometimes with
respect to turrets. In the end we ended up with more free slots for aircraft,
with a much better modeling and upgrade route, still bounded by the nationality
of the aircraft (even when shared). This also is likely the very last time we
need to relocate industry (re airplane production) - so future updates won't
produce odd outcomes in ongoing games.

Drop tanks were invented by Matrix, but didn't work until RHS figured out how to
define them in data. There is no code to make intelligent decisions, however,
IF drop tanks are defined, and external bombs are defined, both will work even if
on the same hard point. Thus, a centerline drop tank and a centerline bomb can
co-exist, as far as code is concerned. The same for external drop tanks (meaning
non-centerline). We had to only allow both when both are possible (which is quite
rare). So some combinations cannot be defined in game. Nevertheless, full external
loads were determined. Thus - numerous later P-40 types (in many nations) still can
carry bombs on the wings in terms of maximum load rating even though we can't actually
show them with maximum load. [Due to how code works, most of the time we use what
should be called normal loads, not maximum loads]. Another effect of this review is
to give fighters more range at extended range because they are "clean" - without external
bombs.

A new table of pilots is attached in documentation, but Mifune must put it into code -
as my editors won't work with them. I will issue that as a microupdate when he completes
entering the data. Other future work will include a review of Tiger Force - because I
found a complete list of its squadrons. However, except for fixing minor eratta (which
I do when it is reported or found), and for issuing the new files related to those pilots,
I am suspending development for a while (so I can write a real report for a USAF think tank
on today's airplanes). I also found names of some in game pilots who are commanding
officers which at some point I will look at to see if they are in the database, and even
if they are, if they have the correct assignments.

RHS Comprehensive Microupdate 6.421

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... g?e=TwZ0rd

This microupdate mainly includes revised pilot tables. These generally
affect non-start of game pilot pools and replacement rates for Allied nations,
except for (unplayable, incomplete) scenario 126, where start of game
pools are also affected.

The main purpose of this change is to better model the RCAF, which by 1945
is the 4th largest air force in the world. This is hard to model because
much of it was inside the RAF, but even so, more aircraft and pilots were needed
to model its independent squadrons. Along the way, some other issues were
detected and corrected. NZAF gained 3 group leaders (all wing commander rank),
and one transport squadron changed from 1941 start to June 1, 1943 start (in
strictly historical squadrons). CAF loses its Beechcraft models (transport
and improvised bomber/reconnaissance) in Scenario 126.

Otherwise, former locations of a Chinese aircraft manufacturing plant (which is
in Lio Wing by December 1941) gained a vehicle manufacturing plant (which is how
the game treats captured aircraft factories), damaged in one case, undamaged
in the other case. Some 1945 location stocks (fuel, oil, supplies, resources)
were recalculated for Scenario 126. A few Axis and Allied aircraft types were
checked and a few were modified for eratta, replacement rates, etc.

RHS Microupdate 6.422

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... g?e=TDIrji

This microupdate only contains scenario and documentation files.

Almost the updated records are aircraft or related group files.

There is one newly device. This is the Ta Ke 11 aircraft ECM set of the JAAF.
Like most Japanese electronic devices, it is too late to matter, appearing late
in the war. Nevertheless, it is a rare case where IJA was actually ahead of
IJN and also achieved production for a new electronic system.

There is one redefined location: 1949 Luchakou (formerly Changchunmiao). This
was identified by a teleconference of historians (and intelligence analysts)
studying the Japanese atomic bomb program. This was the site of the IJA's
atom bomb test, which was different from the IJN's test off the coast of Korea.
Changchunmiao is two hexes farther South, the site of an IJA attack on the
Red Army in 1938 (better known by other names - so we won't use it any more).

Almost all the changes are technical. Correcting eratta, the most common being
aircraft bomb codes, or flight endurance data. Some devices which did not exist
when aircraft were defined were added in this review.

RHS Microupdate 6.423

This update is almost purely related to aircraft and air groups.

For safety, in case of eratta, devices, classes, locations and ships were also updated.

[When errors are found or reported, they are always updated at source immediately. I can't
remember any, but if any happened, they are folded in.]

An unpleasant discovery is that aircraft loads often were not checked when defined. As devices
(e.g. torpedoes) got added or updated, the aircraft which carries them was not updated for its load.
So we are now adding checking for old aircraft with weapons, not just adding cases for drop tanks
or radar sets etc. Otherwise, when we do a plane, we insure its duration is correct, its upgrade
is correct, its production dates are correct, and its production data are correct.

RHS Microupdate 6.423

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... =7gGae8RHS

This update is almost purely related to aircraft and air groups.

For safety, in case of eratta, devices, classes, locations and ships were also updated.

[When errors are found or reported, they are always updated at source immediately. I can't
remember any, but if any happened, they are folded in.]

An unpleasant discovery is that aircraft loads often were not checked when defined. As devices
(e.g. torpedoes) got added or updated, the aircraft which carries them was not updated for its load.
So we are now adding checking for old aircraft with weapons, not just adding cases for drop tanks
or radar sets etc. Otherwise, when we do a plane, we insure its duration is correct, its upgrade
is correct, its production dates are correct, and its production data are correct.

RHS Microupdate 6.424

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... g?e=4qLF4v

Note development is slow because I am working on Chinese air
forces for USAF in real life. I just completed PLAAF. I am
now starting Naval Aviation (formerly PLANAF).

This update is almost purely related to aircraft and air groups.

I-400 Class related records (class, ship, air group) were checked
and edited (because M6A1 aircraft were checked and updated). Now
the ships carry one more plane than the air groups have in them.
This is because each ship carried an entire aircraft in parts as
a spare (either to fix or replace one of the on board bombers).

Note there are two species of I-400 class submarine aircraft carriers.
JES Scenarios feature the ORIGINAL design, which completes sooner (not
needing conversion), and which are somewhat more maneuverable. These
carry only 2 bombers (plus a spare). Strictly historical Scenarios
(121-124 & 126) feature the version which saw service. These carry
3 bombers (plus a spare). There were originally to be 18 ships of the
smaller design. Strictly historical scenarios only complete ships that
were completed by August, 1945. JES Scenarios (125 & 129) complete
up to 13 from July 1944 to July 1945. The tanker option exists in
both forms, but JES tankers are based on the smaller hull and carry less.
Players should be able to add a plane to an air group if one is available,
but it will exceed the max size and probably won't fly until one of
the others is lost.

For safety, in case of eratta, devices, classes, locations and ships were also updated.

[When errors are found or reported, they are always updated at source immediately. I can't
remember any, but if any happened, they are folded in.]

An unpleasant discovery is that aircraft loads often were not checked when defined. As devices
(e.g. torpedoes) got added or updated, the aircraft which carries them was not updated for its load.
So we are now adding checking for old aircraft with weapons, not just adding cases for drop tanks
or radar sets etc. Otherwise, when we do a plane, we insure its duration is correct, its upgrade
is correct, its production dates are correct, and its production data are correct.

RHS Microupdate 6.425


https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... g?e=4qLF4v

Note development is slow because I am working on Chinese air
forces for USAF in real life. I just completed PLAAF. I am
now starting Naval Aviation (formerly PLANAF).

This update is purely related to aircraft and air groups.

This work mainly involves seeking and correcting errors in formulas
or the use of out of date formulas for range and performance, adding
or modifying bomb filter codes when appropriate, updating bomb load
so it includes drop tank weight and electronic equipment weight,
and insuring upgrade paths are correct and in sync with the dates
of the other aircraft type being upgraded to.

The biggest changes are that bomber loads often increase, and that
city bombing filter is being made identical to the ground support
bombing codes, for the same reason. The bomb loades associated with
this filter involve composite loads of 4 bombs. While nominally
assigned values, the values are not in fact used in this kind of attacks
(something to fix if we start modifying code). Instead of the normal
ground combat mechanism of a device is disabled, while a disabled device
that is hit is destroyed, code has every hit be a kill. This regardless
of the size of the ordnance used or its explosive power or its penetration.
Our compromise workaround is to divide the number of hits by four (hence
the device says "4 x 100 pound bombs" (or similar) but it is only one
hit. Since every hit is a kill, the effect is too lethal.

RHS Microupdate 6.426

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhb0jGIA ... g?e=MSFVdd


This update includes pwhexe.dat files, new aircraft art filmstrips,
and scenario files (aircraft, devices, air groups and ships).

A short feedback on some issues that I encountered during an AI game (Scen 122):

- The Jap AI is not really sending out Sub patrols or only into the waters around Japan and Australia.

- ASW combat is flawed, because in July 1942 not a single sub has been sunk except for the ones at Manila in the first turn and a few midget subs at PH. There were quite some ASW encounters with hits, but never a sunken sub (verified by looking at the Japanese side)

- TBD Devastators are set to Carrier Trained but not Carrier Capable, thus resulting in Carrier planes diverting to land bases after every mission

- A lot of allied devices are set to: "Can build - NO", although I am not sure if this has an impact (was pointed out by another player in the Opponents Wanted Forum)

- The map files for Monsoon 1942 seem to be broken because Aden is not reachable anymore if you load up this file (later files are working again).

Maybe this helps in polishing up the scenarios!

Scen 122, RHS II

Yes, only support squads are being produced for the Allies.

Here is a screenshot focusing on Chinese squad devices, since the Chinese are involved in several battles on 8 Dec 1941 and need some replacements. On Dec 7 and Dec 8 nothing was produced.

el cid again, One Great request!!!
Write your text correctly: At end of the sentence put a dot, or an exclamation / question mark.
Press Tab only if you want to start text as a new chapter,BUT NOT after every line.

There are non-English-speaking users here and they use translators to translate, and these programs do not understand your style and translate rubbish.

Thanks for understanding!

This is the most extensive rework of RHS ever attempted. Probably the most extensive AE update. A majority
of devices, formations and land units were reviewed and either updated or deleted. There is a slight improvement to the
start of game pwhexe.dat file (aka II41WINTER.pwhexe.dat). There is a new Allied Radar documentation update.

There will be a microupdate with more pwhexe.dat files. Also more land units will be synced with their parent formation or their formation. And ships will be reviewed to sync with task forces, classes and assigned air groups, if any. After the next microupdate, a major public test will be conducted by Mifune and I.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Hi Sid. What is the belt armor rating for your Fletcher DDs?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i2S2pW ... sp=sharing

This microupdate only changes scenario files: aircraft, device, class, leader (h), group, location and ship.
Almost all changes are in leader and location files.

Hundreds of leaders were modified or added. Scores of formations and thousands of land combat unit records were
modified or added or deleted. A small number of fictional units (e.g. US Army Coast Battalions and their formation -
not to be confused with USMC Defense Battalions, because no such units appear in the official order of battle and none
are referred to in online searches) were deleted. Some were removed from "simplified" (even numbered) scenarios -
mainly sub units to reduce the number of units to manage. Some sub-sub units were removed altogether more generally, in all scenarios - for the same reason. Many commanding officers were added or corrected due to better data - particularly in Australia. Many land units picked up supplies and other field values. Some Allied land units lost morale or readiness ratings where appropriate. There were two versions of the US Army 7th Division - version one had to be removed from play only to be replaced 30 days later. I put the early version in strictly historical scenarios and the later version in RHS scenarios WITHOUT an upgrade process - the unit points at one formation slot or the other. JES scenaios don't get the early war version, but don't have to remove the unit from play to get the upgrade. This version probably will upgrade by the normal process (supplies permitting).

I will attempt to build start turns to discover eratta. Hopefully Mifune can create a Japanese start turn. If he does, I will run a Track B game for a turn or two as a demonstration.

Sid

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

This update contains all files, but only scenario, pwhexe.dat and (maybe) documentation files have changed.

Many of the edits were caused by building the Japanese Beta Test start turn. These mostly involved aircraft
and/or air group files. E13 floatplanes and Ki dive bomber types sometimes had technical changes. Some
groups had upgrade changes. One group (slot 1146) could not be fixed, so no longer used 1142 was used
to replace it. The aircraft could not upgrade for some reason - it took "minus one" aircraft to upgrade. Copying
any sort of aircraft into the slot caused the same problem, so the unit was recreated in a no longer used slot
(formerly a recon detachment that now is not broken out from its parent - the parent can divide anyway).
The Japanese files are surprisingly clean, but problems of starting supplies (etc) remain - and some of these
were addressed. There is a possibility that plane list 1 (aircraft in slot order) needed updating in the cloud,
so it was replaced with the most current version at source.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing


This update contains all RHS files, but only Scenario and Documentation files were changed.
This update should NOT affect any game turn in use or even in preparation in the last few days
(since 9.11 was issued). The changes affect aircraft data, and possibly air group data (with respect
to aircraft names - which should be dynamic - and not matter). All of those changes relate to
Japanese transport aircraft, especially aircraft upgrade paths. The L2D1/DC3 was renamed
DC3/L2D1. Notes explaining this aircraft, and the H6K2-L transport flying boat, were added.
The most significant change was removal of the L2D2(IJA) from strictly historical scenarios
121-124 (126 never had it). This type was certainly feasible to produce - Japan had a licence
and actually made them for IJN. But in strictly historical scenarios, they should not be an option
for Army production. Since it is not available at game start even in Japan Enhanced Scenarios,
it should not have any impact on games in progress - the option to build will simply not exist in
scenarios 121 to 124. The DC-3/L2D1 is a naming convention for DNKKK civil airliners. All civil
airliners (Japanese, Korean, Manchukuo and Chinese civil air services) are IJA controlled. So
the DC-3 is an IJA aircraft. Two identical IJN L2D1 prototypes are included, because they have
identical performance, a compromise - Japan has no net change but the Navy loses two transports
and the Army gains them instead. [This is not a change - it is just documenting the facts for clarity.]
Similarly, the DNKKK civil airline Nanyo ("South Seas") unit - operating the H6K2-L flying boat is
Army controlled - in spite of the aircraft being an IJN type. That unit could upgrade to other IJN
type flying boats - which is acceptable - as DNKKK's Nanyo unit did operate some. Again, it is
a change in documentation for clarity.

An error in the durability of the Ki-47 light bomber was corrected. I failed to rerun the durability
formula. This will automatically update and take effect. Since only two prototype aircraft exist, it will
only have much significance if a player puts the type into production, which IJA historically did not
do. This is also not an option in Simplified Scenarios 122, 124 and 126 (which is just a 1945 test
bed at this time). Simplified scenarios do not have minor aircraft types, and only 10% of the number
of Japanese trainers (since they lack training units, only a few trainers are available for non-training
missions). Although the stock training system never was perfected, tests indicate training units do
train pilots - just not in classes as they should do - rather one or two at a time.

A few logistical changes are included - mainly supplies for some start of game units or locations which
don't have enough - a general problem because of how units were created by whoever created them long ago.

Sid

RE: RHS Level II Importand Update 7.13
Post by el cid again » Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:21 am

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Review caused me to detect significant errors with respect to ships in different RHS scenarios. Because I was trying to
start a game after a major review at the device level, I mainly reviewed Scenario 129 - the only RHS scenario designed
by Mifune - and the only one based on the AltWars AE website theories. RHS adopted the common standard for
ship and air art - and Mifune improved most of it - years ago. I developed virtually every aircraft for which artists in the
broader AE community made it - finding at least one scenario which could use it in most cases. The RHS system has
7 scenarios - although 4 of them come in pairs which differ by a single byte (are Russians Active or Not?). These
are historical scenarios, all of them full map and all of them able to last into 1946 if warranted. Unfortunately, some
of these had ships intended for the 2 Japan Enhanced Scenarios - with the wrong dates and/or weapons and/or air
groups. So here we have corrected perhaps the most significant and important of them. Generally speaking, Allied
ships tend to be the same in all scenarios. The Allies don't start the war on purpose, and don't plan for it. The Japanese
Enhanced Scenarios get more time to plan - and to build things. 125 (which I designed) named Empire of the Sun or EOS,
gets to change things after the decision for war in July, 1941. 129 (which Mifune designed) named Total War Option or TWO, gets to change things since July 1931 - by which point many standard ship hulls and engineering plants had been designed. No more steel or horsepower is allowed, but what that steel or horsepower is invested in is different, and more standardized. [Steel is the most important, and most limited, strategic resource, after oil. Engine production is limited and not easy to change - it probably could not change significantly in Japan's case given limited land for factories, limited capital and limited steel production. So Japan simply can improve the ratio of what it invests in - not get more to fight with.] Over decades of development, and some losses of files requiring rebuilding, errors have crept in. This update is the first of a series which will review every ship and every class, similar to the just completed review of devices, locations and ground units. Sometimes a change in the form of ship (say from carrier to battleship, or vice versa) required a change of air groups. Sometimes this review discovered eratta - three aircraft types were found to have zero engines. Even gliders have engines because they are "combination" aircraft - glider (or gliders) and tug - and the tugs have engines. I will continue this process until every ship is examined. Along the way I sometimes find improvements.

In this case, I discovered useful data on the armament of Hosho - the first proper aircraft carrier in the world. But by 1941, she had lost both of her ancient 3 inch AA guns, and still mounted 4 single 5.5 inch (2 per side), while four twin 25 mm mountings had been added. In 1942, four more twin 25 mm had been added, in place of the 5.5 inch guns. But by 1945, she mounted only 3 of the 8 twin 25mm. So this is how she appears in strictly historical scenarios. In JES, there is a 1943 rework adding a copy of the Bofors two punder (captured at Singapore and eventually put into production in Japan), replacing the 5.5 inch guns. The other 25 mm are replaced with twin 20mm Japanese Type 2 light AAA.

Most interesting, perhaps, is that I found a way to treat the peculiar case of the converted Shinano as a CV. She is rated for an air group of 102 aircraft (and won't refuse to fly unless more than 119 machines are on board). But only 42 carrier type planes are assigned to her (exactly as designed). These come in 3 Daitai (18 fighters, 12 dive bombers and 12 torpedo bombers - the most likely combination by late war). But there is also an assigned Navy Hikotai of 48 Navy fighters - George or Jack (players choice because one upgrades the other). These non-carrier planes may upgrade to any Navy fighter plane - carrier or not - and - can be used to simulate transport of planes to a forward base WITHOUT removing the ability of the carrier air group to function - as in real life. Finally, a fifth Daitai is added, with Navy
land based recon planes OR Navy land based bombers (Q2W ASW bombers) - both of which may upgrade to any kind of Navy recon plane or bomber. These additional units may be equipped with carrier type aircraft - allowing the ship to function as a carrier with a large air group - or they may transport to a base on board with their land planes and deploy operationally from that base - as intended. OR the Hikotai and/or the 5th Daitai may be landed and their place be taken by other air units - at the price that the regular carreir planes will not fly during their transit. The 4th and 5th air units are marked as carrier capable - so they do not make the code think they should prevent flight operations.
Yet they will suffer attrition if they fly at all - and can in that case only transfer to a base - not return to a carrier. Previously I just left the unused capacity be excess capacity to use or not as a player saw fit. [Carriers can use excess capacity to load other carrier air groups, or to load ONE non-carrier air group - in which case it becomes impossible to load more units or to fly any of them.] Shinano in 129 is a repeat Shokaku class carrier with similar air group. It is a converted Shinano type carrier in 125, completed a year earlier because of an earlier decision to convert,
but gets a full air group of carrier type planes rather than just 42 carrier planes.

Yamato and Musashi are completed in historical form in strictly historical scenarios with 3 triple 18 inch turrets. Only one of them still survives when the one RHS limited duration scenario - 126 - begins in February 1945 (in time for Iwo Jima). Both complete to a different historical design (there were 20 different Yamato class designs) - armed with 4 triple 16 inch turrets - with 33$ more guns each with a practical rate of fire 50% faster than the 18 inch guns. They are probably the most powerful battleships in the world - but still not as powerful as a fleet carrier. In scenario 126, both ships complete sooner still - as repeat Shokaku class ships with smaller, Shokaku class air groups.


Sid

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

I found a copy of the Class file (wpc) for strictly historical scenarios (preserved in the future scenario 126 class file) -
ALL strictly historical scenarios share the same files, as do both Japan enhanced scenarios). We simply pick what
class to point at for each ship. I also found an editing tool permitting syncing all ships to the class files in the same
scenario. Using that, I was able to rebuild all the ship records at once for each scenario.

Then I reviewed the ship records in the strictly historical scenarios to discover if any were pointed at records intended tor (and generally labeled) JES ships. In the process, I sometimes found improvements which could be made, some of them in all scenarios. This was a comprehensive review - I checked air groups (if any) associated with a ship record. I checked the dates of the aircraft assigned to each group. I checked the upgrade listing for each group. I checked the weapons and sensors (generically called "Radar" in RHS - see Axis and Allied Radar MS Excel spreadsheets under RHS Documentation).

This comprehensive review builds on the previous device review (which not only developed devices and improved the
replacement rates based on actual data), to insure each class and ship not only has the most appropriate devices, but is
also in sync with the design intent for each scenario,. The term "Strictly Historical Scenarios" was interpreted literally -
so never mind what was possible - if a class variant is not present in history, it is not present in these scenarios either.
Classes, ships, aircraft and air groups were limited to what was done in these scenarios. Other possibilities were restricted to the Japan Enhanced Scenarios - and for both sides. Indeed, JES scenarios include MORE enhancements for the Allies than they do for the Japanese. Just as JES pwhexe.dat files include more and much more extensive construction of roads and railroads than it does Japanese construction. Japan tended to to limit itself to minor projects - connecting useful infrastructure already existing or improving it - rather than major projects. It is the Allies who build major, long distance roads and railroads. RHS map art labels the routes used by all these projects - and shows those not existing at the start as dashed lines.

The bottom line is that the major problems present in the strictly historical files after a rebuild caused by file loss has been fixed. The last rebuild focused on getting JES files done because of the current test game being built for Mifune and I to use as a major test (especially of production and technical innovations requiring testing). This rebuild focused on insuring ALL the other scenarios are similarly reviewed. Along the way, more and more differences were worked in between scenarios. Simplified scenarios (even numbered 122, 124 and the 1945 device, aircraft and ship test bed 126) keep losing things. Full RHS versions (odd numbered 121, 123, 125 and 129) continue to diverge - so there are more and more differences between strictly historical full map full war scenarios 121 & 123 when compared with JES scenarios 125 & 129. 125 - MY JES scenario 125 which limits Japan to what it could have changed in the five months between the decision to go to war and the start of operations - and Mifune's JES scenario 129, which assumes (what the Allies assumed in real life) that Japan had planned for war for years - in our case - for ten years. Japan is allowed no more steel or engine horsepower for ships - but it may change exactly what was made using both. Generally, historical Japanese plans or programs standardizing ships were used. This follows the AltWars theory in the main, but is policed by being bounded by economic considerations. Not "that would be cool" so much as "that would be possible if wisdom prevailed" (in the technical sense - real wisdom would honor Yamamoto's statement "a great commander would find a
way to avoid the war." - and not try to admit it would be much harder to win than The Short Victorious War (with Russia) on which the dream victories were possible had been based.

The bad news is that the production recommendations file for a Japanese start turn for Scenario 129 was deleted. It must be rebuilt because of all the changes. JES files were not targeted by this update, but many records were improved. Especially those related to conversions between sub-classes of ships and more flexible upgrade options for air groups.