RHS 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
REPLY: Are you sure? I have them listed as in the service of the "Border Patrol" - and someone

It was me.

posted they were similar in concept to coast guard cutters. IF you are sure - I will correct them.

Similliar. I mentioned coast guard at all only because US therminology is lacking the term for these and many simmiliar ships of other navies. I did not at any point stated that they were belonging to Coast Guard.

[el cid again]

I have recreated a Level 5 pwhex file set that corresponds to the latest Level 6 set. I discovered problems in
previous versions of pwhex files as uploaded since x.641 and have uploaded both Levels at x.642 status in tested form. WITPExcel - the tool I use - is fragile and often "breaks" a file when "putting" it.

We now have completely uploaded all data files at x.642 level and tested (in the form uploaded) x.642 pwhex files.

I do not expect any changes to either pwhex set as we proceed - and I will create Level 7 pwhex to this standard.
I also plan to attempt to create a Monsoon pwhex - and if it works we can introduce the Monsoon/Summer seasonal map art (already done). When Winter is done I will attempt to do a pwhex for that. These files should slow down land combat operations in some areas significantly in the "bad" seasons (whatever that means locally). But we lack the ability to affect weather at sea.

Meanwhile I will proceed to work in the remaining eratta for Levels 5 and 6 - and to work in small craft. We are at least a day away from "freezing" - and the freeze level will be called x.650 - but we will use the x.642 pwhex files with it. There may be no more pwhex eratta and I plan no more pwhex enhancements (other than seasonal variations).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: el cid again
REPLY: Are you sure? I have them listed as in the service of the "Border Patrol" - and someone

It was me.

posted they were similar in concept to coast guard cutters. IF you are sure - I will correct them.

Similliar. I mentioned coast guard at all only because US therminology is lacking the term for these and many simmiliar ships of other navies. I did not at any point stated that they were belonging to Coast Guard.

OK - I found it. Conways lists the service of these ships as "the NKVD Far East Coast Guard." That surely sounds like USCG to me. I will, however, not list these vessels as coast guard cutters - which isn't quite right architecturally.
I will instead describe their service as SFECG (Soviet Far East Coast Guard). I will also introduce SMM (Soviet Merchant Marine) as a service category.

[m10bob]

Question:
Sid, If you make minor corrections to the OOB's themselves,(like the range of a plane, or type of a ship,etc)., the change will not show up in an existing game, will it?
I.E.:If I want to see the changes, I must start a new campaign...correct?

BTW, very much like the way everything is working,(CVO Allied vs AI).
Vast OOB additions, supply considerations/dumps,"sinks",etc., land movement/obstacles.

Cobra's artwork is astounding, (as ever), and his maps just continue to be both eye candy and utilitarian.

[davidjruss]

Sid,
 
Pwhex v6.642.   Just found that  Dunedin (NZ) located in middle of ocean at hex 43 142 instead of hex 53 146 
 
DavidR

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Sources like Janes and Conways are made for masses - so they can be wrong. Especially when it comes to forces of enemy nations and without acces to their sources.

I have an article of Russian historian Sergey Klimovskiy from Polish periodic: "Morza Statki i Okręty" [Seas: Ships and Warships] 2/2003 (part 1) & 3/2003 (part 2). The article is generally about mobilisation of Soviet ASW forces, and their actions during September 1939 - so long before full war mobilisation. It shows OoB for "Protection of Baltic Fleet Water Region" force - which was navy unit responsible for keeping Soviet bases free from mines and submarines. One of it's component was "Guarding Ships Division" which consisted of Uragan vessels. There is not a single word about NKVD. I believe Conway is wrong.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Next thing: Sid, have you thought about adding small repair shipyard (size 1) to a single base in each river system? I think shipyard is needed to repair damaged devices of ships.

[CobraAus]

Pwhex v6.642. Just found that Dunedin (NZ) located in middle of ocean at hex 43 142 instead of hex 53 146

yep same here

Cobra

[CobraAus]

Next thing: Sid, have you thought about adding small repair shipyard (size 1) to a single base in each river system? I think shipyard is needed to repair damaged devices of ships.

same thinking - if river water ways are isolated we will need some shipyards

Cobra

[Ol_Dog]

In RHSCVO Scen 50 5.642, 471 - South Atlantic Entry Base (62,148) is on the map.

I thought that was just in 6.x. I believe I have the lastest pwhex installed.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Question:
Sid, If you make minor corrections to the OOB's themselves,(like the range of a plane, or type of a ship,etc)., the change will not show up in an existing game, will it?
I.E.:If I want to see the changes, I must start a new campaign...correct?

REPLY: Basically correct. The only exception is if changes were made to a save game file. To make such changes on a vast scale would not be worth the effort - and if you lack the ability to edit that file impossible.

BTW, very much like the way everything is working,(CVO Allied vs AI).
Vast OOB additions, supply considerations/dumps,"sinks",etc., land movement/obstacles.

Cobra's artwork is astounding, (as ever), and his maps just continue to be both eye candy and utilitarian.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: DavidR

Sid,

Pwhex v6.642.   Just found that  Dunedin (NZ) located in middle of ocean at hex 43 142 instead of hex 53 146 

DavidR

That is corrected in the "validated" (i.e. second) upload of 6.642. I found it too. If you are not getting this with a fresh download send your address to trevethans@aol.com.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Sources like Janes and Conways are made for masses - so they can be wrong. Especially when it comes to forces of enemy nations and without acces to their sources.

REPLY: Originally Captain Fred T. Jane did his work for naval gamers - the sort who "push lead" (referring to models made of lead - once 1:1200 scale and now 1:2400 scale). Eventually Jane's grew up and became much more of a reference for professionals of the naval and intelligence (and scholarly) sort. You can put a great deal more stock in Jane's today than long ago - and you will pay a small fortune to get a copy too! Jane's has gone on to become a significant specalized publisher. Conways appears to be a later effort - done by a specialized "Maritime Press" company - beginning about 1980. It is a serious attempt to get things write, but for cost reasons is limited to significant warships. Often Conway's - done far later than early Jane's - is far more reliable - but for current stuff Jane's is better. Both are very serious and scholarly sources and I won't denegrate either (and, indeed, the Jane's resident in Taipei uses me as a source on PLAN). However, as a detail student of PLAN (and before that IJN) I am aware of errors in both. It is impossible to get this stuff completely right - and professionals are much more restrained by budgets than dedicated amateurs are in terms of the time they can spend getting it right. A Boeing Vice President once advised me not to accept leadership of a think tank because "when you are not associated with a budget your work gets more respect." I sincerely doubt Conway is incorrect when it is specific with a term like NKVD Far East Coast Guard. That is way to specific - they were reading something.

I note for the record the use of the term "enemy" re the Soviet Navy. While this was long the case in the Cold War era, it was NOT the case during WWII!

I have an article of Russian historian Sergey Klimovskiy from Polish periodic: "Morza Statki i Okrêty" [Seas: Ships and Warships] 2/2003 (part 1) & 3/2003 (part 2). The article is generally about mobilisation of Soviet ASW forces, and their actions during September 1939 - so long before full war mobilisation. It shows OoB for "Protection of Baltic Fleet Water Region" force - which was navy unit responsible for keeping Soviet bases free from mines and submarines. One of it's component was "Guarding Ships Division" which consisted of Uragan vessels. There is not a single word about NKVD. I believe Conway is wrong.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Next thing: Sid, have you thought about adding small repair shipyard (size 1) to a single base in each river system? I think shipyard is needed to repair damaged devices of ships.

Actually, I have. Not that small however - it would not be effective. And I have added some - where there really were some. I should have - and failed I see - to add a significant one at Komsomolsk - which - as you know - had/has a significant shipyard. Fixed. When I added the one at Harbin I planned to add Khabarovsk. I need to look up places like Calcutta, which probably have small yards, and there is one at Wuhan already - but it needs to be "split" - I forgot that. [The Upper Yangtze ships cannot go to the Lower Yangtze for service - and Wuhan is in three hexes - on both river systems] Might be one at Chunking too. Details details - I must follow up on this.

I have been converting the Soviet Navy over to dual vessel MSW and PCs, opening slots so we can put all of them in - and probably add PT boats as well. I found 2 more "guard ships" - those "coast guard cutters" which arn't exactly that - in this case probably they are MLEs - both completing in 1945. Can you find commissioning dates for Albatros and Chaika? Had to give them 88mm AA guns (they mounted 85mm but we only have those as land devices - an interim solution - they eventually got 100mm post war).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

In RHSCVO Scen 50 5.642, 471 - South Atlantic Entry Base (62,148) is on the map.

I thought that was just in 6.x. I believe I have the lastest pwhex installed.

You are right. Also in PPO it was. This slot should be Melbourne. Fixed for 5.643 - uploading about plus three hours. This is not a function of pwhex, but the location file.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

In RHSCVO Scen 50 5.642, 471 - South Atlantic Entry Base (62,148) is on the map.

I thought that was just in 6.x. I believe I have the lastest pwhex installed.

You are right. Also in PPO it was. This slot should be Melbourne. Fixed for 5.643 - uploading about plus three hours. This is not a function of pwhex, but the location file. Hmmm - all Level 5 scenarios had Melbourne in the wrong slot - even if it was also in the right slot! And one - PPO - had a misplaced CD unit from Wellington. Also fixed.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I note for the record the use of the term "enemy" re the Soviet Navy. While this was long the case in the Cold War era, it was NOT the case during WWII!

I meant "enemy" during time after the war, when both sources probably were pinted (and even before that Soviet Union was quite isolationist which was no helpful for gathering information by civilians)

The only info I have about Albatros is that she was comissioned in 1944, and Tchaika wasn't commisioned before war ends.

[el cid again]

Wow. What discrepencies. A closed society - and one disrupted by revolution and invasion - is hard to get information from. I will convert the Albatross to 1944, but leve the other in for 1945 - on the assumption that some record says it was - and it might have (it is already very late - and we no doubt have left vessels out anyway).

I found Soviet materials on those big "monitors." Seems it is very much in doubt exactly what happened? Apparently all lost all their engines and guns near the end of WWI - when Revolution stalked the land. They were rearmed during the First Five Year Plan - for which I have detailed information. Also reengined - or at least 5 of them were. They do not appear to have ended up uniform. Some had single 12cm side mountings. Two had single 13 cm mountings in all four positions, but then these were replaced by 152mm mounts using turrets from the original class. I don't know if that means all four mounts or just the fore and after mounts that originally had 152mm? Apparently all got rebuilt bridges with space for a proper director and an extra 37mm AA gun - which is intrigueing since "extra" implies they already had 37mm AA - but that isn't how they were born. I am tempted to leave this alone in the form Monter reports - just for the sake of simplicity! And no where do I find a record of their deck armor - yet all the smaller monitors had 50mm deck armor - so why would ships with 4.5 inch of teck (and turret) armor not have any deck armor? Very confusing.

I am going to rework the Amur Flotilla - expanding it to include obscure vessels - since I found the naval records for their reconstruction - tonight. This is my last research project. This, eratta, and conversion of minor craft to multiple ship formats - is all that is going to happen before freezing. If we don't freeze tomorrow - we do so Monday. Get any eratta in now.

[drw61]

As I was playing EOS 6.643 this morning I found that the allied micro AKs (slot 1365) are upgrading to Northampton CAs (slot 191) 

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: drw61

As I was playing EOS 6.643 this morning I found that the allied micro AKs (slot 1365) are upgrading to Northampton CAs (slot 191) 

It is also in CVO Scenario 60. Also, about 5 or 6 of these Allied Micro AKs ships named Indian ### have no weapons while the rest have a couple of .30 and .50. The class (1365) has 2 .50. Was it intentional that some were unarmed?