CHS 2.08 bug list

[Sardaukar]

Even when there is not much work done towards CHS right now, it might be useful to make this list for future use.

Scen 160:

1. Submarines O19 and O20 should have their mine racks in slot 2. In current slots they prevent reloading the VH2 mines without disbanding the TF first and then reforming.

2. Couple of Australian cruisers have their float plane unit as size 0, preventing them to repair and fly their Walrus planes.

Heck, so far I have discovered only few bugs so might be inclined to fix them myself...[8D]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
1. Submarines O19 and O20 should have their mine racks in slot 2. In current slots they prevent reloading the VH2 mines without disbanding the TF first and then reforming.

Are you sure? It looks like they are in slot 2 to me.

2. Couple of Australian cruisers have their float plane unit as size 0, preventing them to repair and fly their Walrus planes.

Again, to me they look OK. Do you have an example?

Heck, so far I have discovered only few bugs so might be inclined to fix them myself...[8D]

Please do let me know if you are aware of any others. There have been a few CHS bugs reported lately, so I am trying to get a list together.

Thanks!

[Sardaukar]

After upgrade they are not, IIRC, forgot to say that (O19/20). I'll check the cruisers today, if I have time.

[VSWG]

Not sure if you have seen this thread:

tm.asp?m=1254951

Then there's the stuff that witpDecoder has found:

Portland Base Force (ID 2156) is prepping for LocID 299, which is an empty slot.
Ship Class 621 (the Shiratsuyu update at 5/44) carries 288 torpedos (8 tubes times 36 loads).

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

After upgrade they are not, IIRC, forgot to say that (O19/20). I'll check the cruisers today, if I have time.

I see it now. Thanks again.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Not sure if you have seen this thread:

tm.asp?m=1254951

Thanks. I am not sure what should be done about this one. The conclusion from reading the thread seems to be that the US GS Engineer regiments should all contain only generic "Engineers", and that their at-start composition, which includes combat engineers instead of generic (contruction) engineers is an error.

However they are the only units that point to the template for the US Engineer regiment, which contains combat engineers. So does this mean that there were no separate combat engineer units in the US Army at all?

Sadly I am no expert when it comes to US Army OOB/TO&E.

Then there's the stuff that witpDecoder has found:

Portland Base Force (ID 2156) is prepping for LocID 299, which is an empty slot.
Ship Class 621 (the Shiratsuyu update at 5/44) carries 288 torpedos (8 tubes times 36 loads).

Those I saw already. Thanks.

Andrew

[Sardaukar]

How about adding few "Engineers" to some IJA units..many lack them and they cannot thus repair installations or fortify ? Even 3-4 might be useful.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

However they are the only units that point to the template for the US Engineer regiment, which contains combat engineers. So does this mean that there were no separate combat engineer units in the US Army at all?

As Richard relates, there were a host of different types of engineer units, including combat engineers, in the US Army. General Service Engineer units were most definately not combat units by function, training, or equipment, although like other service units they could of course defend themselves if they absolutely had to.

US Army Engineer, Artillery, CD, AAA, and Tank Destroyer unit OOB/TOE went through a number of evolutions as War Department and other US Army factions tried to cross doctrine, structure and changing strategic and tactical circumstances.

Given that some of the AMC's have had their XP increased, maybe this should be applied across the board?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

So, (my favorites) Soviet Navy errors:

1. Class 1651 Kirov:
- it should be named Maksim Gorki, ships of Far East fleet were of modified design.
- have 6x100mm AA guns. In RL those guns were not effective against aircraft, so both FE vessels: Kaganovich and Kalinin were completed with 8x85mm AA guns. (you probably should represent it by Dutch 88mm guns.

2. Class 1651 Novik:
- Are you sure about their armament? Woykov had 4x100 1x76aa 2x45aa 2x37aa 3xMG 9tt450. Stalin had 4x100 2x45aa 2x37aa 3xMG 6tt450. In both cases 2 main guns seems to few.

3. Class 1657 L:
- only first batch had 6 torpedo tubes - none of them were under Far East Fleet. Later vessels all had 8 torpedo tubes (6 forward 2 rear).
- in weapon slot 2 they have different torpedo type than in slot 1 and in other submarines.
- this was a class of minelayers. They should have mine racks 2x10 mines in slot 2. Now that racks are on slot 9 which means they trade torpedoes with mines.

4. Ship 3840 Rezkiy:
- is ready at start. It was commissioned 420816

5. Ship 3840 Revnostny:
- is ready at start. It was commissioned 411214

6. Shis 3848/3849 Kalinin/Kaganovich:
- both were commissioned in December 1944 (farthest date)

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: timtom
As Richard relates, there were a host of different types of engineer units, including combat engineers, in the US Army. General Service Engineer units were most definately not combat units by function, training, or equipment, although like other service units they could of course defend themselves if they absolutely had to.

US Army Engineer, Artillery, CD, AAA, and Tank Destroyer unit OOB/TOE went through a number of evolutions as War Department and other US Army factions tried to cross doctrine, structure and changing strategic and tactical circumstances.

The problem for me is that this is crossing from bug fix to OOB review, and I do not have the time for the latter.

The mismatch between the engineer regiment TO&E and the formation TO&E obviously looks like an error, but given the importance of combat engineers in the game I am concerned that fixing this fault, and thus removing all of the US combat engineer units (stock has 4, I think), without doing a complete review to determine whether there were other units that should be present instead, may affect the playability of the scenario.

Andrew

[Monter_Trismegistos]

I would also change weird (not English) transcription of Soviet names, and add 1 leader, 2 destroyers and more less 10 subs which are missing from starting OoB.

PS. above list was updated.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

So, (my favorites) Soviet Navy errors:

Thanks!

By the way I actually based the Soviet navy data on information that Subchaser posted on this form ages ago, before he "disappeared". Now that he is back he may be able to comment on the corrections you have posted, if he is interested in doing so. I am no expert on the Soviet navy!

Andrew

[Monter_Trismegistos]

BTW as I remember he actually gived us OoB for 1945, not for 1941. Here can be a reason for some ships not included.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Not sure if you have seen this thread:

tm.asp?m=1254951

Thanks. I am not sure what should be done about this one. The conclusion from reading the thread seems to be that the US GS Engineer regiments should all contain only generic "Engineers", and that their at-start composition, which includes combat engineers instead of generic (contruction) engineers is an error.

It's the other way around: they start the game with construction engineers, but will start filling out with combat engineers, and will never draw engineers during the game. I'd say the bug is in the formation unit, which should only contain construction engineers.

However they are the only units that point to the template for the US Engineer regiment, which contains combat engineers. So does this mean that there were no separate combat engineer units in the US Army at all?

There are also 5 US CBT Engineer Regiments in CHS - pure combat engineer units (they don't have a formation unit). A sixth combat engineer unit would be the 301st Provisional Engineer Bn., a Filipino unit. Then there are the combat engineers embedded in the Army and especially Marines Divisions... I'm no expert either, but I think this is a bug that can be fixed without further research.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG
It's the other way around: they start the game with construction engineers, but will start filling out with combat engineers, and will never draw engineers during the game. I'd say the bug is in the formation unit, which should only contain construction engineers.

Of course you are right - that is what I intended to write, but managed to stuff up the wording (all too common for me).

There are also 5 US CBT Engineer Regiments in CHS - pure combat engineer units (they don't have a formation unit). A sixth combat engineer unit would be the 301st Provisional Engineer Bn., a Filipino unit. Then there are the combat engineers embedded in the Army and especially Marines Divisions... I'm no expert either, but I think this is a bug that can be fixed without further research.

And I missed these as I just did a very quick search looking for any other units that used the formation template (no others do). It has been so long since I actually played this game that I am very rusty on the details these days...

I agree - this can be fixed by simply correcting the formation template.

Thanks,
Andrew

[wdolson]

There are some fixes that can be made to aircraft.

A Tojo unit is available at the start of the scenario. In the DB it looks like the 47th Fighter Sentai, which is slot 109. It starts in Canton.

The range of the Beaufort is too short. They were able to carry a torpedo on combat attacks out to 400 miles.

The two Hurricanes in the game have problems. Most Hurricanes after the Mk I had hard points for external fuel tanks and thus had better range. From what I have been able to glean, the Mk IV actually had a bit more range than the Mk II. I don't have the figures in front of me.

This is getting more into game mechanics, but the nature of the game limits the usefulness of short range fighter bombers/tactical bombers. These units often operated directly behind the lines, but because aircraft can only operate from base hexes, they often end up out of range of the units they are supposed to be supporting. I'm talking primarility about the Hurricane Mk IID/IV (which really were two very different versions, but I can understand the need to save slots) and the Sturmovik. Both of these were ground support aircraft, but they end up not getting used much because they end up out of range very easily. I would boost both their ranges at least a hex, just to make them useful.

The forward armament of all Avengers/TBF/TBM should be 2X .50 calibers, not the single .303 carried over from the original game. The very first TBF model had a single .50 in the cowling, but that was dicontinued very early in production and all models after that had 2 .50s in the wings.

The B-25C/D should have the 4X .50 package guns. The first B-25s in service didn't have them, but the vast majority had them added in Australia before being sent into combat. I think the database should reflect the most common version of a plane or mark rather than the initial version.

The LB-30 was a very limited use plane. It might be better reflected to set the initial quantity to the 78 produced (I'm pretty sure it was 78, though it may have been something close to that) and set the production to zero.

The C-46 first began entering service in mid-1942, not mid-1943.

I don't know if the Torpbeau was ever used in the Pacific, but torpedo carrying equipment became standard on all Beaufighters midway through the Mk VI production run.

The T.IVa, though a torpedo bomber by design, was never used for torpedo carrying during the war. Just after Dec. 7, 1941, they were field modified with bomb racks and carried depth charges on submarine patrol in rear areas.

That's all I can think of at the moment. I haven't gone over the Japanese air OOB in detail, so most of the errors I've found are on the Allied side. If the range of some ground support aircraft is boosted, there might be some on the Japanese side that need boosting too.

Bill

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

There are some fixes that can be made to aircraft.

A Tojo unit is available at the start of the scenario. In the DB it looks like the 47th Fighter Sentai, which is slot 109. It starts in Canton.

That's not a bug. The 47th Sentai had Tojos at the outbreak of the war.

[Halsey]

Do not change the A-24 to another class of aircraft.

They aren't that great, and sometimes they will get in to deliver their payload.

Those that have complained deserve the damage taken from them.
TF's that operate without CAP should be easy targets.

Bad tactical deployment shouldn't be blamed on this aircraft being too good.[;)]


On the map.
The road that crosses the river 2 hexes east of Yenen doesn't show up on the "W' key.
So I guess it is a phantom road hex. [;)]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

There are some fixes that can be made to aircraft.

A Tojo unit is available at the start of the scenario. In the DB it looks like the 47th Fighter Sentai, which is slot 109. It starts in Canton.

ORIGINAL: Terminus
That's not a bug. The 47th Sentai had Tojos at the outbreak of the war.

Just cheked, and I stand corrected. Though the armament of the 47th should be changed to 2x 7.7mm and 2x 12.7mm. The production Mk IIb had 4x 12.7mm, though the later IIc had either 4x 20mm or 2x 12.7mm and 2x 40mm. I haven't seen which was the most common model yet. For changing the armamment of the 47th, you could do what el cid has been doing with RHS and edit the unit's aircraft armamnet.

I would upgun the Tojo to 4x 20mm and modify the 47th with the weaker armamnet since the 20mm armed version was probably the most important.

Bill

[spence]

CHS has the CGC Haida and CGC Onondaga as "Taney Class" cutters. They are each seperate classes.

CGC Haida approaches Taney in AA/ASW armament but was slower. Onondaga was slower still and much less capable.

CGC Taney - 2700 tons, 19.8 kts max spd, 15 kts economical, 2 x 5/51 cal, 4 x 3"/50 cal, 4 x.50 cal (1941) increased 1942 to 8 x 20mm (1942) - rearmed in unique 4 x 5"/38 cal in single closed mounts in early 1943 but then deployed to Atlantic. Converted to AGC in 1944 with 2 x 5/38 in open mounts, 8 40mm in 2 quad mounts and 8 20mm.
Initial ASW armament in 1941 was 2 DC racks and 1 Y-gun. Increased to 4 K-guns in 1942.

CGC Haida - 1506 tons, 15.5 kts max, 9 kts econ, 1941-42 armament: 2 x 5"/51 cal, 1 x 3"/50 cal, 2 x .50 cal, 4 x Y-guns, 2 x DC racks. Refitted 1/43 with 2 x 3"/50, 4 x 20mm, 4 K-guns, 2 x Mousetraps, 2 DC racks

CGC Onondaga - 1005 tons, 12.8 kts max, 9.4 kts econ, 2 x 3"/50 cal, 2 x 20 mm, 4 Y-guns, 2 Mousetrap, 2 DC racks.

None of these ships had any armor though they all had shell plating double that usually found on a DD since in their Coast Guard duties they often operated in waters with sea ice. They were not however, icebreakers. Serving on CGC Duane, a sister of Taney, in 1973 I witnessed us plowing through 1-2 inches of sea ice pancakes at about 15 kts without any damage though (it was a little tough on the paint so that did not make the BMC very happy).

good site for all CG cutters of any sort: http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBCUTTERS/

Photos of Onondaga and Haida in wartime regalia are in "Another obscure ship" thread. The lines of the Taney Class ship side in CHS are really sweet.