RHS7.756 Errata

[witpqs]

Folks,

In an AI game I found an errata in RHS EOS 7.756 (the latest) which you might want to fix before starting.

"RAN Naval HQ" - I do not know the slot # - arrives in hex 38,125, which is the middle of the ocean. The unit is prepped for Melbourne, so I presume it should arrive at Melbourne (34,118).

Note that this is a STATIC unit, so you cannot just go pick it up with a ship. I'm waiting for it to starve so the static squads become disabled. Hopefully I can then pick it up before it dies from attrition.

[Edited to rename thread.]

[el cid again]

The unit is location slot 188. 38, 125 is the location of Sydney in Level 5 and Level 6. It is at 41, 118 in Level 7.
Sydney is location slot 766. This will be correct when the Japanese turn goes out - and it will fold into whatever release is next.

Note that in an ongoing game the unit can be loaded if you send a ship to its hex. If that is not good enough contact me.

[witpqs]

"Note that in an ongoing game the unit can be loaded if you send a ship to its hex."

From my first post:

"Note that this is a STATIC unit, so you cannot just go pick it up with a ship. I'm waiting for it to starve so the static squads become disabled. Hopefully I can then pick it up before it dies from attrition."

It's only an AI game so I'll just go with this method. Thanks for the offer.

[el cid again]

I tried. You are right. We will issue an update when (a) we are ready to issue the tag team turn (the process of making it and utilities should reveal eratta) and (b) when others have had a chance to report any eratta they found. ETA Monday.

[witpqs]

I have some other errata (but that one I thought you would want before your game) - where do you want the other errata posted?

[el cid again]

Here is fine. You might rename the thread - you control the name - something that says so.

[witpqs]

Errata as seen in EOS v7.756

Slot 184 - USN 14th Naval Dist - Located at Pearl Harbor but is attached to US Western Command. Should report to USN Pacific Fleet.

Slot 186 - USN 16th Naval Dist - Located at Manila/Cavite but is attached to US Western Command. Should report to USAFFE.

Slot 1350 - USAAF 19 Transport - Located at Pearl Harbor but is attached to US Western Command. Should report to USN Pacific Fleet.

Slot 1162 - USAAF 28th Bomb (AP) - Is equipped with GP bombs. Based on naming "(AP)", should be equipped with AP bombs.

Slot 178 - CXIV-W Float Plane - Shows the graphic of a US Navy Kingfisher. Maybe this is on purpose because you ran out of graphics slots?

Slot 188 - RAN Naval HQ - Arrives in ocean hex 38,125. Should arrive in Melbourne (hex 34,118). This item was noted in previous post.

[witpqs]

Pwhex.dat Errata

Hex 34,120 is defined as "LM". It should be "CM" because it is a coastal hex. As it is now TF's in the hex show red and '99999' fuel needed for any destination you set (regardless of how close). However, TF's do seem to move through, into, and from the hex just fine, so this is a low priority error.

[witpqs]

Just a thought about the tag team game - you might ask the Allies if they want the combined-dive bomber squadrons on those three US carriers split out so they can make port in Pearl harbor and San Francisco without the resize code deleting half of their dive bombers (especially since Hornet arrives in SF with B-25's on deck that cannot be used on a carrier).

If not they should be warned about any of those three carriers making port (Saratoga, Lexington, and Hornet).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Errata as seen in EOS v7.756

Slot 184 - USN 14th Naval Dist - Located at Pearl Harbor but is attached to US Western Command. Should report to USN Pacific Fleet.

Sounds right.

Slot 186 - USN 16th Naval Dist - Located at Manila/Cavite but is attached to US Western Command. Should report to USAFFE.

Probably should report to Asiatic Fleet IRL. Adm Hart regarded himself as superior to Mac, and vice versa (so they never could dine - as both had to sit at the head of the table!) I have toyed with making Asiatic Fleet report to something else - say Pacific Fleet or South Pacific. But 16th Naval District is immobile - so it probably has to be USAFFE for code reasons - even if USAFFE did NOT command naval units.

Slot 1350 - USAAF 19 Transport - Located at Pearl Harbor but is attached to US Western Command. Should report to USN Pacific Fleet.

Sounds right.

Slot 1162 - USAAF 28th Bomb (AP) - Is equipped with GP bombs. Based on naming "(AP)", should be equipped with AP bombs.

Actually it is. This is very confusing for players because the reports are wrong! The code reports load for the UNIT based on the TYPE - assuming both type and unit are identical. In RHS, they can be different. The REASON for the "(AP)" is to tell the player it is in fact AP bombs. In this case - and I checked all scenarios - it is five 1000 pound AP bombs. The ONLY way to see it is to use the scenario editor and look at the UNIT record.

Slot 178 - CXIV-W Float Plane - Shows the graphic of a US Navy Kingfisher. Maybe this is on purpose because you ran out of graphics slots?

We actually have spare Allied bitmaps. But I confirm both Kingfisher and CXIV-W use slot 109. We need to ask Cobra what it should point at???

Slot 188 - RAN Naval HQ - Arrives in ocean hex 38,125. Should arrive in Melbourne (hex 34,118). This item was noted in previous post.

This last is only wrong in Level 7 - Level 5 and Level 6 files really should be at 38,125. But it does not arrive in Melbourne - it arrives in Sydney. Already addressed and corrected at source.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Pwhex.dat Errata

Hex 34,120 is defined as "LM". It should be "CM" because it is a coastal hex. As it is now TF's in the hex show red and '99999' fuel needed for any destination you set (regardless of how close). However, TF's do seem to move through, into, and from the hex just fine, so this is a low priority error.

The hex does indeed seem to be defined as land. Since no less than five hex sides are defined as sea, this is why TFs can enter it. It should be coastal. It probably should be defined as forest instead of mountain. I now use the term "rough" for "forest/jungle" terrain. It is rougher than the nearby farmland, but not really big mountains. This means I need to do a new pwhex set - so I will look for other pwhex eratta/enhancements. Expect this by morning.

Remember, a pwhex patch does NOT affect a game in progress - it can be installed any time.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Just a thought about the tag team game - you might ask the Allies if they want the combined-dive bomber squadrons on those three US carriers split out so they can make port in Pearl harbor and San Francisco without the resize code deleting half of their dive bombers (especially since Hornet arrives in SF with B-25's on deck that cannot be used on a carrier).

If not they should be warned about any of those three carriers making port (Saratoga, Lexington, and Hornet).

First, this matter was thoroughly covered in appropriate Forum threads. It was specifically felt that the extra Marine squadrons on Sara and Lex were an advantage - and I don't follow why you don't think they are?

Second, you are somewhat confused about carrier resizing as a problem. This is also covered in an appropriate Forum thread - and so I will only review from dim memory what you can look up in detail - by Mike Wood as I recall.

a) In the revised resize code, you never "lose" anything - nor do you get "too many" planes for the carrier. He used a formula that divided the fighters and bombers to a certain fraction each - and that fraction is divided by however many squadrons are on board - but you always get the right proportion - wether it be one or two or three squadrons of that type.

b) Resizing does not occur everywhere, only at certain major ports IF the theater naval HQ is also present.

c) Resizing does not occur all the time. Most of the time entering the "wrong" port does not cause resizing. Mike could not remember exactly what the dates were - but he posted the approximate times - and there are not very many of them - two as I recall. The effect of (b) above and this case (c) is "staying out of port" is a gross overreaction. You can avoid the issue by avoiding certain ports at certain times.

d) If you fail, and get a resize, you may not mind it. Look at it first.

e) If you fail, and you don't like the resize, change the squadrons on board. RHS has built in many squadrons that will "resize" to 19, 15 and 12, so you can "build" any compliment you need.

f) You seem to forget that players may offload any squadron they want before anything happens at all. The Marine squadrons WERE offloaded IRL.

g) You may completely disregard the tendency of code to try to eliminate a squadron and combine two other squadrons at certain times on US CVs. This is because that ONLY can happen IF the squadrons begin with the right name. RHS squadrons begin with the letters USN - so they never ever are messed with by this code. The code seeks out squadrons beginning with VS and VB - and we don't have any of them at all. RHS CV squadrons have the name form USN VS and USN VB (or in the case of EOS Hornet, Lex and Sara, USN VB/VS).

As to the "cannot be used" re the B-25s, that was not my intent. I thought they could be used. I will investigate. My impression is that any aircraft on a ship will operate from the ship. I certainly was able to operate Zeros from Nagato when they got on board by error! I hear players operate various planes from subs. Code does not "know" what is reasonable or not? It is the purpose of this shake out phase to identify any technical problem which may exist. There are so many technical experiments in RHS surely some of them do not work. [For that matter, there have long been things that didn't work in stock. Also things that did work but were not implemented for players to use - e.g. drop tanks]

[el cid again]

Preliminary report on "Shangra La Squadron" of B-25s on USS Hornet:

the squadron seems to be normal - all options are highlighted and set as normal - and you can transfer the squadron ashore

now ordered an attack on Rabaul and running to see if it happens?

The attack went in - but without the B-25s! I cannot say if they never attack - but they do not always attack.
I think I can fix this.

On the CIXW - Cobra says there is no art. Looks to me like we put the Duck in its bitmap - and we cannot use the Duck (it never served in units as such). So I will point at that slot - 135 - and we will get updated art in due course. It used to exist - in stock, CHS and RHS. It can exist again.

OK - got it - I had to lie to the code - and create a special B-25 unit for the Shangra La squadron. Now code thinks it is a carrier bomber - but it happens to look like and perform like a B-25. That represents special training I guess - I called it "B-25D/Shangra La" The other thing we might do is convert the PBJ to this format - because it could operate from Essex class carriers.

[witpqs]

Sid,

Regarding the three carriers and re-sizing, I was merely suggesting that the Allied players be specifically notified in case they didn't see those other posts or didn't understand the full implications. It seems you folks are embarking on a serious effort, so I'm on the lookout for anything that might be a disappointing stumbling block.

I assure you I am not confused about the re-size problem/issue. We just differ in our opinion about how to better deal with it (on which method is the lesser evil), and I realize that if some of your Allied opponents feel as I do you might wish to air that out before the game starts. [8D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

"Shangra La Squadron" of B-25s on USS Hornet:

OK - got it - I had to lie to the code - and create a special B-25 unit for the Shangra La squadron. Now code thinks it is a carrier bomber - but it happens to look like and perform like a B-25. That represents special training I guess - I called it "B-25D/Shangra La" The other thing we might do is convert the PBJ to this format - because it could operate from Essex class carriers.

Excellent. Sounds like I good idea with the PBJ, too! Could be a house rule that they only operate from Essex or larger classes.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

Regarding the three carriers and re-sizing, I was merely suggesting that the Allied players be specifically notified in case they didn't see those other posts or didn't understand the full implications. It seems you folks are embarking on a serious effort, so I'm on the lookout for anything that might be a disappointing stumbling block.

I assure you I am not confused about the re-size problem/issue. We just differ in our opinion about how to better deal with it (on which method is the lesser evil), and I realize that if some of your Allied opponents feel as I do you might wish to air that out before the game starts. [8D]

I must be confused slightly- I thought you were one of the Allies!

My impression is that the hard core RHS people would like MORE carriers with combined squadrons - by which I mean they would like to do the same thing with Essex air groups. Because it gives a player the option to carry a 5th squadron.
ANY 5th squadron. If they pick the size right, it is operational. There are lots of candidate squadrons on CVEs in RHS - units that are both carrier capable and carrier qualified.

You do have one thing right: I regard this as an unfortunate situation resulting from design compromises which were made for understandable reasons. The Matrix design team wanted carriers to gradually increase the proportion of fighters in two different time frames: mid war and late war. Other options to do that might have been chosen, but for some reason one that would actually keep squadrons at historical sizes and/or under soft control of modders were not adopted.

BECAUSE there are pros and cons, we ONLY adopted this particular formulation for one of six scenarios - the more experimental EOS. I don't see how we can reduce it below that level without not trying it at all? Players who want "pure" vice "combined" squadrons can play any other RHS scenario. [Note, however, that mid war ALL USN CV groups will try to form combined SBD squadrons anyway - if you permit resizing to occur - on purpose or by accident. It is at least inside the Matrix design philosophy to have combined squadrons. Also note that land based groups - found in all forms of WITP - are consistent with this principle.]

I must confess I do not understand why you personally do not like this solution? I think it is so fine that - once it is understood by players - it will be so popular we will make it universal in all six scenarios. I would like to know what you think is better: if we do NOT combine the squadrons on these 3 ships - then either

a) we do not put the Marines and the B-25s on them

or

b) we force them into non-operational status.

Why is either better????? Seems to me all three ships are historically justified: all three really did have all these specific units on board when the war began (or in the case of USS Hornet, when she entered PTO). In that sense, I regard NON EOS scenarios as actually LESS historical than EOS is. And all forms of WITP other than RHS as less historical as well - since the historical deployments are not only absent, but impossible.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

"Shangra La Squadron" of B-25s on USS Hornet:

OK - got it - I had to lie to the code - and create a special B-25 unit for the Shangra La squadron. Now code thinks it is a carrier bomber - but it happens to look like and perform like a B-25. That represents special training I guess - I called it "B-25D/Shangra La" The other thing we might do is convert the PBJ to this format - because it could operate from Essex class carriers.

Excellent. Sounds like I good idea with the PBJ, too! Could be a house rule that they only operate from Essex or larger classes.

At the moment (I think) the PBJ exists only in its historical form. That is, the original deal - that Marines get B-25s and work them up for use from big carriers - was only implemented so far: the Marines got the B-25 in PBJ form - and they did work them up to the point of testing on Essex class ships - but no such unit ever embarked for operations.

IF we implemented it, Lex and Sara and Yorktown class ships should also be able to operate them - not just Essex. But Ranger and Wasp - not. CVL and CVE also not. That would require a house rule.

We could implement it - but I have seen no great demand to do so. The Shangra La unit is a great way to float the idea. If demand surfaces - we know how to do it - a single field change is enough to make them carrier capable.

[Herrbear]

DELETED--Already answered above.

[el cid again]

We have a report of wrong location for the Australian Command - which is renamed in RHS

Australian CDH Command

in honor of the real name.

The slot was not reported: it is a HQ unit so the slot is low: it is 214 - what always was the Australian Command in RHS.
[Note on the map every land unit slot number is reported if you just put the mouse over the location - in this case 214 Australiand CDH Command]

The level was not reported: It is right in Levels 5 and 6, but wrong in Level 7 - because the location is the location of Brisbane on the Level 5/6 map - but it has changed in Level 7.

This will be correct in the update about to occur. We are only waiting (a) to add still more USN LSTs and (b) to insure every possible eratta is reported and folded in - since we hope to freeze here.

[el cid again]

I have added 8 more USN LSTs. There are 7 more identified missing USN LSTs and it is possible we may be able to add some or all of them as well. All are 700 series appearing in late 1944. [Since I have to add each one 18 times, doing this is tedius. But we do have slots in RHS because of what we did to small craft.]