Matrix Games Forums

We have problems with Allied ship art. There are vast numbers of ship images, and of more than one kind, so review is a time consuming process. Mifune is reviewing a number of forms of art to produce a set that is not only correct but allows the upgrades to be visible. The standard art package will then be reviewed (when a person returns from holliday) to see where standard art needs to be changed to line up with the pointers? This process may result in more than one standard art release - a preliminary one - and assuming that some of the standard art is not done - a more complete one. Standard art is art done to a standardized scheme proposed almost simultaneously by Cobra and Matrix - I heard about it from both before either knew the other was proposing it - which is eventually supposed to be common to CHS, RHS and stock. Because of the sheer number of bitmaps - there is also more than one per class - this sort of thing takes time to implement. Our first pass implementation seems not to have lined up properly with RHS class file pointers - in particular re Soviet and US submarines - and Colorado class battleships. Nevertheless - all art packages probably have problems if you could do a complete review of them - and whatever the general state - RHS long engaged in making so many changes it is not surprising if some things didn't stay in sync. So we are going to do a review. First to insure everything is lined up with pointers - and if that cannot be done that pointers get changed (say if two different classes point at the same bitmap we need to change one pointer) - and then to get as much as we can done to the new standards. WHEN we have a new ship art release we will call it x.760 It is at that point we will end updating RHS Level 6 - so it can end in a form where all the ships look right. At the moment, the ship art is pretty good - but some Allied ships seem to have top art in the place of side art!

UNTIL then, any releases will be in the x.759y series. We have picked up two USMC transport squadrons that need to be assigned R4Ds in EOS (only). We may clear a few more USN CVE flight decks where they were really transports (but let you keep the air units as carrier qualified). And we will address any other issue we identify.

Two ship art pointers have been corrected. One is the upgrade of the British seaplane carrier - the original was OK.
The other was a former British MSW in RTN service - which got copied from the Allied side - but an Axis ship cannot point at an Allied bitmap.

In EOS, we have been making technical corrections. The regiment assigned to capture Midway - and the base unit to make it functional - didn't load for various reasons. A couple of ships were added to task forces which could not carry their entire landing groups - instead of staying in the same port. This process is ongoing as I am testing the ability of AI to do its assigned initial operations (in EOS). This - and the problem with two USMC transport squadrons noted above only in EOS - means EOS will be more affected by the next update than other scenarios. It is the most different of all the scenarios - and the most prone to having problems.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/2/2007 3:44:17 PM >

While the Shinshu Maru class was reclassified as AGC - I only found the upgrade. Now the original of the class is also AGC - all scenarios.

The above is a semi-big deal - Japan has only four AGCs - two of them building for a long time) - so not having one early matters to them.

In EOS I have also converted Asama Maru class (two ships) to AGC status - by adding Army radio equipment.
These are Asama Maru and Tatuta Maru. ONLY in EOS. This starts Japan with four vice two AGC - not enough - but 100% better - and not nearly as critically thin. We know very little about these ships - and it is possible we have not identified one or two. They sailed under false names, and their movements are apparently still classified to some extent (in Japan) - which has a principle in intelligence "never talk - period."

Sid,
&nbsp;
One suggestion.
&nbsp;
In EOS, the AGC and the Amphib HQ are not in the same base at game start.&nbsp; It would make sense to have them together to support the major landings that take place on turn 1.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Well - I have put them in the same hex - but I have no case where the HQ is scheculed to go in on turn 1. It is up to players to load the HQ on the AGC - when and if they want to. Same for AI - but I fear it never will - since Matrix gives Japan no AGCs nor amphib HQ (never mind IRL they invented both before anyone else did).