RHS 7.7865 comprehensive AND microupdate uploaded

[el cid again]

This should be the last update before freezing:

1) I want to make Japanese aircraft production use the same (new) initial numbers already implemented for the Allies. That is, new types will generally start at 1. The system in place didn't work as intended anyway.

2) I want to fold in a small amount of LCU and leader assignment eratta which has been identified.

3) I want to fold in any eratta found while completing EEO - my present focus.

4) I re-established Ki-34 and Ki-36 production in CVO and BBO families - vice Axis Hawk and RTAF observation aircraft - at two Japanese sites. When the slots moved - the production slots did not follow.

5) I will fold in any other matter identified during the update period.

ETA Monday.

[Historiker]

Why do German subs need naval points to get produced? They are sent from germany, so why that?

[el cid again]

Well - yes they do.

It is a matter of hard code, game concept, and the fact we are "cheating" - adding something NOT intended by the game designers.

ALL reinforcements cost HI points. In CVO and BBO you don't have all the oilers in the TF 2 that refuels KB - because the tankers start mid ocean fully fueled I removed some to represent the used fuel capacity. These ships appear on Dec 21 - in Japan - after they returned. But you have to "build" them even though they were already built! It is a compromise - and I think better than too much fuel mid ocean. But there it is.

Since we cannot change the game code - we have two options: NOT give you German subs - or let you pay for em! Consider it a sop for those who think "the Japanese game economy is too small" - we make it "pay back" some of that "too much" in various ways. If we knew exactly what it should be - we could even increase the economy to compensate. But we cannot exempt the German subs - because there is no mechanism to do so.

[John 3rd]

How about working in those CVL and CVE modifications covered in several of our Threads?

CVEs
I cited that source for CVE plane complements (18 Fighter and 6 Bombers) and it makes a lot of sense to me. 

CVLs
Allow for conversion whenever the Japanese player wants to do it and add Nisshin and Mizuho to those capable of being converted.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

How about working in those CVL and CVE modifications covered in several of our Threads?

CVEs
I cited that source for CVE plane complements (18 Fighter and 6 Bombers) and it makes a lot of sense to me. 


REPLY: What source is that? There is some controversy about if CVEs have compliments at all? [Hosho is an exception - classified by me as a CVE - she isn't exactly that at all. Further - she sailed with a pure bomber air group - which seems odd because it is easier to operate small fighters - at Midway. Initially she seems to have had a very balanced air group - about equal numbers of fighers and bombers. The early CVEs may not have had air groups at all in the usual sense - but instead operated elements of shore air groups - which won't work for us for technical reasons. Later CVEs mostly didn't get to operate - so we don't know just what they would have had? And the Army CVE groups - if you can call them that - operated a combination of aircraft we don't have - including the Ka-1 autogyro as well as Ki-76 "bombers" - if you can call either a bomber. Plans for Ki-44 fighters on carriers seem not to have been implemented, but the "carrier" compliments were so small it could not have been very many.]

CVLs
Allow for conversion whenever the Japanese player wants to do it and add Nisshin and Mizuho to those capable of being converted.

In CVO and BBO this is not right. They did not operate that way - and a "strictly historical" scenario must assume it would not be until after something like Coral Sea and/or Midway that an intense search for ships to convert would occur. We can show the intent to convert one in 1943 - so such a date is more reasonable.

In general, players who want these ships as CVLs already have the option: play EOS family scenarios. There the planning processes for the war are modified - and the ships are built initially in that form. That satisfies the "get them any time you want" problem AND the air group problem. Converting them IN CVO or BBO won't help much - we cannot do a hard code change of air group (like Chitose and Chiyoda do) - so you end up with CVLs with seaplane air groups!

The main reason RHS is "fragmented" is so we can have our cake and eat it too: there are such severe problems with converting ships DURING a game that it is not very feasible. When we do it, players end up with problems like CVs without air groups. By picking the scenario, you can get any ship in any form you prefer. That is how RHS works - in the context of Matrix design limitations.

[el cid again]

I reworked Soviet tank brigades in a device technical sense. Both pick up a company of 9 AAMG - one had 4 of a device type that may not work properly - the other none at all. The too numerous infantry in one were reduced to a battalion - and both types got them turned into rifle squads. 82 mm mortars increased from 6 to 8. Stuff like that.

[Bliztk]

John 3rd, you can edit the scenario class upgrade, if it suit your preferences.

You only have to set Nisshin and Mihuzo to upgrade to Chitose Class, slot hardcoded to conversion to CVL....

[el cid again]

It isn't as simple as that. There is an intricate network of things here - class slot - ship slots - air unit slots. In this case, it appears that the SHIP slots are hard coded - and other Chitose class vessels (which some versions of RHS have) don't behave the same way as Chitose and Chiyoda.

Then there is the problem of power plant. Nisshin is not really a sister - and she has different speed, fuel and range data. So I created a CVL from her hull - modeled on Chitose in other respects - and (to my amazement) figured out how to convert CVL type airgroups from CVS ones. This is possible about the same time as the Chitose conversions - in 1943 - but has the downside risk of someone flying carrier aircraft from the CVS version of the ship - if they don't pay attention to what they are doing. While in EOS family scenarios I build some ships as sisters of Chitose - in CVO and BBO we should not do that for Nisshin - which is too far along - and because the game "conversion" routine won't take long enough (as it does for Chitose - which gets new engines for her CVL role).

I have worked up a CVE version of Mizuho - and can convert her air groups - but I have not figured out what to do with it?
I think perhaps it might be suitable for CVO but not BBO - which has a focus on seaplanes, flying boats and seaplane carriers on both sides. Nisshin was operating only a half group of aircraft - being in her midget sub carrier form - so her loss as a CS is not as great as Mizuho. Further - the gain for a CVE is less - being it is pretty slow. Her 24 seaplanes are probably just about as deadly to submarines as a half group of carrier bombers would be. And unlike the Allies, Japan has some semi-serious seaplane fighters. EDIT: After sleeping on it, I accepted this reasoning: Mizuho converts to CVE in CVO family, but not in BBO family.

[Historiker]

It was EEO, where the Chitose has three airgroups.
Together with its two Chitose AGs, there is also a Nisshin AG.
The Akagi D3A AG has 24 planes but is made only for 20.

[el cid again]

Reworking Mikura type escorts - regretfully not just for EEO - to make them more correct. It appears the DC pattern was 15 - permitting 8 shots - the most powerful ever mounted by Japan. These vessels are fitted with radar - and eventually a form of ESM. Reworking the ships is time consuming - as ships with sunk dates cannot be properly copied into other scenarios. The last two Shimushu/Etorufu also were also completed with more AAA and radar.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

It was EEO, where the Chitose has three airgroups.
Together with its two Chitose AGs, there is also a Nisshin AG.
The Akagi D3A AG has 24 planes but is made only for 20.

You are correct: Nisshin air group is on the wrong ship. Thanks. EEO is in pre release format. I probably was creating a CVL air group for Nisshin by copying - and failed to change the ship assignment. But it is just one value off - and the editor loves value 1 shifts - it might just be one of those things that happens when editing. Fixed.

Akaga Bomber (D3) Daitai should be set to max 24 aircraft in EOS family scenarios - and 27 in CVO/BBO (the difference because in EOS family there is a recon detachment on board). This was set right in CVO/BBO but wrong in EOS family. Fixed.

[Historiker]

As far as I've understood, the building costs of a ship depend on it's equipment and can't be edited.
Isn't it possible, to give the german subs equipment with load costs of 1 or even 0, to make them cheaper? If it isn't possible to make them for free, building costs of 1 will be more to reality, no?

[el cid again]

The short answer is no.

First of all, I do not regard this as a serious problem. You can rationalize that part of the economy is in Germany if you wish - HI points are not at any particular location.

Second of all, it is structural, and cannot be addressed by us.

Third, there are a very small list of devices - and we have zero free - so we are not able to create special devices for these vessels. There are way too many device compromises already - and reducing the number for general use is not a realistic option.

Fourth, I am not certain we can make a zero cost submarine, and I don't wish to do that. This would impact victory points for example - the sub would be worth nothing if lost. It may impact supply requirements. Can of worms. Keep it simple is my philosophy (really it is).

[el cid again]

We have some bad technical news -

there is sufficient uncertainty (officially) about how records will be read that we must review a lot of records for ships -
and that is substantially underway. It is possible that a "gap" in device listings will be a problem for some (unidentified) routines. So we are policing those up.

Otherwise there is a lot of work to do re land unit device reorder in EEO (deliberately imposed) and reassigning of ships built after certain dates (also for EEO). Both process force review of data that sometimes yields eratta.

We have made enough changes - particularly bringing Japanese aircraft production in line with the new Allied system - and improved enough to justify a release - but it is still a few days before we will be completed and frozen.

[el cid again]

I found problems with Japanese sub chasers. As often is the case with minor vessels, not much attention to detail was given. Also, while Japan's capacity to build these vessels was grossly inadequate to the requirements of a PTO war, nevertheless, they failed to organize to build what they could do - which is about one MSW per month. So it is possible to make some difference in EOS family scenarios - gaining about a year on the availablity of built during the war vessels - and picking up two units (i.e. 4 vessels because these are two ship units) in EEO.

Interestingly, almost all the big MSW of IJN were converted to PC in 1944 - so much so we make this be the normal case for all three classes of them in CVO and BBO. But for EEO I changed that - and revised only the AAA and added radar - leaving them as distinctly ASW is secondary mission ships - because of the need for minesweepers. There are so many good escort vessels in EEO that this seems a reasonable option.

The tiny Auxiliary MS are different: they remained minesweepers - although they do pick up a thrower (apparently). The way it works is this: Minesweepers have NO DC racks - the sweep is mounted where a rack would go. But the original types had 2 K guns = throwers with one arm. Thus they have a pattern of 2 - 6 shots of 2 for a big MSW and 3 shots of 2 for a Aux MS (which values are doubled for two ship units: that is the pattern remains the same but you get twice as many shots - each making its ASW attack separately). The Auxiliary MS apparently pick up another thrower - for a pattern of 3 - 5 shots of 3 = 15 DC late in the war. But the big MSW converted to PC DO get a rack - and it drops twice per pattern (while the K guns each throw wide to make points on the diamond) = pattern of 4 - 9 shots of 4 = 36 DC for the ex MSW as PC.

[el cid again]

ETA today - plus six hours.

[el cid again]

7.8653 comprehensive files uploaded to primary distribution list. EEO is still in Beta format. EXCEPT for EEO all eratta which are known - and for which solutions exist - are incorporated. Reworking in particular IJN ASW escorts and minesweepers.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

7.8653 comprehensive files uploaded to primary distribution list. EEO is still in Beta format. EXCEPT for EEO all eratta which are known - and for which solutions exist - are incorporated. Reworking in particular IJN ASW escorts and minesweepers.

IS there also a version 5 and 6?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: el cid again

7.8653 comprehensive files uploaded to primary distribution list. EEO is still in Beta format. EXCEPT for EEO all eratta which are known - and for which solutions exist - are incorporated. Reworking in particular IJN ASW escorts and minesweepers.

IS there also a version 5 and 6?

Kind of sort of - and it probably is the very last edition for them. But the data entry is massive - and escorts are not yet quite completed. ETA tomorrow. Done mainly so the eratta will be fixed in the final edition.

[el cid again]

This keeps Level 7 current with 5.7654 (and 6.8654) developments: we found problems with two obscure classes of transport amhibs not present in other forms of WITP anyway. Fixed. This is NOT frozen - and there will be at least one more release for 7. We must complete EEO - and that will likely have impacts on other scenarios.