RHSAIO-Still has river ports

[Buck Beach]

Just a report Cid. The bases of: 294 Asamsol; 429 Luangprabang; 436 Kampong Chnang; and 475 Luchow, still have reports and the Japanese Computer player is trying to send TFs to them. May be more, haven't throughly checked.
If there is a RHSCAIO then all river ports must be disabled or the Computer Player will seek them out. Game date is 2/2/42.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Just a report Cid. The bases of: 294 Asamsol; 429 Luangprabang; 436 Kampong Chnang; and 475 Luchow, still have reports and the Japanese Computer player is trying to send TFs to them. May be more, haven't throughly checked.
If there is a RHSCAIO then all river ports must be disabled or the Computer Player will seek them out. Game date is 2/2/42.

Not good. Will post a critical update immediately.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

The bases of: 294 Asamsol; 429 Luangprabang; 436 Kampong Chnang; and 475 Luchow, still have reports and the Japanese Computer player is trying to send TFs to them. May be more, haven't throughly checked.
If there is a RHSCAIO then all river ports must be disabled or the Computer Player will seek them out.

Not good. Will post a critical update immediately.

The specific ports above were changed in the CRITICAL UPDATE, however there are still many inland bases on rivers where they still have ports. Even such Allied ports (all countries) pose a problem. The Japanese will send subs and MLs (verified in my game) to them. Additionally, when captured the Japanese will attempt to supply them.

A correction at this point may not be warrented. If I decide to start anew I will go in and change them to bases.

On another issue, the Japanese is still very occasionally sending bombing missions (as opposed to Recon) to attack the Soviets.

Lastly, the scenario numbering is confused in the last two RHSAIO updates. That is the previous update has a great number than the most recent.

Still enjoy your Mods.

Note, I do realize that there is one China river that is navigable.

[el cid again]

There should be no INTERIOR river system ports listed as ports. The rivers remain navigable - but the naval units are not present - and the ports are not present as ports - only as airfields.

There ARE EXTERIOR rivers - lots of them. No less than three in China. A rump of the Old Yellow River, the major Yangtze as far as Wuhan, and the Pearl River ALL exist - with inland ports. [Canton is an INLAND port - as is Nanking - and CHS has made Nanking a port for some time now. Even stock has Canton as an inland port.] Inland Sea ports are something like river ports - and some always existed - others were added by Andrew for CHS. Vancouver is also sort of an interior port in all mods I think. So is Juneau for that matter.

There are two EXTERIOR rivers in Australia - one by Darwin - one called the Norman River in the Gulf of Carpenteria. There is a big one at Magadan in Russia. [Big as the Mississippi in flow terms]

ALL of these work as they should work - and do not confuse AI even if it uses them.

IF you can find an INTERIOR river port - in AIO - identify it - and it will vaporize in a few minutes - officially - for all users.

[el cid again]

Except for the Mekong River, all interior river systems seem to be right.

The Mekong was always wierd. There are TWO DIFFERENT interior river systems - divided by a rapids/waterfall in Cambodia. The upper system seems not to have converted - except that one port was zeroed out - and there are no naval units. The lower system was partly converted - the ports are zeroed out - but not defined as airfields. Now a zero port should not be a problem - but still they should not be ports just for safety sake.

But the upper Mekong ports will confuse the AI - which is pretty idiotic about where it tries to base and send things. [Why should a 1 level port be the base for anything ? Why send anything there when there are no units to feed? Never mind.]

So I will correct these ports - on principle.

The version numbers are right - but confusing I admit. Levels 5 and 6 have a lower sequence than 7 does. But they all are incrimenting.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There should be no INTERIOR river system ports listed as ports. The rivers remain navigable - but the naval units are not present - and the ports are not present as ports - only as airfields.

There ARE EXTERIOR rivers - lots of them. No less than three in China. A rump of the Old Yellow River, the major Yangtze as far as Wuhan, and the Pearl River ALL exist - with inland ports. [Canton is an INLAND port - as is Nanking - and CHS has made Nanking a port for some time now. Even stock has Canton as an inland port.] Inland Sea ports are something like river ports - and some always existed - others were added by Andrew for CHS. Vancouver is also sort of an interior port in all mods I think. So is Juneau for that matter.

There are two EXTERIOR rivers in Australia - one by Darwin - one called the Norman River in the Gulf of Carpenteria. There is a big one at Magadan in Russia. [Big as the Mississippi in flow terms]

ALL of these work as they should work - and do not confuse AI even if it uses them.

IF you can find an INTERIOR river port - in AIO - identify it - and it will vaporize in a few minutes - officially - for all users.

I will do, but, a question. Given the confusion in the AIO scenairo numbering, could the corrections just made have been to an obsolete file? There are just too many river ports showing.

Also, I know Calcutta is on a "closed river system" and base 294 (since corrected) was on that river and a Jap. sub sent there was on a trip to nowhere and dead in the water. In the file just applied there are other ports on that river.

[el cid again]

There appears to have been some mix up between 76 and 77 - and some of the ports were removed from EEO instead of AIO. However, there never were any ports showing in India on the Indus/Bhramaputra system in any flavor of AIO. I will investigate deeper.