RHS 7.97 update uploading

[el cid again]

A large number of small changes for RHSEBO have resulted from ongoing test games and an attempt to create a new starting turn
SOME of these creep over - mostly into EOS family scenarios - but a few more generally. These include changes in command assignment, changes in planning, and changes in a few locations for land units. There is also one bomber unit that changes its name from having an AP suffex to a GP sufex - a USAAF B-17 unit at Clark Field.

This update may be a comprehensive one as a courtesy - but it only involves two files for standard scenarios - and four for EOS family scenarios. It likely will issue today or tomorrow - and matters pointed out before that happens will be investigated/considered.

In spite of my firm intention not to update - it appears that these scenarios can be better in a number of ways - and as I plan a long game test series - I did not want to start without them. If I use them - it is only fair others can see and have them.

[el cid again]

When RTAF appears, it isn't behaving entirely as intended.  So the update will include changes so more units appear at the right time with the right equipment,
and the RTAF B-10 also appears as such (instead of as its upgrade - the Ki-21).
 
 

[el cid again]

Uploading to the primary distribution list now.

This file set will be subject to some longer term testing - and there is no plan for when we change things again -
it depends on when something is learned that needs or benefits from changing.

[el cid again]

I have sent files to a person who was not on distribution and could not yet get them on the RHS site. I can do this for anyone who sends me a private message. Do not post an address here - it is a way to get hunted down by nasty worms. Regretfully - this is testimony.

[Historiker]

Eendracht has the wrong armement (in EBO)

[el cid again]

Maybe. This ship went through various and radical changes - and I used an early design - because THIS version was laid down even before the first one. So it is not like the version laid down just before the war - nor the version completed after the war - but it IS right for a version laid down in time to be completed before the war - it is the FIRST design.

In a similar way, our Dutch BC is to the first design - with only four twin secondary mountings - not the later design - with six. I think it may a be a knot faster too. In order to work these ships in so they were not caught by the German invasion I had to lay them sooner than IRL. I invented a Japanese behavior that justified that.

[Historiker]

Have you looked at it?

[el cid again]

Yes - just did - it is correct.

[Historiker]

12,7mm Vickers MG 2 RS 2
5,9in/50 QF HDP Gun 2 LS 2
5,9in/50 QF HDP Gun 2 RS 2
5,9in/50 QF HDP Gun 2 LS 2

Doesn't seem right to me [;)]

This is how it is armed in the file you sent me...

[el cid again]

Hmmm - the class is correct - but both ships seem to have a combat ineffective forward mounting - on which some enterpreising sailor has set up a pair of HMG. Not good. I will of course fix that for future updates. Already did.

These ships were originally classical 8 gun lights - four twins. They were in fact stretched De Ruyters. Then they got modified to
ten gun light - two triples and two twins. Not completed in that form - they went on to complete as 8 gun lights - but with
a comletely different gun - an automatic 6 inch like the Worcesters. Both ships still exist - in Peru I think - and one was modifie - losing her after mounts in favor of Terrier - since deleted and turned into a helo platform.

Note that in common with Tromp and De Ruyter these cruisers have a Heavy DP main gun - it elevates to 60 degrees and has some value vs aircraft.

[Historiker]

Why do the Taney-class have DCs... - but no ammo for them?

[Historiker]

Asheville class seems to have the wrong armement. EBO

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Why do the Taney-class have DCs... - but no ammo for them?

I don't know. I do not even know what kind of ship this is? It is not easy to find one of over a thousand ship classes without a slot number - and without a type I have no idea what range to look in either. The name sounds Allied - and DCs sounds like some sort of escort vessel.

There are over 120 thousand fields - many of them never even reviewed after more than six man years of work on RHS - and information theory says there must be many errors. I assume this is such a case. There is no point in a weapon without ammunition. But it is possible the weapon is not a weapon at all - but a device without ammunition - or no device at all. I need to find the record to be able to have some intelligent answer - and not knowing where it is does not make that easy to do.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Asheville class seems to have the wrong armement. EBO

At least I know of this class - and I once saw her namesake class in my era. But this is still too vague to respond to - wrong in what sense? Again - rapid response requires a specific point to look at = slot number. Also again - there will be thousands of bad fields - although probably fewer in RHS than in other forms of WITP - this is SOP and there is no possibility of getting rid of all of them. If we spot an error I fix it immediately - for the next update - but only an important one will cause an update to issue.

Identifying potential errors is a valuable service - but the more specific the identification the faster the process is. Lots of times "wrong" may be intentional - for some reason that makes sense and could be explained - if only I knew what you thought was wrong? In this case I have no actual answer - I don't know what you don't think is right. Ashville is probably a PG - and likely has guns.

OK - Ashville is a PG with 4 inch main battery and 3 inch AA battery. One of the side 3 inch mounts has an editor induced error - Matrix editors love to shift values by one - in this case is shown as device 57 - a Russian 18 cm gun of no AA value and vastly too much surface range and power. This one can be fixed. It seems to be everywhere and may or may not be inherited - it does not matter and I won't investigate to find out either: I will just fix it.

This issue was in all levels in all scenarios of all families - so it may indeed have been inherited data. It was only in the original class record - and will be fixed when the vessels upgrade to a later version - or if any vessels appear in the later version to begin with.

[el cid again]

Taney turns out to be an obscure PC of apparently British format (but USN weapons) - and it is also wrong only in its initial form - the update indicates it should have 5 patterns of DC - and since a disaster has destroyed my bookshelves (destroyed in an earthquake I they are not in accessable order) I won't look it up. This does appear to be in the format I use - I use only one DC pattern in the rear regardless of weapon format- so it is probably my data in any case. - Ah - it is a typo - the patterns are shown as "ammo" for the radar on the next line - and it is indeed 5 patterns. Since this error is in a matter I changed for all classes - and since it involves a typo - it almost certainly is a new error generated by me - it won't be present in CHS because they don't use RHS DC attack patterns. [RHS has only one pattern with ALL DC that can drop in it - this is usually 1 DC per K gun - 2 DC per Y gun - and either 2 or 3 DC per DC rack (2 is normal - 3 if a large pattern). Patrerns will range from 2 to 12 - and you will divide the total number of DC by the pattern to get shots. The pattern is always Rear - the DC fall until they detonate - by which time the ship has passed - so they always detonate astern. Hedgehog - on the other hand - is ahead firing.

This reminds me - we need to think about changing DC data to make things less dangerous for submarines - a new thread I guess.

[Historiker]

Asheville:
4in 1 F
4in 2 R
3in AA RS
180mm LS

This 180 mm must be false (while it is a nice addition for this ships [;)]. It has 41 range and more firepower than all the other guns on the ship together)...
I guess a typo...

[el cid again]

This is addressed above. It is likely not a typo. It is probably editor induced - although it might have been a typo when the original field was selected. It is merely a 1 shift in device number from 56 to 57 - and this is a very common error in the data set. It is very old - the oldest files I have show it - and if my main station was up I could see if it was also in CHS or not at the time I started using it? Whenever or wherever it came from - it will not be in future RHS files. It is a bit of a superman gun for a PC - and I will not use this vessel until it upgrades out of the problem in ongoing games.