CHS 1.07 Suggestions so far

[Andrew Brown]

Here is a list of some of the suggestions for an update to CHS (1.07) taken from the other suggestions thread. I have omitted a few things from the list, such as the radar suggestions, as I don't understand them enough to know whether anything needs to be changed.

Here is the list. I have added some comments in brackets where appropriate:

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley7735:


I looked in CHS and the stock scenarios and couldn't find this ship. I think it should be included in CHS 1.07.

USS Barry, APD-29. Flushdeck convesion to APD arrived at Pearl Harbor 3/24/45. If you do add her in, she should have more than the normal US ship experience given to new construction. She earned several battle stars in the Atlantic.

http://pacific.valka.cz/ships/index.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b/barry.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley7735:

Ship #4151 Reynour (APD-102) is spelled incorrectly. It is USS Rednour (APD-102).

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/04102.htm
http://ftp.ggi-project.org/hyperwar/USN ... pd102.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley7735:

Ship #4196 Schmidt (APD-76) is spelled incorrectly. It is USS Schmitt (APD-76).

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/04076.htm
http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=79

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kereguelen:

Arrival times of British HQ:

14th Army was formed 22nd Oct 1943 by redesignation of Eastern Army. Eastern Army was formed 11th April 1942 at Ranchi (near Jamshedpur, first commander was LTG Broad, who is not in the database). There was a Southern Army formed the same day at Poona (under LTG Haig). But Eastern Army was the HQ that commanded the units in the Burma/Assam theatre, while Southern Army acted more like a regional HQ and was never renumbered because it never acted as a front-line HQ. I think that 14th Army should arrive on 11th April 1942 in the game because it was a true command HQ and historically available for this function at this time.

12th Army arrives waaaay too early in the game, it was formed 28th May 1945 at Rangoon (with LTG Stopford in command).

BURCORPS and XV. Indian Corps were basically the same formation, HQ BURCORPS closed 20th May 1942 after arrival in India, XV. Corps was formed in May 1942 at Calcutta. Both were commanded by LTG Slim (while XV. Corps was not really a redesignation of BURCORPS, I think it should be handled that way in the game).

IV. Indian Corps: Formed April 1942 at Imphal (LTG Irwin).

XXXIII. Indian Corps: Formed August 1942 at Bangalore (LTG Christison).

XXXIV. Indian Corps: Formed 1st March 1945 at Poona (LTG Roberts).

K

(Source: Loyalty & Honour by Chris Kempton)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley7735:

Ship # 4207, USS Witter is listed in CHS as an APD. I can't find more than this 1 source, but it lists it as a DE of the Buckley TE class.

http://pacific.valka.cz/ships/index.htm

Main guns: 3x76/50 mk 21
secondary: 2x40mm, 8x20mm, 1 hedghog
SL and SA radars

I don't know if someone can find a second source to confirm or a source to deny the change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
jcjordan:

Minor little typo in leader db - Woods, L #15215 has a period in front of name.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackhorse:

For consideration in CHS 1.07 I sent a list to Treespider and Don of US land and air reinforcements scheduled to transfer from the Europe to the Pacific between 8/45 and 1/46 to participate in the planned final invasion of Japan. I was working on this back in January, until I had a sudden yearning to vacation in Iraq for several months. I've returned and finished the OOB.

The OOB includes 12 new US Army divisions (the plans called for 15, three are already in the game) plus the British 3rd INF and Canadian 6th INF divisions.

I have also identified the 54(!) US Air Groups that were also in the process of shifting to the Pacific when the war ended. This includes 20 Groups of B24s (being upgraded to B29s), 20 Groups of B17s, 5 Groups of A26s, 6 Groups of P47s, and 2 Groups of P51s. [CHS already includes Philip Bass' excellent work identifying the 20 British/ Canadian/ Australian "Tiger Force" Lancaster bomber squadrons coming from Europe to the Pacific].

I'd appreciate some advice on a couple of points:

1. With a little extra research I could break the Groups down into their nearly 200 component squadrons. Is it worth doing for these late 45 reinforcements, or are groups adequate?

2. Along with the units come Headquarters -- 5 Corps HQ, one US Army HQ, the US 8th Air Force HQ, and a new US Strategic Air Forces Pacific command. Back in January, there were few available HQ slots. What is the current situation?

3. The same question for unit leaders. I've identified the HQ and division leaders. Should I rate them, or will we use random leaders?

4. The European B24 Groups were being converted to B29s. By August, six Groups had completed the conversion. Should all 20 B24 Groups arrive converted to B29s? Should the first six Groups be B29s, and the next 14 B24s? Or should all 20 Groups arrive as B24s, and rely on production for upgrades to B29s? and if so, does B29 production need to be adjusted?

5. Although they began arriving in the Pacific in the early fall of 1945, the European LCUs were designated to participate in Operation "Coronet" -- the second invasion of Japan, in March of 1946. Standard WitP ends in March, 1946. If CHS does, as well, should we bother to include these reinforcements?

6. Two of the "Tiger Force" squadrons were going to carry the 14,000 lb "Tallboy" bomb (in September, 100 Tallboys were en route to Okinawa). Can anyone show me a way to create a Tallboy "device" so that only these two squadrons would use it? Is there a way to "randomize" whether the squadrons use Tallboys or 500 lb bombs, or to restrict the overuse of Tallboys by limited production?

[Note - To make room for adding these air units, the best approach might be to reconvert all Allied bomber squadrons back into groups. Another possibility, which appeals to me more, is to convert all of the B-29 and Lancaster squadrons (only) into larger units. This would free up enough slots for some, but not all, of the extra air groups.

I also belileve that there are no free HQ slots, so some changes may need to be made if any new HQs are added. If these forces are added I would like to see at least 2-3 of the high level HQs added, though - Andrew]


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim D Burns:

15 [static] units start outside of base hex locations, 13 of these being Infantry Corps and 2 HQ’s. 21 start in what may be deemed as rear area bases, not in front line positions. 5 being infantry Corps, 6 HQ’s and 10 ART Divs. So there are fully 36 units that are of little to no use to the Chinese army, unless Japan decides to make them of use by attacking them.

Of the 15 units in non-base locations, Japan can ignore all but 3 of them if they wish. The three Japan will have to deal with are all on roads leading east from Changsa. The rest can all be easily bypassed, and turned into POW camps for the entire war. I’ll comment on how these units can be ignored.

[This has been a contentious issue, but my personal view is that it would be better for fixed Chinese LCUs to only be placed in bases, and that is a change I would support. The question is: how many and in which locations? - Andrew]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
JeffK:

Re Australian Beaufighter Squadrons.

30 & 31 Squadrons should originally appear as being equipped with Beaufighter Mk VIC (The first 72 were British produced Mk1C but Mk VIc can cover this, then came 63 Mk VIc, 20 Mk XIc & 62 Mk X.) Then the Australian produced Mk 21 came into production and 365 were produced. The first was issued to 31 Sqn on Sept 28 1944.

Can these have their origanl aircraft set correctly as currently they come to be equipped with the Beaufighter 21 and the computer re-equips them with Beauforts and the Mk VIc doesnt seem to be an option.

Other Beaufighter squadrons which could be added for any time extension are 92 Squadron, approx May 1945 and 93 Squadron around July 1945.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
bradfordkay:

I am amused by the 6" CD guns at the USA base in Salt Lake City. Are we worried about the mormon navy? Other base forces have fortifications added to make them static.

[These can be replaced by fortifications if necessary - Andrew]


------------------------------------------------------------------------
witpqs:

Some of the Wickes/Clemson class (a.k.a. Flush Deck) destroyers have endurance 4400 instead of 4000. This sounds fine, but I have noticed a problem with those ships. When they are in a convoy as escorts, they refuel at sea literally every turn. Put together a nice fast convoy and it becomes a slow convoy.

[If this can be verified by testing, then it might be better to reduce the endurance to 4000. Has anyone verified this? - Andrew]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlaskanWarrior:

Again I have to ask why the Pearl Harbor attack force is located adjacent to Lihue, when it should be about 250 mile to the north of Pearl Harbor??



------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlaskanWarrior:

Should not HMS Victorious show up at the Panama Canal in 1943? Her escort was USS Pringle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackhorse:

The US III Corps starts the game on the West Coast. IRL, it served as a training command. When it was finally activated as a combat corps, it was sent to Europe in 1944. After Germany surrendered, it was was one of four Corps HQ en route to the Pacific to participate in the second (March, 1946) invasion of Japan.

Since the III Corps was never available as a "deployable" corps in the Pacific, and since it is not needed for home defense (if the Japanese invade, all US reinforcements - including HQs - are accelerated) I think it should be deleted from the 'at start' forces, and either added as a 9/45 reinforcement, or removed altogether.

The same points apply to the III Corps commander. In the game, the starting commander is GEN Van Fleet, J.A. IRL, in December 1941 Van Fleet was a Colonel commanding a regiment that went to Europe. He eventually became a MG and took command of III Corps in March, 1945 in Europe (at Remagen). He was scheduled to command III Corps when it was sent to the Pacific in the fall of 1945.

Van Fleet was a superb officer (Patton once called him his best combat commander) but he should not arrive in WitP until 9/45.

[Looks like this could free up a valuable HQ slot for the late arriving US forces mentioned above - Andrew]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlaskanWarrior:

Here is a proposed 5/54 Mk16 data, max vertical range is reduced simply because fusing would have exploded the shell way before it reached its zenith:

[screenshot of device settings provided. I guess the device needs to be added to the device database if possible? - Andrew]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley7735:

Well, this is a VERY minor detail, but...

All the US SC's that come in as reinforcements have 540 fuel loaded instead of the 1,500 full load. I only mention this because it's not consistent with all the other ships that come in as reinforcements.

So, the only issue is that they will have 1,000 ops used when you refuel them. No big deal. San Fran has all the fuel you need anyway. But, it would be nice to see them come in with their full load of 1,500 fuel. I think this is a carryforward issue from the stock scenarios.

bc

------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

So, does anyone have any views on which of these changes, or any other ones I have ommitted, should be added to any update to CHS?

What about adding some of the work Nikademus is doing for his "Nik mod"?

And now the big question: any volunteeers to help with the update? We are getting short of contributors to CHS. If there is not enough interest I may decide to do my own mod, based on CHS, and incorporating some of these suggestions.

Andrew

[Don Bowen]

I can comment on a few of them:

USS Barry, APD-29. Flushdeck convesion to APD arrived at Pearl Harbor 3/24/45.
Ship #4151 Reynour (APD-102) is spelled incorrectly. It is USS Rednour (APD-102).
Ship #4196 Schmidt (APD-76) is spelled incorrectly. It is USS Schmitt (APD-76).
Ship # 4207, USS Witter is listed in CHS as an APD. I can't find more than this 1 source, but it lists it as a DE of the Buckley TE class.

I agree on all of these. The Witter was scheduled to be converted to an APD following battle damage but this was not completed by the end of the war and the conversion was cancelled. She served as a DE in the Pacific (where she was damaged by a kamikaze).

Re Australian Beaufighter Squadrons.

30 & 31 Squadrons should originally appear as being equipped with Beaufighter Mk VIC (The first 72 were British produced Mk1C but Mk VIc can cover this, then came 63 Mk VIc, 20 Mk XIc & 62 Mk X.) Then the Australian produced Mk 21 came into production and 365 were produced. The first was issued to 31 Sqn on Sept 28 1944.

Can these have their origanl aircraft set correctly as currently they come to be equipped with the Beaufighter 21 and the computer re-equips them with Beauforts and the Mk VIc doesnt seem to be an option.

Other Beaufighter squadrons which could be added for any time extension are 92 Squadron, approx May 1945 and 93 Squadron around July 1945.

Mike (Lemurs) and I went round and round on this one. The problem is indeed that not all Australian Marks of the Beaufighter are in the database. The way it is now is the way Mike set it after extensive review.

Some of the Wickes/Clemson class (a.k.a. Flush Deck) destroyers have endurance 4400 instead of 4000. This sounds fine, but I have noticed a problem with those ships. When they are in a convoy as escorts, they refuel at sea literally every turn. Put together a nice fast convoy and it becomes a slow convoy.

In my personal scenario I have broken the Wickes and Clemsons into two groups with different endurance. I see no such problems. Did the same for the Bangor and Bathurst classes, again for endurance and also some armament. I will be glad to provide my class specs if you-all would like.

Here is a proposed 5/54 Mk16 data, max vertical range is reduced simply because fusing would have exploded the shell way before it reached its zenith:

This device is in the database as device #65. The parameters might need to be changed. Again, Lemurs set the current values.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


I can comment on a few of them:

Re Australian Beaufighter Squadrons.

30 & 31 Squadrons should originally appear as being equipped with Beaufighter Mk VIC (The first 72 were British produced Mk1C but Mk VIc can cover this, then came 63 Mk VIc, 20 Mk XIc & 62 Mk X.) Then the Australian produced Mk 21 came into production and 365 were produced. The first was issued to 31 Sqn on Sept 28 1944.

Can these have their origanl aircraft set correctly as currently they come to be equipped with the Beaufighter 21 and the computer re-equips them with Beauforts and the Mk VIc doesnt seem to be an option.

Other Beaufighter squadrons which could be added for any time extension are 92 Squadron, approx May 1945 and 93 Squadron around July 1945.

Mike (Lemurs) and I went round and round on this one. The problem is indeed that not all Australian Marks of the Beaufighter are in the database. The way it is now is the way Mike set it after extensive review.



Don,

Is that why the game is open to hundreds of modifications?

To introduce Squadrons with Aircraft which are not available seems to be a cop out, especially when the anwer would be so easy. Simply equip 30 & 31 Sqns with Beaufighter VIC, maybe up the production to cover the numbers used by the RAAF.

Also, 22 Sqn re-equipped with Beaufighter 21's in November 1944.

ANOTHER THOUGHT FOR NEW VERSION

Can "Auto Convoys" have the ability to steer for a waypoint so as to "dog-leg" around enemy held bases? No, I dont want to personally route every convoy.

Bloody annoying to find your supply ships trying to sneak past Kwajalein and 50 odd Betty's.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Here is a list of some of the suggestions for an update to CHS (1.07) taken from the other suggestions thread. I have omitted a few things from the list, such as the radar suggestions, as I don't understand them enough to know whether anything needs to be changed.

Here is the list. I have added some comments in brackets where appropriate:

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley7735:


I looked in CHS and the stock scenarios and couldn't find this ship. I think it should be included in CHS 1.07.

USS Barry, APD-29. Flushdeck convesion to APD arrived at Pearl Harbor 3/24/45. If you do add her in, she should have more than the normal US ship experience given to new construction. She earned several battle stars in the Atlantic.


Ship #4151 Reynour (APD-102) is spelled incorrectly. It is USS Rednour (APD-102).

Ship #4196 Schmidt (APD-76) is spelled incorrectly. It is USS Schmitt (APD-76).

14th Army was formed 22nd Oct 1943 by redesignation of Eastern Army. Eastern Army was formed 11th April 1942 at Ranchi (near Jamshedpur, first commander was LTG Broad, who is not in the database). There was a Southern Army formed the same day at Poona (under LTG Haig). But Eastern Army was the HQ that commanded the units in the Burma/Assam theatre, while Southern Army acted more like a regional HQ and was never renumbered because it never acted as a front-line HQ. I think that 14th Army should arrive on 11th April 1942 in the game because it was a true command HQ and historically available for this function at this time.

12th Army arrives waaaay too early in the game, it was formed 28th May 1945 at Rangoon (with LTG Stopford in command).

BURCORPS and XV. Indian Corps were basically the same formation, HQ BURCORPS closed 20th May 1942 after arrival in India, XV. Corps was formed in May 1942 at Calcutta. Both were commanded by LTG Slim (while XV. Corps was not really a redesignation of BURCORPS, I think it should be handled that way in the game).

IV. Indian Corps: Formed April 1942 at Imphal (LTG Irwin).

XXXIII. Indian Corps: Formed August 1942 at Bangalore (LTG Christison).

XXXIV. Indian Corps: Formed 1st March 1945 at Poona (LTG Roberts).

Ship # 4207, USS Witter is listed in CHS as an APD. I can't find more than this 1 source, but it lists it as a DE of the Buckley TE class.

http://pacific.valka.cz/ships/index.htm

Main guns: 3x76/50 mk 21
secondary: 2x40mm, 8x20mm, 1 hedghog
SL and SA radars

I don't know if someone can find a second source to confirm or a source to deny the change.

Witter commissioned as a Buckley class DE, was severely damaged and went back to the US for repairs in June 45. It was decided to convert into an APD but the war was over before she was recommissioned. Source DANFS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackhorse:

For consideration in CHS 1.07 I sent a list to Treespider and Don of US land and air reinforcements scheduled to transfer from the Europe to the Pacific between 8/45 and 1/46 to participate in the planned final invasion of Japan. I was working on this back in January, until I had a sudden yearning to vacation in Iraq for several months. I've returned and finished the OOB.

The OOB includes 12 new US Army divisions (the plans called for 15, three are already in the game) plus the British 3rd INF and Canadian 6th INF divisions.

I have also identified the 54(!) US Air Groups that were also in the process of shifting to the Pacific when the war ended. This includes 20 Groups of B24s (being upgraded to B29s), 20 Groups of B17s, 5 Groups of A26s, 6 Groups of P47s, and 2 Groups of P51s. [CHS already includes Philip Bass' excellent work identifying the 20 British/ Canadian/ Australian "Tiger Force" Lancaster bomber squadrons coming from Europe to the Pacific].

I'd appreciate some advice on a couple of points:

1. With a little extra research I could break the Groups down into their nearly 200 component squadrons. Is it worth doing for these late 45 reinforcements, or are groups adequate?

2. Along with the units come Headquarters -- 5 Corps HQ, one US Army HQ, the US 8th Air Force HQ, and a new US Strategic Air Forces Pacific command. Back in January, there were few available HQ slots. What is the current situation?

3. The same question for unit leaders. I've identified the HQ and division leaders. Should I rate them, or will we use random leaders?

4. The European B24 Groups were being converted to B29s. By August, six Groups had completed the conversion. Should all 20 B24 Groups arrive converted to B29s? Should the first six Groups be B29s, and the next 14 B24s? Or should all 20 Groups arrive as B24s, and rely on production for upgrades to B29s? and if so, does B29 production need to be adjusted?

5. Although they began arriving in the Pacific in the early fall of 1945, the European LCUs were designated to participate in Operation "Coronet" -- the second invasion of Japan, in March of 1946. Standard WitP ends in March, 1946. If CHS does, as well, should we bother to include these reinforcements?

6. Two of the "Tiger Force" squadrons were going to carry the 14,000 lb "Tallboy" bomb (in September, 100 Tallboys were en route to Okinawa). Can anyone show me a way to create a Tallboy "device" so that only these two squadrons would use it? Is there a way to "randomize" whether the squadrons use Tallboys or 500 lb bombs, or to restrict the overuse of Tallboys by limited production?

[Note - To make room for adding these air units, the best approach might be to reconvert all Allied bomber squadrons back into groups. Another possibility, which appeals to me more, is to convert all of the B-29 and Lancaster squadrons (only) into larger units. This would free up enough slots for some, but not all, of the extra air groups.

I also belileve that there are no free HQ slots, so some changes may need to be made if any new HQs are added. If these forces are added I would like to see at least 2-3 of the high level HQs added, though - Andrew]

Be nice if someone could dahre this information and givce it a wider audience. Since by early 45 there are already plenty of "HQ's" in play, not including the ones from Europe would be no big loss.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim D Burns:

15 [static] units start outside of base hex locations, 13 of these being Infantry Corps and 2 HQ’s. 21 start in what may be deemed as rear area bases, not in front line positions. 5 being infantry Corps, 6 HQ’s and 10 ART Divs. So there are fully 36 units that are of little to no use to the Chinese army, unless Japan decides to make them of use by attacking them.

Of the 15 units in non-base locations, Japan can ignore all but 3 of them if they wish. The three Japan will have to deal with are all on roads leading east from Changsa. The rest can all be easily bypassed, and turned into POW camps for the entire war. I’ll comment on how these units can be ignored.

[This has been a contentious issue, but my personal view is that it would be better for fixed Chinese LCUs to only be placed in bases, and that is a change I would support. The question is: how many and in which locations? - Andrew]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
JeffK:

Re Australian Beaufighter Squadrons.

30 & 31 Squadrons should originally appear as being equipped with Beaufighter Mk VIC (The first 72 were British produced Mk1C but Mk VIc can cover this, then came 63 Mk VIc, 20 Mk XIc & 62 Mk X.) Then the Australian produced Mk 21 came into production and 365 were produced. The first was issued to 31 Sqn on Sept 28 1944.

Can these have their origanl aircraft set correctly as currently they come to be equipped with the Beaufighter 21 and the computer re-equips them with Beauforts and the Mk VIc doesnt seem to be an option.

Other Beaufighter squadrons which could be added for any time extension are 92 Squadron, approx May 1945 and 93 Squadron around July 1945.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
bradfordkay:

I am amused by the 6" CD guns at the USA base in Salt Lake City. Are we worried about the mormon navy? Other base forces have fortifications added to make them static.

[These can be replaced by fortifications if necessary - Andrew]

Actually I think all of these US base units do not need these guns, this was the funtion of the forts that were there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
witpqs:

Some of the Wickes/Clemson class (a.k.a. Flush Deck) destroyers have endurance 4400 instead of 4000. This sounds fine, but I have noticed a problem with those ships. When they are in a convoy as escorts, they refuel at sea literally every turn. Put together a nice fast convoy and it becomes a slow convoy.

[If this can be verified by testing, then it might be better to reduce the endurance to 4000. Has anyone verified this? - Andrew]

According to Friedman, although the Flushdeckers were all built to a common plan, there was variation in performance from builder to builder. Especially noted were Wickes class the Built at Bath which exceeded requirements showing an endurance of 5000nm at 15kts and 3400nm at 20kts. The Wilkes class built at Camps were good for 4000nm at 15kts. The rest of the class built at other yards were dismal, with the Mare Island built boats only showing apprx 2300nm at 15kts. Maybe this need to be investigated some and different sub classes designed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlaskanWarrior:

Again I have to ask why the Pearl Harbor attack force is located adjacent to Lihue, when it should be about 250 mile to the north of Pearl Harbor??



------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlaskanWarrior:

Should not HMS Victorious show up at the Panama Canal in 1943? Her escort was USS Pringle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackhorse:

The US III Corps starts the game on the West Coast. IRL, it served as a training command. When it was finally activated as a combat corps, it was sent to Europe in 1944. After Germany surrendered, it was was one of four Corps HQ en route to the Pacific to participate in the second (March, 1946) invasion of Japan.

Since the III Corps was never available as a "deployable" corps in the Pacific, and since it is not needed for home defense (if the Japanese invade, all US reinforcements - including HQs - are accelerated) I think it should be deleted from the 'at start' forces, and either added as a 9/45 reinforcement, or removed altogether.

The same points apply to the III Corps commander. In the game, the starting commander is GEN Van Fleet, J.A. IRL, in December 1941 Van Fleet was a Colonel commanding a regiment that went to Europe. He eventually became a MG and took command of III Corps in March, 1945 in Europe (at Remagen). He was scheduled to command III Corps when it was sent to the Pacific in the fall of 1945.

Van Fleet was a superb officer (Patton once called him his best combat commander) but he should not arrive in WitP until 9/45.

[Looks like this could free up a valuable HQ slot for the late arriving US forces mentioned above - Andrew]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlaskanWarrior:

Here is a proposed 5/54 Mk16 data, max vertical range is reduced simply because fusing would have exploded the shell way before it reached its zenith:

[screenshot of device settings provided. I guess the device needs to be added to the device database if possible? - Andrew]

Actually Andrew this device is in the CHS database. I just adjusted the data as per the sources I quoted in the original, as the data that is currently in the database for this device matches the 5/38 to a tee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley7735:

Well, this is a VERY minor detail, but...

All the US SC's that come in as reinforcements have 540 fuel loaded instead of the 1,500 full load. I only mention this because it's not consistent with all the other ships that come in as reinforcements.

So, the only issue is that they will have 1,000 ops used when you refuel them. No big deal. San Fran has all the fuel you need anyway. But, it would be nice to see them come in with their full load of 1,500 fuel. I think this is a carryforward issue from the stock scenarios.

bc

------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

So, does anyone have any views on which of these changes, or any other ones I have ommitted, should be added to any update to CHS?

What about adding some of the work Nikademus is doing for his "Nik mod"?

And now the big question: any volunteeers to help with the update? We are getting short of contributors to CHS. If there is not enough interest I may decide to do my own mod, based on CHS, and incorporating some of these suggestions.

Andrew

Andrew, as you are aware, I am in the process of modifying CHS along the lines that will turn it into a non-respawn version and also tweaking the Japanese somewhat. I will volunteer to work on developing the various Flushdeckers into a less homogenous group, as this parallels work I am doing and is a real historical issue. I do not see merit, at this time, with most of what Nik is doing, especially his AA solution. If anyone is interested in the Mod I am devloping, I will be happy to share the particulars...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Andrew, as you are aware, I am in the process of modifying CHS along the lines that will turn it into a non-respawn version and also tweaking the Japanese somewhat. I will volunteer to work on developing the various Flushdeckers into a less homogenous group, as this parallels work I am doing and is a real historical issue. I do not see merit, at this time, with most of what Nik is doing, especially his AA solution. If anyone is interested in the Mod I am devloping, I will be happy to share the particulars...

If you are doing work on the flushdeckers for your mod, I would be very interested in the results. I can add them to the CHS list or include them in my own mod if that is the way I go.

Just curious - why your views on Nik's AA work? From what I have read, there may be an issue with minimum AA ceilings that his mod is trying to address.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Andrew, as you are aware, I am in the process of modifying CHS along the lines that will turn it into a non-respawn version and also tweaking the Japanese somewhat. I will volunteer to work on developing the various Flushdeckers into a less homogenous group, as this parallels work I am doing and is a real historical issue. I do not see merit, at this time, with most of what Nik is doing, especially his AA solution. If anyone is interested in the Mod I am devloping, I will be happy to share the particulars...

If you are doing work on the flushdeckers for your mod, I would be very interested in the results. I can add them to the CHS list or include them in my own mod if that is the way I go.

Just curious - why your views on Nik's AA work? From what I have read, there may be an issue with minimum AA ceilings that his mod is trying to address.

I have not had a chance to look at what Nik is trying to acheive. But I also think that the AA model needs tweaking... I will let you know when I have revamped the Flush Deckers. Right now I am slowly pecking away at the DE list for arrivals, then on to DMS, DM, AVD, AV, AD, etc. The destroyers I have pretty much settled, added that last few Flush Deckers that I missed earlier today (about 8 total).

[Sardaukar]

What I deducted from Nik's posts there seem to have minimum altitude under which heavy AA doesn't fire, depending on max ceiling. Apparently that was also issue in Bombing on the Reich game which is also GG game.
IIRC, it's 7000-9000 ft depending on gun. Downside of the fixes seems to be that flak gets very devastating to dive bombers and fighter bombers that dive down to 2000 ft for bomb release. I haven't played Nik's mod, so I don't know what things his fix includes.

[rockmedic109]

I haven't tested anything but here is my take.

The lowest Heavy bombers can go and not take extra fatigue and morale hits is 6000'.

The standard cruising altitude for torpedo planes is 5000'. They take AA at this altitude and during their run {200'}.

Dive bombers take AA at the altitude they come in and at 2000'

Because of the game mechanics, shouldn't the Heavy AA minimum range {altitude} be somewhere above 2000' and below 5000'. This would eliminate any sweet spot altitudes while not making torpedo planes and dive bomber crews unable to get life insurance.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

---

[Note - To make room for adding these air units, the best approach might be to reconvert all Allied bomber squadrons back into groups. Another possibility, which appeals to me more, is to convert all of the B-29 and Lancaster squadrons (only) into larger units. This would free up enough slots for some, but not all, of the extra air groups.

- Andrew]
Just one players opinion - I would find this unappealing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
witpqs:

Some of the Wickes/Clemson class (a.k.a. Flush Deck) destroyers have endurance 4400 instead of 4000. This sounds fine, but I have noticed a problem with those ships. When they are in a convoy as escorts, they refuel at sea literally every turn. Put together a nice fast convoy and it becomes a slow convoy.

[If this can be verified by testing, then it might be better to reduce the endurance to 4000. Has anyone verified this? - Andrew]

In further play, the situation is wierd. It seems that it only occurs when the TF has its destination set to a mid-ocean hex (used as a waypoint). When set directly to a base (either home or otherwise) this behavior does not occur. I'll try to get a little more data.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I have omitted a few things from the list, such as the radar suggestions, as I don't understand them enough to know whether anything needs to be changed.

Aww.. and I put so much time into doing that research. Oh well, maybe in 1.08. [:(]


EDIT: I should also mention, that it seems a couple things being discussed are 'contentious' whereas my suggestion for the Irving would not be a game breaker or anything. A half a dozen or so squads wuld be affected late in the game. It would just make things a bit more historical, which I thought was the goal.

Not upset or anything at all, CHS is a great scenario and I appreciate that not everything can be included.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

I haven't tested anything but here is my take.

The lowest Heavy bombers can go and not take extra fatigue and morale hits is 6000'.

The standard cruising altitude for torpedo planes is 5000'. They take AA at this altitude and during their run {200'}.

Dive bombers take AA at the altitude they come in and at 2000'

Because of the game mechanics, shouldn't the Heavy AA minimum range {altitude} be somewhere above 2000' and below 5000'. This would eliminate any sweet spot altitudes while not making torpedo planes and dive bomber crews unable to get life insurance.

What you are asking for in Heavy AA is ahistorical. Historically there was an altitude band where aircraft was pretty much immune, and IIRC it was around 6000 to 10000 feet. At this range Heavy AA had dificulties tracking fast moving aircraft and Light AA pretty much became ineffective. A quote from Ian Hogg in "British and American Artillery" pretty much sums it up:

" In the early 1920's, an anti-aircraft gun was an anti-aircraft gun and that was the end of it, but the rapid improvements in aircraft performance soon indicated that there would have to be sub-divisions. The gun capable of engaging a bomber at 20,000ft was not well suited to shooting a fighter-bomber doing 200mph at 2000ft, since the speed of the swing and pointing had to be very fast to catch such a fleeting target. The only hope was to use a gun with a high rate f fire so as to get as many hits as possible while the target was within range. From this came the damand for light-antiaircraft guns, and it was brillantly answered by AB Bofors of Sweden with their famous 40mm gun, which first appeared in 1929.
In similar fashion, as bombers flew higher, so guns of great power were needed to reach them, and during the war, it was belatedly realized that there was a gap in the sky which light guns could not reach and heavy guns could not get down to, and this led to an "Intemediate" gun, which both Germany and Britain tried this and both failed, because the demand was too difficult for the current technology."

Under the section dealing the 6pdr 6cwt Anti-Aircraft Gun Hoggs writes:
"In 1940, the War Office came to the conclusion that a fresh type of anti-aircraft guns was needed. The 40mm could deal quite well with aircraft up to about 6000ft, and the 3.7in and larger could deal with those aboce 10,000ft. But the middle layer of sky was poorly defended, since small weapons could not reach it and the heavy weapons could not swing and elevate fast enough to keep up with the rapid angular movement of an aircraft at about 8000ft atltitude." 3" guns could cover this part of the sky, but their rate of fire was to low, and most of the 3" guns inservice had too slow a rate of fire (expressed in lag time)used antiquated fire control that was unable to track low altitude-fast moving targets. Thus the British spent the next 4 years attemtping to refine an Intermidiate AA gun based around the 6lb(57mm) gun. The advent of the guided surface to air missile solved this problem for the British, as well as the Americans. The only land based gun system that comes to mind that fits this was the Societ S-60, a single towed and a twin SP 57mm auto cannon. The American Naval twin 3" auto cannon developed at the end of the war also met the requirements (originally for a heavier rapid fire AA gun to tackle kamikazes), but was too late for WWII.

The VT fuse was a big help in coping with aircraft at all altitudes, but its availiability was limited to guns larger that 40mm, and unavailable to the Japanese. Radar also helped in allowing for faster acquisition and more precise fire control, but range was still limited and most of the radar contolled anit-aircraft was aboard Allied naval vessels. The Japanese were even less able and equipped to deal with this, the 25mm was way to light, there would be even a larger altitude bad to deal with, this one down lower. Probably the best Anti-aircraft defence setup, technology and gun wise, for most of the war was in Germany. So although everyone ought to think there is an answer to effective AA at all altitudes need to realize that the technology of the time limited what could be done. Now I am sure that some will disagree with me, but the historical record stands for itself, and the above is just one example of many. Probably the best we can do historically is to adjust the altitudes of the aa guns to reflect ballistic and fuzing realities, using effective ranges instead of max.

[rockmedic109]

From a historical view, you are right. I was looking at the issue from a game mechanics standpoint. It might be better to leave it more historical, but did the various air forces bomb a base bristling with AA guns at 6000'? How long did it take to learn what the range of immunity was? We all go into the game knowing what it is, or very close to what it is. Would lowering the min range on heavy AA produce more historical results? My historical knowledge at this level is limited.

House Rules maybe?

[witpqs]

If historical results is what you want then I suggest a house rule. That way players who want historical capabilities - and to see if they can do better than historical results - will not be locked into the historical results.

[Blackhorse]

Andrew,

With the caveat that I've never done any in-game editing before, let me know if there is anything I can do to help with CHS 1.07.

I have a question before we try to include my OOB for the Allies 1945 ETO air and land reinforcements. Will the production system support it?

IIRC, the newly-arriving aircraft squadrons/groups/wings will have to draw their aircraft from the production pool. That's 1,000 B29s, 1,000 B17s, 400 Lancasters and 1,000 A26s-P47s-P51s (combined) all in a 4-month period between September and December 1945.

Adding 12 new divisions in the same 4-month window will cause a similar strain on the manpower and equipment pools.

Can this be made to work in the game?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

---

[Note - To make room for adding these air units, the best approach might be to reconvert all Allied bomber squadrons back into groups. Another possibility, which appeals to me more, is to convert all of the B-29 and Lancaster squadrons (only) into larger units. This would free up enough slots for some, but not all, of the extra air groups.

- Andrew]
Just one players opinion - I would find this unappealing.

I agree. What about the second option - converting just the B-29 and Lancaster units into groups? I may be wrong, but I would expect that these aircraft were mainly deployed in group sized or larger formations anyway.

Edited - OOps! I meant B-29, not B-20...

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

---

[Note - To make room for adding these air units, the best approach might be to reconvert all Allied bomber squadrons back into groups. Another possibility, which appeals to me more, is to convert all of the B-29 and Lancaster squadrons (only) into larger units. This would free up enough slots for some, but not all, of the extra air groups.

- Andrew]
Just one players opinion - I would find this unappealing.

I agree. What about the second option - converting just the B-20 and Lancaster units into groups? I may be wrong, but I would expect that these aircraft were mainly deployed in group sized or larger formations anyway.

I think that the larger the plane (ie more strategic than tactical), the better they're in larger groups. I like my strategic planes in large groups and my tactical planes in smaller squadrons. That's my preference, and I'll be fine with whatever is decided.

Of course, with PDU, you can turn a group of B-29's into B-25's and a squadron of B-25's into B-29's.

[witpqs]

Andrew,

What you propose is a lesser evil. Many of the choices you guys have been forced to make are just that. Like Bradley I appreciate and will be happy with whatever you decide.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Andrew,

With the caveat that I've never done any in-game editing before, let me know if there is anything I can do to help with CHS 1.07.

If you do want to help, then it would be greatly appreciated. Do you think you could handle the inclusion of the Allied forces you mention that were earmarked for the invasion of Japan? This would require:

- Combining all B-29 and Tiger Force bomber squadrons into larger formations. Groups for the US and Wings (I think??) for the Commonwealth.

- Adding as many new airgroups as there are spaces remaining. Four slots would need to be set aside for air units for the Midway, which I would like to add (a second Midway class CV was also commissioned before the end of 1945, but if we add her as well that would mean losing yet another 4 slots). There won't be enough room for all of the units, so a proportional mix of fighters/bombers would need to be added.

- Add the LCUs.

Combined with AlaskanWarrior's ship arrivals work and a few other modifications, this would give us enough updates for version 1.07.

The other modifications will probably consist of the things in this thread, plus a few other things:

- Revert to normal subs, since ship vs sub combat is modified in patch 1.604.
- Maybe tweak the Chinese a little.
- Add my US production expansion idea, which seemed to work OK when I tested it.

I have a question before we try to include my OOB for the Allies 1945 ETO air and land reinforcements. Will the production system support it?

IIRC, the newly-arriving aircraft squadrons/groups/wings will have to draw their aircraft from the production pool. That's 1,000 B29s, 1,000 B17s, 400 Lancasters and 1,000 A26s-P47s-P51s (combined) all in a 4-month period between September and December 1945.

Adding 12 new divisions in the same 4-month window will cause a similar strain on the manpower and equipment pools.

Can this be made to work in the game?

That is a good question. I have no idea. It could be a problem though, especially since there seem to be high aircraft losses in the game vs real life. This needs input from someone who knows more about aircraft replacements and production than I do.

By the way - I found the following list of Wings that were being formed by RAF Bomber Command for Tiger Force:

551 Wing
552 Wing
553 Wing
554 Wing
555 RAAF Wing
661 RCAF Wing
662 RCAF Wing
663 RCAF Wing
664 RCAF Wing

So that is 20 Squadrons into 9 Wings. I have no idea which Squadrons would be in which Wing, but if nobody else knows either then it doesn't matter, I guess.

[TheElf]

From the Shinano thread I think a decent arguement can be made to increase her capacity to 120-125 A/C. Not sure if an organic Airgroup is necessary. By the time she is available there are bound to be some "stranded" CV Airgroups available to outfit her.

Anyone who disagrees can use a house rule to limit her use as a Fleet Carrier.

[EasilyConfused]

I'm still at the disposal of the CHS team for any research you need done. I'm hopeless at programming, but if there is anything I can do to make things easier for you guys, feel free to drop me a line.