In the beginning, RHS was CHS155. This was simply revised and supplimented. Along the way, it was determined that there are lots of fundamental issues in the database - so undefined (or at least undocumented) fields were defined and consistently reviewed (with help from the forum). Also, independently, CHS and RHS teams "discovered" that there is a lot more hard code than we understood - and there was some need to insure that certain things in the device file, ship file, class file and location file are in stock slots (not always what stock puts there - but whatever we want to behave that way). A day later, 1.8 was released. SO
RHS based itself on stock 1.8 in terms of the device file,
and on CHS177 in terms of other files,
with the location file, ship class file and ship files somewhat backwards converted towards stock locations.
These changes resulted in better AI behaviors. Some things - down in New Zealand for example - were bizzare - static units wandering around. Using stock slots meant coast defense units (units with CD guns that are fixed) stay in place and the mechanized cavalry moves! In a few cases, it is even possible to get better AI behavior than stock has - but only by using the code with the "right" thing - because we cannot change the code.
Nevertheless, there are about 8800 field issues remaining - almost all in the ship class and ship files - the rest in the location file. Many of these can be corrected by simple updates - once per record - to line up a ship record with a class record. Many are bogus - a failure of the computer software to grasp the design intent of the field modification. But some matter big time: Allied CVs may not work well in extended battles - because - like IJN CVs in an earlier release - they seem to have no aircraft ordnance. [I thought I fixed that - but maybe I only intended to fix it and then forgot.] I cannot tell what matters without looking at the issue, case by case.
2.6 is a project to reveiw all these issues - and reissue at the current stage based on that review. I am very likely to zero out many ship captains - particularly merchant ship captains - along the way - to generate a lot fewer errors in reports. I don't know - or much care - why a particular captain is assigned. I never assigned any - and if the stock or CHS - or corrupted - assignment is wrong - it generates an error: setting them to zero means the computer will pick an appropriate candidate. This cannot complete today. Mini updates numbered 2.5x are simply partially corrected file sets moving toward 2.60.
RHS Version 2.60 Project [Updated at end]
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Version 2.60 Project
I would ignor the ship captain, they are for the most part a non-issue, unless you see captain dumb ass in charge of your carriers[;)]
Any ship that doesn't have a captain will be assigned one, when the scenario starts.
Any ship that doesn't have a captain will be assigned one, when the scenario starts.
RE: RHS Version 2.60 Project
Don't get discouraged. Been waiting months for any revised version and can wait alot more. Keep up the excellent work.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Version 2.60 Project
Test version 2.52 distributed - a substantial move toward 2.60.
Also 2.53 BBO pre release has some major Allied captial ships in it. Comments on BBO are ships are requested. [NOTHING but ships and related air groups differs from CVO- well RAO - since Russians are active in BBO. If you want passive russians - RPO will be BBO without the Russians.]
Also 2.53 BBO pre release has some major Allied captial ships in it. Comments on BBO are ships are requested. [NOTHING but ships and related air groups differs from CVO- well RAO - since Russians are active in BBO. If you want passive russians - RPO will be BBO without the Russians.]
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
AKs
Because players now have the potential to move more oil, and since HI may produce more fuel distant from where it is required, they may also wish to move more fuel, the AO fleet probably is more heavily tasked. While it was slightly reduced in tonnage, the nature of liquids is such that this was not very severe (about 1/8 - specifically 2/17s). So the AO fleet will remain as is - except where it is involved in strategic LOC work (below).
Because APs are not a primary source of moving resources, and because they often are used to move troops, this force also will remain as is. However, note that some APs were redefined, upwards - generic definitions shortchanged many in speed and capacity. And in some scenarios - notable related to BBO - some APs are not converted to carriers. For these reasons there may be slightly more AP capacity in RHS.
AKs are different. If "resources" means only the commodoties listed by Parillo (in The Japanese Merchant Marine and World War II), then resources outweigh oil by a considerable factor. But the peculiar WITP economic model uses resources in a way that is much smaller: because of the impact of manpower centers, more resources are used than oil, but not a great deal more. HI centers themselves don't use more resources, which they probably should. The net effect is that resources required by accounted for centers probably represent only about 10% of the resources actually moved in the area. A different question is "how many of these resources must move by sea?" The answer is, of course, different for each location, and each situation. Given the generally poor land communications systems of the region, and the impact of enemy units on them, it may be that more of the resources move by sea than the 10% we need, or than might be the case in peacetime. It is clear that we should reduce AK capacity to represent ships used for the "invisible" resources. It is not so clear by what proportion? The "visible" resources, being used to make HI points and supply points and fuel points - and being the only or primary source of all of these - nicely model the military economy: hit them (or ships carrying them) and you hurt the military production directly, and in proportion to what you stop. I am estimating that the reduction in AKs should be by as much as 3/4 - but I think we should begin by seeing how well the economy does if we do it by 1/2?
RHS has a new strategic "entry/exit" point for the theater: Melbourne. This point is a proper exit point for British ships required to leave the theater. It also is a place supplies, fuel, oil and resources appear by "magic" - often the case at map edge strategic points. Ships engaged in trade to bring these points - to Aden, Melbourne, and Colon Panama, should not be in the game. AKs (and to some degree AOs) so engaged should be removed. This will impact British ships more than US ones - as pointed out by our resident mariner - AKDreemer.
The first attempts to reduce the AK force should appear in RHS level 2.60
A side effect of this will be an increase in playability - because there is less to manage. But that may not mean less effort in managing the merchant fleet: for the first time players should be dependent on on map supply/fuel generation, and for that reason need to ship resources/oil to the HI and manpower centers which do that; the Allies also will need to ship more supplies and fuel from map edge locations that get "magic" (off map sourced) points. These increased shipping requirements, combined with lower ship capacities and lower numbers of ships, ought to mean that real thought needs to go into transport fleet management. It also ought to mean that there are no longer "AKs to burn" - just throw away without regard to their value. Yet another effect is that players may begin to regard locations in terms of their oil, resources and industry - because of operational impacts in the near term. Both in terms of taking them, and in terms of keeping them or damaging them. All of which is good, IMHO.
Because APs are not a primary source of moving resources, and because they often are used to move troops, this force also will remain as is. However, note that some APs were redefined, upwards - generic definitions shortchanged many in speed and capacity. And in some scenarios - notable related to BBO - some APs are not converted to carriers. For these reasons there may be slightly more AP capacity in RHS.
AKs are different. If "resources" means only the commodoties listed by Parillo (in The Japanese Merchant Marine and World War II), then resources outweigh oil by a considerable factor. But the peculiar WITP economic model uses resources in a way that is much smaller: because of the impact of manpower centers, more resources are used than oil, but not a great deal more. HI centers themselves don't use more resources, which they probably should. The net effect is that resources required by accounted for centers probably represent only about 10% of the resources actually moved in the area. A different question is "how many of these resources must move by sea?" The answer is, of course, different for each location, and each situation. Given the generally poor land communications systems of the region, and the impact of enemy units on them, it may be that more of the resources move by sea than the 10% we need, or than might be the case in peacetime. It is clear that we should reduce AK capacity to represent ships used for the "invisible" resources. It is not so clear by what proportion? The "visible" resources, being used to make HI points and supply points and fuel points - and being the only or primary source of all of these - nicely model the military economy: hit them (or ships carrying them) and you hurt the military production directly, and in proportion to what you stop. I am estimating that the reduction in AKs should be by as much as 3/4 - but I think we should begin by seeing how well the economy does if we do it by 1/2?
RHS has a new strategic "entry/exit" point for the theater: Melbourne. This point is a proper exit point for British ships required to leave the theater. It also is a place supplies, fuel, oil and resources appear by "magic" - often the case at map edge strategic points. Ships engaged in trade to bring these points - to Aden, Melbourne, and Colon Panama, should not be in the game. AKs (and to some degree AOs) so engaged should be removed. This will impact British ships more than US ones - as pointed out by our resident mariner - AKDreemer.
The first attempts to reduce the AK force should appear in RHS level 2.60
A side effect of this will be an increase in playability - because there is less to manage. But that may not mean less effort in managing the merchant fleet: for the first time players should be dependent on on map supply/fuel generation, and for that reason need to ship resources/oil to the HI and manpower centers which do that; the Allies also will need to ship more supplies and fuel from map edge locations that get "magic" (off map sourced) points. These increased shipping requirements, combined with lower ship capacities and lower numbers of ships, ought to mean that real thought needs to go into transport fleet management. It also ought to mean that there are no longer "AKs to burn" - just throw away without regard to their value. Yet another effect is that players may begin to regard locations in terms of their oil, resources and industry - because of operational impacts in the near term. Both in terms of taking them, and in terms of keeping them or damaging them. All of which is good, IMHO.
-
bradfordkay
- Posts: 8686
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: AKs
I may be easily confused, Sid, but it seems that you are throwing numbers about willy nilly. Another thread speaks of revision 3.42 and now you are talking about version 2.60. Why the regression in numbering sequence?
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
RE: AKs
Ok I thought this might happen read the title of 3.42 as 2.42 it was a typo when the thread was created current versions are CVO v2.52 RAO v2.52 BBO v2.53I may be easily confused, Sid, but it seems that you are throwing numbers about willy nilly. Another thread speaks of revision 3.42 and now you are talking about version 2.60. Why the regression in numbering sequence?
v2.60 is an end result point from the changes in the 2.5x series )not at point of release yet
if Sid reads this edit the title to read 2.42 will solve confusion
Cobra Aus
Coral Sea Battle = My Birthday
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: AKs
I may be easily confused, Sid, but it seems that you are throwing numbers about willy nilly. Another thread speaks of revision 3.42 and now you are talking about version 2.60. Why the regression in numbering sequence?
We have not yet reached revision level 3.00 - so 3.42 must be a typo for 2.42! I am thinking of jumping to 3.00 when we get everything working as it should (that is, bad fields corrected, and new concepts "calibrated" - we have durability where it needs to be - we have supply sources where they need to be - etc).
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: AKs
if Sid reads this edit the title to read 2.42 will solve confusion
Good idea. Immediate execute.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
The Plan (June 1)
I have been side tracked by some wild goose chases:
seems that Russian air groups are NOT hard coded after all
but for safety sake
and to make AI happy for non-PBEM games
I will pretend they need to be restored to stock slots anyway.
The side track was worth it: I learned of a hard coded air unit I need to move anyway.
Currently, aside from moving some US fighter units,
and Russian air groups,
we need to review some Allied land slots - and if possible make some British brigades divide
we need to reduce the number of tankers due to feeding some map edge hexes
and we need to revise AKs and APs generally - and reduce their numbers slightly
I have one or two Dutch land units to add (Blackforce?)
And probably a few eratta
The 2.60 version should work with too many ships
we will calibrate the ship situation slowly - allowing time for games to proceed some time into the campaign
Once calibrated the game will be slightly harder (logistics wise) for both sides. That will probably be release 3.0 - and it won't happen for a month or more.
2.60 may release in two days and surely will release in four (since I don't work the second pair of them). Any eratta will be addressed daily until then. AFTER then we will collect eratta but NOT be releasing daily updates. We will instead release the Russian Passive Option of BBO and make the Political Points Option and Empire of the Sun.
seems that Russian air groups are NOT hard coded after all
but for safety sake
and to make AI happy for non-PBEM games
I will pretend they need to be restored to stock slots anyway.
The side track was worth it: I learned of a hard coded air unit I need to move anyway.
Currently, aside from moving some US fighter units,
and Russian air groups,
we need to review some Allied land slots - and if possible make some British brigades divide
we need to reduce the number of tankers due to feeding some map edge hexes
and we need to revise AKs and APs generally - and reduce their numbers slightly
I have one or two Dutch land units to add (Blackforce?)
And probably a few eratta
The 2.60 version should work with too many ships
we will calibrate the ship situation slowly - allowing time for games to proceed some time into the campaign
Once calibrated the game will be slightly harder (logistics wise) for both sides. That will probably be release 3.0 - and it won't happen for a month or more.
2.60 may release in two days and surely will release in four (since I don't work the second pair of them). Any eratta will be addressed daily until then. AFTER then we will collect eratta but NOT be releasing daily updates. We will instead release the Russian Passive Option of BBO and make the Political Points Option and Empire of the Sun.
-
bradfordkay
- Posts: 8686
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: The Plan (June 1)
Sid... one request. When released, could you please have a descriptive name for each version? That would make it easier for us to choose which one we want to play when looking at our game files.
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: The Plan (June 1)
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Sid... one request. When released, could you please have a descriptive name for each version? That would make it easier for us to choose which one we want to play when looking at our game files.
I guess I am confused here:
the idea of the names IS to be descriptive!
CVO = Carrier Oriented - more or less the war as it happened - Carrier Admirals make the decisions about what gets built - because of the impact of Pearl Harbor and other early battles;
BBO = Battleship Oriented - more or less the war as it was planned before the fact - Battleship Admirals make the decisions about what gets built - and Pearl Harbor may not have as much influence;
RAO = Russian Active Option - CVO with the Russians active (but not necessairily bellegerent - to make the Japanese worry more about the Northern flank)
RPO = Russian Passive Option - BBO is a Russian Active Option to begin with - this is a variant for anyone who wants to reverse that - and give Japan the freedom not to worry about the Northern flank.
PPO = Political Points Option - BBO with most units arriving at home and political points to assign them where you like - for BOTH sides
ESO = Empire Of the Sun - CVO with both the political points of PPO and a more integrated Japanese plan (for construction and initial operations anyway). This is actually the nearest thing to an attempt to balance the game: Japan is so weak only making it stronger should present much challenge to skilled Allied players. It might be good for those wanting to help AI run Japan and be more capable than it usually is. And it should be lots of fun for JFBs.
AFTER these are all released, I will consider later starts - one for each year - but only if there is interest in fighting the war from the Guadalcanal campaign, from the Marianas Campaign, from the Aleutians Campaign and from the Iwo Jima Campaign forward to the end. These would let you have later planes and ships than a 1941 scenario does (without playing half your life to get them).
RE: The Plan (June 1)
Sid,
I have a CVO game running that I started roughly two weeks ago. I am up to early June '42.
With so many changes that you have made in the meantime, I am unsure if you have already found and fixed a couple of things I've noticed. Here they are - please read and let me know if you already have them. If not I will gather further info and forward to you.
1) Asansol (in India, maybe my spelling is off) does not build it's port, airfield, or fortifications. The base unit (lot of civil engineers) is present (with lots of supply), but things remain at 0% continually.
2) Slot 3478, the Diamond Harbor Base Force, arrives at Dehli with a static facility (i.e. cannot move).
3) I have noticed that several Allied artillery devices do not work. I can tell this by ground combat at Mandalay, where many of the units cannot be ordered to 'Bombard'. This includes even the dedicated artillery units. Since this game was begun a couple of weeks ago and you have made so many changes, I know someone else might have caught this already. Let me know if not and I will forward you a list and a save game for your own review (it's an AI game).
I have a CVO game running that I started roughly two weeks ago. I am up to early June '42.
With so many changes that you have made in the meantime, I am unsure if you have already found and fixed a couple of things I've noticed. Here they are - please read and let me know if you already have them. If not I will gather further info and forward to you.
1) Asansol (in India, maybe my spelling is off) does not build it's port, airfield, or fortifications. The base unit (lot of civil engineers) is present (with lots of supply), but things remain at 0% continually.
2) Slot 3478, the Diamond Harbor Base Force, arrives at Dehli with a static facility (i.e. cannot move).
3) I have noticed that several Allied artillery devices do not work. I can tell this by ground combat at Mandalay, where many of the units cannot be ordered to 'Bombard'. This includes even the dedicated artillery units. Since this game was begun a couple of weeks ago and you have made so many changes, I know someone else might have caught this already. Let me know if not and I will forward you a list and a save game for your own review (it's an AI game).
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: The Plan (June 1)
[quote]ORIGINAL: witpqs
Sid,
I have a CVO game running that I started roughly two weeks ago. I am up to early June '42.
I fear engineers are not engineers UNLESS they are stock engineers - my civil engineers (and others) are just dummies I bet. Hard code I bet. Checking.
1) Asansol (in India, maybe my spelling is off) does not build it's port, airfield, or fortifications. The base unit (lot of civil engineers) is present (with lots of supply), but things remain at 0% continually.
Never noticed that. This is the biggest "supply sink" in the game - and "eats" excess supplies from Asenol and nearby hexes. It is also a strange river port - but it may not be set properly. I will investigate - if it is set to an "airfield" instead of a "base" your behavior would make sense. This I can fix.
Nope. This is a different issue. Not sure what is going on there? I am not sure really want it to build? - for technical reasons - but I don't know how to make it not! Anyway, thanks for reporting.
Sid,
I have a CVO game running that I started roughly two weeks ago. I am up to early June '42.
I fear engineers are not engineers UNLESS they are stock engineers - my civil engineers (and others) are just dummies I bet. Hard code I bet. Checking.
1) Asansol (in India, maybe my spelling is off) does not build it's port, airfield, or fortifications. The base unit (lot of civil engineers) is present (with lots of supply), but things remain at 0% continually.
Never noticed that. This is the biggest "supply sink" in the game - and "eats" excess supplies from Asenol and nearby hexes. It is also a strange river port - but it may not be set properly. I will investigate - if it is set to an "airfield" instead of a "base" your behavior would make sense. This I can fix.
Nope. This is a different issue. Not sure what is going on there? I am not sure really want it to build? - for technical reasons - but I don't know how to make it not! Anyway, thanks for reporting.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: The Plan (June 1)
[quote]ORIGINAL: witpqs
Sid,
I2) Slot 3478, the Diamond Harbor Base Force, arrives at Dehli with a static facility (i.e. cannot move).
This is quite deliberate. The 9.2 inch and 6 inch CD guns are fixed. For every pair you get a fixed facility. Also, it is a disguised supply sink, and I need it to stay there in order to "eat" excess supplies. This is a very common thing in RHS - unlike other WITP scenarios I try to prevent units with fixed heavy guns from marching all over the map.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: The Plan (June 1)
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Sid,
I have a CVO game running that I started roughly two weeks ago. I am up to early June '42.
3) I have noticed that several Allied artillery devices do not work. I can tell this by ground combat at Mandalay, where many of the units cannot be ordered to 'Bombard'. This includes even the dedicated artillery units. Since this game was begun a couple of weeks ago and you have made so many changes, I know someone else might have caught this already. Let me know if not and I will forward you a list and a save game for your own review (it's an AI game).
This has not been reported. It may be related to the units that cannot divide. Are these units brigades and the ability to divide is not present?
If so, this issue should be corrected when I address the division problem - which seems to be fixable by bringing in clean records from CHS 177.
If not, give me a list of the units. I will investigate.
RE: The Plan (June 1)
1. TF 1080 is set for a non-port. It is set for Baguio/Balinta Pass. Should it be to Manila instead?
2. Location 400 Canton is trying to build in wpn 4 slot #1185 - Hawk 75 aircraft
3. Should the Warspite be starting with 20% system damage?
4. In CHS there are a number of ships that were located around Hong Kong. In RHS these seem to be in Task Forces in the Manila square. Were they a target too soon and that is why they were moved?
5. Ship 207 and 209 are named the same (Sugi) and arrive in the same location at the same time.
Thanks for all your work on this.
2. Location 400 Canton is trying to build in wpn 4 slot #1185 - Hawk 75 aircraft
3. Should the Warspite be starting with 20% system damage?
4. In CHS there are a number of ships that were located around Hong Kong. In RHS these seem to be in Task Forces in the Manila square. Were they a target too soon and that is why they were moved?
5. Ship 207 and 209 are named the same (Sugi) and arrive in the same location at the same time.
Thanks for all your work on this.
-
Monter_Trismegistos
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Gdansk
RE: The Plan (June 1)
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Sid,
I2) Slot 3478, the Diamond Harbor Base Force, arrives at Dehli with a static facility (i.e. cannot move).
This is quite deliberate. The 9.2 inch and 6 inch CD guns are fixed. For every pair you get a fixed facility. Also, it is a disguised supply sink, and I need it to stay there in order to "eat" excess supplies. This is a very common thing in RHS - unlike other WITP scenarios I try to prevent units with fixed heavy guns from marching all over the map.
I think that the problem is not that it's fixed, but that unit is named as Diamond Harbor BF, arrives in Delhi and there is no way to transfer this unit to their proper destination (Diamond Harbour).
PS. British type (so Australian, Canadian and NZ also) cannot divide, at least from 1.8 or 1.81 patch. Works as designed.
Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: The Plan (June 1)
I have experimented with fixing three British/CW/Indian brigades. I think they are fine. I will apply the fix to all units tonight (off for 48 hours).
If the Diamond Harbor Base Force is in Dehli, I can fix it.
If the Diamond Harbor Base Force is in Dehli, I can fix it.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16984
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: The Plan (June 1)
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
1. TF 1080 is set for a non-port. It is set for Baguio/Balinta Pass. Should it be to Manila instead?
2. Location 400 Canton is trying to build in wpn 4 slot #1185 - Hawk 75 aircraft
3. Should the Warspite be starting with 20% system damage?
1. Should be set for Palembang.
2. Yep. Correct. The Hawks are really being built in India too - the company moved ! [It is STILL in India - see Hindustan Aircraft Corp] But it has a factory and work force in Canton.
3. I assume so- CHS research or stock research preserved.
4. In CHS there are a number of ships that were located around Hong Kong. In RHS these seem to be in Task Forces in the Manila square. Were they a target too soon and that is why they were moved?
5. Ship 207 and 209 are named the same (Sugi) and arrive in the same location at the same time.
Thanks for all your work on this.