Important CHS announcement

[Terminus]

As far as I could tell, it's already been done. So AB won't be changing anything...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I have just received a message from another forum member regarding maximum bomb loads for aircraft, that confirms that it is only used for airfield size calculation for aircraft, and nothing else. That means that many of the max bombload figures in CHS - originally modified to affect the effectiveness of heavy bombers in the game, I believe - are too low and should be increased back to the values used in the standard game.

I will soon - in the next day or two - issue another update to CHS that includes these changes (as well as the usual collection of minor fixes that are still being reported).

Andrew

So is the above still true?

Are you going to change something?

I just did another check of the Max Load values. I only found one error, and it is a small one. The Liberator III was 8000 instead of 8800. That will be fixed in the next CHS update. So there is no problem with the CHS Max Load values [:)]

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: RevRick
Is it all right for those of us who are flamed about those &!%*$#@%%^ (%$%*&++ Betties carrying 200 torpedos a day halfway across the Pacific to increase the load outs for some semblance of revenge?????????????? Maybe we can put at least a small dent in Rabaul for the insane IJA favor of that nonsense!

Not much I can do about the Betties. So mod away!!!

Andrew

[Sardaukar]

maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ?

Not really, as the normal and extended ranges are both calculated, using fixed ratios, from the ferry range (which itself is calculated from the cruise speed and the endurance).

Andrew

[Sardaukar]

Dammit...thought so....

Maybe just reduce the accuracy... But I can already see people screaming bloody murder...[:D]

[Terminus]

And yelling fanboy-related obscenities in your general direction...

[Sardaukar]

Wonder why...prolly I should also increase F4U and F6F speed another 100 mph too...[:D][8D]

[Terminus]

And set A6M armament to one 7.7mm MG.

[Sardaukar]

With penetration of 0...[:D][:D]

[Speedysteve]

Don't forget to nerf the props also........

[Terminus]

And set Endurance to 8.

[Sardaukar]

Unfortunately, nothing is as annoying as having one Betty slip thru the CAP and put a torp into ship with 100% accuracy. Or 3 Betties attacking scoring 3 torp hits..[8D] Anyhow, I think more realistic pilot exp would be the answer, most likely. Works both ways...my B-17s are the major CV killer against AI.

[Speedysteve]

But Forts were impregnable.....you know that don't you?[;)]

[Sardaukar]

Sure, like during Schweinfurt raid...[:D][:D]

Well..we all have our own petty grievances...I'd feel opposite if I'd play IJ..but I fear the productions system still after playing over yr and half !! [X(]

[bstarr]

Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot?

Ron,
Now I'm 100% certain that you really are a bartender. Only a bartender can refer to someone as a "twat." I'm not sure about Canada, but I believe it's a law in the States.
bs

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Sure, like during Schweinfurt raid...[:D][:D]

Well..we all have our own petty grievances...I'd feel opposite if I'd play IJ..but I fear the productions system still after playing over yr and half !! [X(]

Propaganda[;)]

Schweinfurt was plastered for the loss of 1 plane when an Flight Engineer got bored and ate 10 Big Macs causing the plane to ditch.

[DD696]

Hi,

I'm playing my "own" version of scenerio 159 (with other personal changes and with the addition of Ron's "no-respawn ships) and am at 17 Dec 41. One of the changes I made was to create in device slot 144 a new Betty/Nell torpedo which has a dud rate of 50%, and I also set the dud rate of the Beaufort to 50%. This was done in the hopes of getting away from the super torpedo bombers. I made an error when I set up device 144 and left it to upgrade to device 101 (the standard torpedo). So the betties/nells reverted back to their old torpedos. However, I have not seen a single torpedo attack by these planes to date. Perhaps it is because of the lowered experience of the pilots for this particular scenerio, altho I believe that effects the Allies more at the start of the game. I did switch over on the 16th and took a look at the Japanese side and found that the Betty/Nell squadrons were suffering from low morale. In previous games I had reduced the accuracy rating but failed to see any significant change.

So, because I do not have an InGame Editor which would allow me to make a simple change to fix the problem I caused, I now have to restart the game in order to get it fixed. This is what I truly love about this game.....always restarting. I am sure that on my deathbed I will be mumbling "No, not now! I must restart the game one more time"!

[RevRick]

Naw.. Just come up with the Phalanx about fifty years sooner! Shoot the torpedo out of the sky before it hits the water. That has always been the one bugaboo with the game to me. Those ever accursed and unseemly scoundrels can sneak in under any cap and drop thirty or forty torpedos a day forever. There should be some limitation on how many of those missions can be flown in a given month or from a given base per time period - or they had better increase the pay rate at the IJN torpedo factory. Those guys are putting in some serious overtime. Have to go back and re-read Frank. Seems to me that there is a lot more torpedos launched in the game than ever recorded. Would be nice to have some real data on that.

Signed;
Frustrated Invasion Force Commander.

[Lemurs!]

Yea, this was my fault. I woke up and said 'Lets scare the hell out of Andrew today!'.

The weapon loads are as correct as they can be all things considered.
Any Matrix people listening; Please consider making max load the default load against land targets while the weapon load can be used against naval targets
This has been done before in Pacific games and works very well.

Mike