RHS Installer/Switcher Updated

[el cid again]

It has been a long time - our programmer was traveling and lots of other things.

The Level 7 RHS installer program is updated to latest files - and includes the EBO and MEBO scenarios and art for them.
The same program gives players in game control over the pwhex file. If you use this you have detail control and never need to change the pwhex file - the program changes it where you specify.

The program was posted to the RHS site and also sent to the primary distribution list.

It was very timely - insofar as it was able to include the microupdate for MEBO.

This is version level 7.956 - although for some reason people are confused by that and think it is earlier for scenarios other than MEBO. I use a uniform version rating system.

[dwbradley]

And it'll be just a little bit longer. I am working on a refresh of the installer but a few more things need to be checked (been a while since I built one of these) and then I'll put it up on rapidshare for further distribution. Stay tuned.

dB

[dwbradley]

Version 1.6 of the RHS Level 7 Installer is available here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/180207188/R ... er_1.6.zip


Rapidshare can be a bit of a bother to use so in due course I expect Mifune will have this up on the akdreemer site.

This update changes data files only (scenario, art, and pwhex). The installer and pwhex-switcher are unchanged. So if you already have all of the latest data files this will not add anything for you. If you are new to RHS or want an easier way to do a fresh install then this may be a good thing for you.

With any luck, AE may come along soon and obviate the need for a version 1.7. At any rate there may be those who will stick with the basic WITP, at least for a while.

Report any problems or issues here. Thanks

Dave Bradley

[JeffroK]

Dave

having got thoroughly bored waiting for AE I thought I'd see what the noise was with RHS.

I used your Installer and I think I muddled my way through, I think its OK. the only query is on Allied Air sides where the pic for the Hurricane IIC shows a Spitfire VB. (But I may have stuffed it myself)

Can you, on the installer page, give a quick summary of what games are, Load CVO/BBo doesnt explain what they mean.

Question, maybe more for Sid. Which game represents the closest to Historical??

The scenario I'm playing has the F4U1 arriving with 2 x 30cal & 2 x 50cal

[Mifune]

Alright the latest RHS Level 7 Package Installer (Thanks to dwbradley) is at the RHS web site for all to enjoy.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Dave

having got thoroughly bored waiting for AE I thought I'd see what the noise was with RHS.

I used your Installer and I think I muddled my way through, I think its OK. the only query is on Allied Air sides where the pic for the Hurricane IIC shows a Spitfire VB. (But I may have stuffed it myself)

Can you, on the installer page, give a quick summary of what games are, Load CVO/BBo doesnt explain what they mean.

Question, maybe more for Sid. Which game represents the closest to Historical??

The scenario I'm playing has the F4U1 arriving with 2 x 30cal & 2 x 50cal

Its' not you Jeff, the pics of the Hurri and Spit have been a problem for a few versions back..

[dwbradley]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Dave

having got thoroughly bored waiting for AE I thought I'd see what the noise was with RHS.

I used your Installer and I think I muddled my way through, I think its OK. the only query is on Allied Air sides where the pic for the Hurricane IIC shows a Spitfire VB. (But I may have stuffed it myself)

Can you, on the installer page, give a quick summary of what games are, Load CVO/BBo doesnt explain what they mean.

Question, maybe more for Sid. Which game represents the closest to Historical??

The scenario I'm playing has the F4U1 arriving with 2 x 30cal & 2 x 50cal

Jeff,
I'm glad it worked ok for you (at least basically). When you run the installer there is a button that pops up an instruction page. Quoting from that:



3. Select the Basic Install Options. These include:

a. Full CVO/BBO install. RHS Level 7 has three distinctive scenarios: CVO, BBO and EOS/EEO. The EOS/EEO scenarios require some different plane art files from the other two so this option will take the complete set of RHS files which have been stored in c:\your_path\War in the Pacific\RHS folder (created during the initial install) and place files where they need to be for a complete basic install compatible with CVO or BBO scenarios

b. Full EOS/EEO install. Similar to (a) but the planes files that are different for these scenarios are installed.

c. Switch to CVO/BBO. If you have previously installed the EOS/EEO configuration then this will switch the plane files. You could do a complete fresh install but this will be quicker.
d. Switch to EOS/EEO. Similar to (c) but switches the other way around.


There are more scenarios in the package than there were when I wrote that but I think they still follow the pattern. For example, MEBO is a BBO-family scenario so you should have the CVO/BBO install to play that scenario. Thanks for the heads-up on the Spit/Hurri art. I don't know right now whether that represents a data base error or an installer goof-up. I will check. Can you say which scenario you are playing?

Dave Bradley

[JeffroK]

Thanks Dave,

I understand the options, but at that point I dont know what CVO,BBO,EOS or EEO mean.

I'm not a fan of playing impossible dreams so I am loking for a table that explains what each one is, an maybe a short para on what is intended.

I ended playing Scen70, RHSCVO & m10bob says its an old problem.

So now I'll see how it works with Corsairs with 2x30cal & 2x50cal, Kittyhawk I similarly underarmed, Hurricanes with Vickers Ks in the wings etc

[dwbradley]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks Dave,

I understand the options, but at that point I dont know what CVO,BBO,EOS or EEO mean.

I'm not a fan of playing impossible dreams so I am loking for a table that explains what each one is, an maybe a short para on what is intended.

I ended playing Scen70, RHSCVO & m10bob says its an old problem.

So now I'll see how it works with Corsairs with 2x30cal & 2x50cal, Kittyhawk I similarly underarmed, Hurricanes with Vickers Ks in the wings etc

Jeff,
Oh I see, sorry, I misunderstood your question. It was never my intent to explain RHS but rather to make the installation easier and the instructions mainly tell you things to make that come out right. There is the RHS manual at:

http://www.akdreemer.com/rhs/RHS%20Scen ... ndbook.pdf

I'm not sure how up to date all the info is but at least it is a place to start. El Cid would be the go-to guy for specific scenario-related questions.

I haven't had time to check the spit/hurri art question yet but I will.

Dave Bradley

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK


Question, maybe more for Sid. Which game represents the closest to Historical??

The scenario I'm playing has the F4U1 arriving with 2 x 30cal & 2 x 50cal

There are two "families" of "strictly historical" scenarios:

CVO family (CVO and RAO and CAIO) are the war as it happened. This includes some very unlikely changes to ship production. CVO = "carrier oriented" and - if a ship might appear in one of two forms (e.g. Shinano or Ibuki) - it appears in its carrier form.

BBO family (BBO and RPO) are the war as it was planned (not just before the war - but right up until Midway) on both sides. Here - if a ship might appear in one of two forms - it appears in its gunship form.

CVO and RPO all have passive Russians. I regard that as ahistorical and unrealistic. It means Japan has a free hand - can depend on no problems in the North until 1945 (if it wants that) - no matter how much it strips out of the North (no need for ships up there, or air power). But this is the WITP norm - and only RHS discovered the editor setting for active Russians does not work. We have it working anyway - with a workaround. A problem with this WITP norm is the Russians are unable to move, Japan can start a war any time it wants, and the outlieing bases cannot be supplied. Nor can the Allies control construction of bases or fortifications.

RPO and BBO have active Russians. This is the RHS norm. It does not mean there is a war in the North - and you need to be careful with naval patrols or ASW - or you will start one. But EITHER side can start a war - and the possibility keeps Japan honest (a garrison including air power and ships is pretty much a good idea). And the Russians can move - and build - and supply outlieing bases.

CAIO is a training version of CVO with AI running Japan. It is not going to work at all after late 1944 (AI breaks down from August in a fatal way in all forms of WITP). It is not strong enough for a good game (AI wastes 5/6 of the logistic potential of Japan - so AI scenarios are usually Japan enhansed scenarios).

Everything else is a variation of EOS - Empire of the Sun - the war as the Allies THOUGHT it was - and with better Japanese planning and joint planning - modeled on Gen Yamashita's planning committee for Malaya (with Col Tsuji in charge of it). There are three generations of this - and AI variations - which I won't describe here.

All scenarios are defined in the RHS Manual - compiled by Mifune - but mainly from items written by me.

Aircraft data is probably correct. The F4U-1 was wierd - little bomb bays (if you can call them that) in the wings for tiny bombs. It represented unique thinking that went away with later versions. I don't remember, but likely the guns are also different than what became SOP. Note this is a land plane - it was not used on carriers at first - and we introduce it as a carrier plane (Corsair) in the RN first - because they were first to get it operating on carriers. I think it is the F4U-4 most people think of - and that may have been the best piston engine fighter of all time (it still wins contests and sets records - along with the P-51 - its major rival for the title). We found a lot of sloppy data - mostly inherited from stock - and we spent about a man year of work on aircraft data. But errors are still possible - as are interpretations of data - there being no single source or standard for data. But I live in the largest strategic studies library West of the Mississippi River in the USA - and I had the Forum to help: when I could not find data I would ask - and in 2 hours someone would answer.

[el cid again]

For Hurricane and Spitfire art - I will create a new thread.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK


Question, maybe more for Sid. Which game represents the closest to Historical??

The scenario I'm playing has the F4U1 arriving with 2 x 30cal & 2 x 50cal

There are two "families" of "strictly historical" scenarios:

CVO family (CVO and RAO and CAIO) are the war as it happened. This includes some very unlikely changes to ship production. CVO = "carrier oriented" and - if a ship might appear in one of two forms (e.g. Shinano or Ibuki) - it appears in its carrier form.

BBO family (BBO and RPO) are the war as it was planned (not just before the war - but right up until Midway) on both sides. Here - if a ship might appear in one of two forms - it appears in its gunship form.

CVO and RPO all have passive Russians. I regard that as ahistorical and unrealistic. It means Japan has a free hand - can depend on no problems in the North until 1945 (if it wants that) - no matter how much it strips out of the North (no need for ships up there, or air power). But this is the WITP norm - and only RHS discovered the editor setting for active Russians does not work. We have it working anyway - with a workaround. A problem with this WITP norm is the Russians are unable to move, Japan can start a war any time it wants, and the outlieing bases cannot be supplied. Nor can the Allies control construction of bases or fortifications.

RPO and BBO have active Russians. This is the RHS norm. It does not mean there is a war in the North - and you need to be careful with naval patrols or ASW - or you will start one. But EITHER side can start a war - and the possibility keeps Japan honest (a garrison including air power and ships is pretty much a good idea). And the Russians can move - and build - and supply outlieing bases.

CAIO is a training version of CVO with AI running Japan. It is not going to work at all after late 1944 (AI breaks down from August in a fatal way in all forms of WITP). It is not strong enough for a good game (AI wastes 5/6 of the logistic potential of Japan - so AI scenarios are usually Japan enhansed scenarios).

Everything else is a variation of EOS - Empire of the Sun - the war as the Allies THOUGHT it was - and with better Japanese planning and joint planning - modeled on Gen Yamashita's planning committee for Malaya (with Col Tsuji in charge of it). There are three generations of this - and AI variations - which I won't describe here.

All scenarios are defined in the RHS Manual - compiled by Mifune - but mainly from items written by me.

Aircraft data is probably correct. The F4U-1 was wierd - little bomb bays (if you can call them that) in the wings for tiny bombs. It represented unique thinking that went away with later versions. I don't remember, but likely the guns are also different than what became SOP. Note this is a land plane - it was not used on carriers at first - and we introduce it as a carrier plane (Corsair) in the RN first - because they were first to get it operating on carriers. I think it is the F4U-4 most people think of - and that may have been the best piston engine fighter of all time (it still wins contests and sets records - along with the P-51 - its major rival for the title). We found a lot of sloppy data - mostly inherited from stock - and we spent about a man year of work on aircraft data. But errors are still possible - as are interpretations of data - there being no single source or standard for data. But I live in the largest strategic studies library West of the Mississippi River in the USA - and I had the Forum to help: when I could not find data I would ask - and in 2 hours someone would answer.

Thanks Sid,

I am playing the latest RHSCVO from the Installer.

IMHO, having only glanced through the Allied database so far, that there are a lot of substantial errors in weapons (Only looking at guns)

As mentioned, the F4U1 with 2 x 30 & 2 50cals, maybe at some stage of prototype but I have never seen this in action.

Kittyhawk I/P40D with 2 x 50 & 4 x 30cal, all Kittyhawk IA's used by the RAAF had 6 x 50cal, unsure about any NZ & Cdn varieties. I also believe the Kittyhawk I was equivalent to the P40E

Hurricane IIb with Vickers K, in reality they were Brownings, maybe this doesnt affect much.

Just some quick variances, but with well aircraft which should have VERY accurate armament data available.

[JeffroK]

From Sid

Aircraft data is probably correct. The F4U-1 was wierd - little bomb bays (if you can call them that) in the wings for tiny bombs. It represented unique thinking that went away with later versions. I don't remember, but likely the guns are also different than what became SOP. Note this is a land plane - it was not used on carriers at first - and we introduce it as a carrier plane (Corsair) in the RN first - because they were first to get it operating on carriers. I think it is the F4U-4 most people think of - and that may have been the best piston engine fighter of all time (it still wins contests and sets records - along with the P-51 - its major rival for the title). We found a lot of sloppy data - mostly inherited from stock - and we spent about a man year of work on aircraft data. But errors are still possible - as are interpretations of data - there being no single source or standard for data. But I live in the largest strategic studies library West of the Mississippi River in the USA - and I had the Forum to help: when I could not find data I would ask - and in 2 hours someone would answer.

I would suggest that aircraft data is hit and miss, I have over 20 errors in Allied fight gun armament alone, plus countless cases where British aircraft have .303 Vickers K instead of the .303 Browning, I assume slots bcame tight.
You have the F4U-1/AU1, I cant see any references to your armament fit out, and the AU1 was the F4FU-6, I think produced inthe early 50's

The Kittyhawk I/P-40 was not used in the Pacific, unless in very small numbers by the Canadians. The RAAF & RNZAF used the Kittyhawk 1A/P-40E, I dont think the stats are very different except to replace the 4 x 50cal with 6 x 50cal.

I havent gone into Allied Bombers as it is more possible to have varied armaments.

How accurate are the japanese aircraft??

I started looking at LCU, but after seeing AA 8th(9th) Division assumed that it is as accurate as the aircraft.

While the map is impressive and has a lot of detail that was needed, you persist with little things like the Jaure track in PNG, a marginal track that saw the 1 Bn that used it ruined for combat for weeks!! If you included that you need to add a lot of others.

I'll give the game a bash because I've tried the others, but your often self-proclaimed knowledge doesnt stack up at first look.

[el cid again]

Aircraft - and ship - and weapons data - is not as easy to get as one would imagine. There is no single source done to a single and scholarly standard for all nations. And the primary sources disagree with each other - and almost always are incomplete - so one is forced to mix sources. In many cases one has only basic data - and must guess or estimate the missing items we need for the database. And then there are the actual variations which are all "right" - the plane comes in different forms at different times. Many of our planes are composite - consider the Vildebeeste which is also used to represent the Vincent - or even B-24s and B-29s (or a host of others) in recon variations. Aircraft like this - or in a different national service - will appear with different armament in squadron service - but you can only see it in the SQUADRON display - not the aircraft basic data display. Then there is the problem of time: we could research aircraft forever. A data set this large (133,000 fields) MUST ALWAYS contain errors (information theory). So - it is a question of "do we ever want to play - or will we debate data for the next decade or two?" We set out to correct inconsistencies and gross errors, and to add missing things - and then defined an open standard: if it is better than we now have, it is in. RHS has no "plank holders" who must approve - who will sqawk if their data is removed in favor of yours. I do function as a coordinator and gatekeeper - but that is not the same as a dictator: much of RHS is NOT done to MY preference. It is done the way the Forum likes. Now it may be there is a division in the forum - in which case a choice must be made. But when there is a consensus - or when it is clear a suggestion is right - we take it.

Thus - I didn't know about the plane art issue - so I never fixed it. The MAIN thing preventing better data is a lack of reports of what the better data is. To get something changed - specify it in game terms: name, slot number, field value that is wrong, field value that should be present, and why you thing so (source which can be verified by a person with access to a library). If I can verify it - it does not matter if it is stock data, CHS data, RHS data or my personal opinion - your change is in - and will appear in the next update. There is probably a man year of work on just aircraft data - maybe two - but it is by no means perfect. It is just a whole lot better than we started with. Anyone who has a specific issue with a specific datum point only needs to do the leg work - I will verify it and accept it - usually in hours. I live in the world of just in time software support - and generally we respond to ideas rapidly.

We will probably have to do a lot of work when AE comes out - because for one thing we get more slots - so we can separate out the planes now combined up into one type. I think it will take a year or so to get an RHS variant of AE - due to sheer research/data entry requirements.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From Sid

Aircraft data is probably correct. The F4U-1 was wierd - little bomb bays (if you can call them that) in the wings for tiny bombs. It represented unique thinking that went away with later versions. I don't remember, but likely the guns are also different than what became SOP. Note this is a land plane - it was not used on carriers at first - and we introduce it as a carrier plane (Corsair) in the RN first - because they were first to get it operating on carriers. I think it is the F4U-4 most people think of - and that may have been the best piston engine fighter of all time (it still wins contests and sets records - along with the P-51 - its major rival for the title). We found a lot of sloppy data - mostly inherited from stock - and we spent about a man year of work on aircraft data. But errors are still possible - as are interpretations of data - there being no single source or standard for data. But I live in the largest strategic studies library West of the Mississippi River in the USA - and I had the Forum to help: when I could not find data I would ask - and in 2 hours someone would answer.

I would suggest that aircraft data is hit and miss, I have over 20 errors in Allied fight gun armament alone, plus countless cases where British aircraft have .303 Vickers K instead of the .303 Browning, I assume slots bcame tight.
You have the F4U-1/AU1, I cant see any references to your armament fit out, and the AU1 was the F4FU-6, I think produced inthe early 50's

The Kittyhawk I/P-40 was not used in the Pacific, unless in very small numbers by the Canadians. The RAAF & RNZAF used the Kittyhawk 1A/P-40E, I dont think the stats are very different except to replace the 4 x 50cal with 6 x 50cal.

I havent gone into Allied Bombers as it is more possible to have varied armaments.

How accurate are the japanese aircraft??

I started looking at LCU, but after seeing AA 8th(9th) Division assumed that it is as accurate as the aircraft.

While the map is impressive and has a lot of detail that was needed, you persist with little things like the Jaure track in PNG, a marginal track that saw the 1 Bn that used it ruined for combat for weeks!! If you included that you need to add a lot of others.

I'll give the game a bash because I've tried the others, but your often self-proclaimed knowledge doesnt stack up at first look.

We have Vickers K .303 and Vickers V .303 airccraft guns available - in addition to Browning .30 - Lewis .303 - 7,.5 mm MAC M-39 - 7.7 mm SFAT - 7.62 mm ShKAS - 7.92 mm FN - 7.9 mm MG-17 - 7.9 mm MG-81 - all just for Allied .30 cal class armament. If you can show a particular machines primary production variant uses a particular weapon - we will use it.

One problem is we tried moving slots - and then had to revert to stock slots when possible - due to hard code issues. Each such move involves risk of some conversion not being done for some machines. [As a somewhat Germanic thinker in terms of organizing data, I tried putting weapons in caliber order. But Matrix has lots of invisible and undocumented hard code associated with "practically every slot" - so we had to give up the idea of making the device file easier to read because you could look up things in order.]

A bigger problem is just managing the massive amount of data. No one in the history of WITP has more data to manage than I do: there are 12 scenarios of Level 7 - plus 10 more scenarios in Levels 5 and 6 - each with 133,000 fields - not counting pwhex - which I have done more versions of than anyone else - and a host of other data. It is very hard to get it right and keep it right: old data tends to creep back into the set for various reasons. Another issue is competence: no person alive is expert in all the subjects involved - and if I listen to a person on this item or that one - I might be taking a suggestion that differs from a different person's understanding. Then there is the matter of ambiguous cases: sometimes NO source has the data at all - or there are different guesses. I use conservative standards - in the case of aircraft - those specified by Joe Wilkerson when he was the aircraft manager for the CHS team.

I won't claim there is perfect data in RHS. In fact it violates information theory to believe it is possible to have perfect data. I only claim there were gross errors that we corrected, and gross omissions that we put in. Whole types of aircraft were added by RHS - never before in WITP. Some aircraft are controversial - and some led to almost endless debates about this or that. But we in this Forum love this sort of thing - and RHS never shut the door on changes. If you have a specific problem - however - you cannot just say "this is it" by assertion: you need to say how you know it - and exactly where it is in RHS - so we can rapidly go there and fix it. If it is basic - such as a Vickers being used on an RAF machine (or even a Browning) - in general it will be adopted forthwith. Note, however, that there are cases that these "standards" were not the same in PTO as in ETO. Often what was available - or what would work best with the logistic tail where the machines were headed - was the choice. Sometimes even standard armament was not standard. And the Hurricane in particular could mount various combinations - as required. Which one is "right"???? RHS has tried to give players choices - so you will find bombers where unit identifiers tell you the kind of offensive load (AP, GP, ASW, and sometimes specialized things like BW, Torpedoes, etc). Thus for some plane types you have different sub species. But it isn't enough: we need more slots - and soft control for players over mission armament - to get where we should in theory be. The present system requires we try to specify the most common armaments - and more than that - the standard armament in PTO - which may not be the same as ETO. So - try to suggest data that meets that criteria: this was the way all Hurricane XVB were in India (fictional example).

In the nature of things WITP, Japanese aircraft are far more accurate than Allied aircaraft are. First - there is a lot less data to manage. That means each record is far more important - and it gets a lot of attention. Second - there is a lot of interest in these - and so which to add or modify was often the source of long discussion - sometimes agony. Allied planes are far more numerous - and far less attention is given to most of them. In general, a new type added for RHS will be done to a very high standard. A type that we have since stock may very well not ever have been right. But there is also this disclaimer: some planes have unknown data - and more than a few Allied planes are so obscure much of the data must be estimated or guessed. We had some expert help on certain nations, services and types - but it is anything but of uniform quality - and so the result is a mixed bag. This is probably inevitable given the nature of the data - but we actually defined a list of sources that treat all nations to a common standard: the problem is not even such a source has all we need in it. And the several sources of that sort we use often differ from each other - or from national sources of very high quality. For example - the peculiar Dornier flying boats had armament NOT IN ANY standard reference - which eventually was obtained from Dutch language materials in the Netherlands. We are not unwilling to use better data - ever: we just need to know what it is. Within Allied aircraft - there was a lot of attention given to Dutch planes - a good deal to US planes - and very little to British planes or Russian ones - except where we added them. I found just reviewing air units a lot of errors about when planes appeared or in what version- but WITP is more US-Japan oriented - with other nations having less priority in research - so likely you will find more errors in non US planes among the Allies. But some Dutch members interest make them an exception - and eventually I myself researched every Dutch type - to get to the bottom of why things were not as stated in some books. Ultimately we went with Dutch data on Dutch planes.

FYI for RAF and RN aircraft I used official data in very expensive British histories. But they are not by any means complete (data wise) nor consistent with what is stated in respectable US sources. But partly that is because of different standards: it is normal for a plane in RAF service to have different preformance because it really is different as equipped and used - so I let the RAF tell me about RAF performance - instead of a US manufactuer.

There is a difference between knowledge and information. And information itself is often inconsistent. More than a few things are stated differently in different sources: I may have most of them, but not have read all I have - and I may believe one over the others. But who is to say what I "know" is actually true? I say things in a very precise and definite way - but in a cryptic place like the forum - I have not included my confidence estimate - or a list of the alternate or even contradictory possibilities (which I might do in a more formal discussion). In addition - in some cases I have very specific and detailed knowledge based on research that is not widely known or understood - and I might say something that is true to a very high degree of confidence which also seems unlikely or even outrageous from a more conventional sources point of view. More often I know next to nothing about something - and so I follow what is said by someone else - and that means I risk repeating the imperfect understanding of someone else. As a trained technical researcher I do not look at data emotionally (as many grognards in the Matrix Forums do) - I am not a nationalist - I am not a fan of this company over that one - I am not partial to data I worked on over data you worked on: data is data, and it is ALWAYS subject to challenge and revision. I personally adopted the standard for RHS we would not object to throwing out data in which vast effort had been invested to produce - if you had something better. I don't think it gets better than that. You got something better? It is in. All you have to do is help us understand it.

[JeffroK]

We have Vickers K .303 and Vickers V .303 airccraft guns available - in addition to Browning .30 - Lewis .303 - 7,.5 mm MAC M-39 - 7.7 mm SFAT - 7.62 mm ShKAS - 7.92 mm FN - 7.9 mm MG-17 - 7.9 mm MG-81 - all just for Allied .30 cal class armament. If you can show a particular machines primary production variant uses a particular weapon - we will use it.

With all of these you managed to miss the .303 Browning as used by every modern British aircraft, plus a number of the older types.

Some other examples

Albacore, RHS has 1x30cal F, 1x30calBR, 1x50calTR,   sbe 1x.303F & 2xVickers K TR
Avenger I/II replace Vickers K with Brownings
Barracuda, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Sea Hurricane, replace Vickers K with Brownings
FM2 Wildcat, IMHO, could be wrong, sbe 4 x 50cal instead of 6x50cal
Martlet V, is equivalent to F4F-4/FM1 not the FM2 as it appears to be in the game. But Britsh numbering couldnt be relied upon.
A36A MUSTANG, not Apache, should have either 4 or 6x50cal, not 4x50cal & 4x30cal
B18/23, While i know slots are short, the B23 is about 65mph faster, not a good pairing but B23 numbers aren't that high.
F4U-1/AU1 & Corsair I, as explaind I have never seen the mixed armament, always 6 x 50cal Prototypes dont count)
P26A, RHS has 2x50cal, should be 2x30cal or 1x50cal & 1x30cal.
P43A, RHS has 2x30cal & 2x50cal, sbe 4x50cal.
P400, RHS has 1x20mm & 6x.30cal, sbe 1x20mm, 2x50cal & 4x303
Beaufighter VIF replace Vickers K with Brownings
Beaufighter X, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Beaufighter 21 is totally missing.
Hudson, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Hurricane IIB, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Kittyhawk I/P40D should be Kittyhawk 1A/P40E, only small numbers of KittyI and about 20x P40D made. Both RAAF & RNZAF used KittyIA with 6x50cal.
Lancaste BIII, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Liberator V, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Sunderland III, replace 12.7mm Vickers with Brownings, maybe 2x303 Vickers K remain in S mount.
Vengenace, RHS has 4x30cal F while most used in Burma/New Guinea had 4x50cal (I think you have A31 against A35 used in more action)
Vildebeest, replace 12.7mm Vickers with 1x 303Browning F & 1 x .303 Vickers K TR
Wellington IC should be replaced by IIIC, maybe early units had IC but changed, replace Vickers K with Brownings

Plus, please explain what the AA 8th(9th) Division is???

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

We have Vickers K .303 and Vickers V .303 airccraft guns available - in addition to Browning .30 - Lewis .303 - 7,.5 mm MAC M-39 - 7.7 mm SFAT - 7.62 mm ShKAS - 7.92 mm FN - 7.9 mm MG-17 - 7.9 mm MG-81 - all just for Allied .30 cal class armament. If you can show a particular machines primary production variant uses a particular weapon - we will use it.

With all of these you managed to miss the .303 Browning as used by every modern British aircraft, plus a number of the older types.

I don't have the slots. In many cases the names differ but the data is the same. We only have the "right" name for "flavor" - not function. In this case - I regard the Browning .30 and the Browning .303 as close enough to combine them - and you are reading the name to mean "error" when - from my point of view - it is "best choice." If we get more slots in AE we can break them out in more detail. As it is - I think we have too many .30s in the mix - and we probably should combine more types for WITP. But it takes too much time to review hundreds of Allied planes - so I never bothered. You are getting into the modders art here - you MUST compromise - and WHICH compromise is a matter of art and opinion. There is no perfect choice - and no chance to please everyone with any given choice one can make. It isn't that the RHS data is "wrong" - it is that it combined several kinds. There are many instances of this. And ALL forms of WITP do this - wether it is understood or not.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

We have Vickers K .303 and Vickers V .303 airccraft guns available - in addition to Browning .30 - Lewis .303 - 7,.5 mm MAC M-39 - 7.7 mm SFAT - 7.62 mm ShKAS - 7.92 mm FN - 7.9 mm MG-17 - 7.9 mm MG-81 - all just for Allied .30 cal class armament. If you can show a particular machines primary production variant uses a particular weapon - we will use it.

With all of these you managed to miss the .303 Browning as used by every modern British aircraft, plus a number of the older types.

Some other examples

Albacore, RHS has 1x30cal F, 1x30calBR, 1x50calTR,   sbe 1x.303F & 2xVickers K TR
Avenger I/II replace Vickers K with Brownings
Barracuda, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Sea Hurricane, replace Vickers K with Brownings
FM2 Wildcat, IMHO, could be wrong, sbe 4 x 50cal instead of 6x50cal
Martlet V, is equivalent to F4F-4/FM1 not the FM2 as it appears to be in the game. But Britsh numbering couldnt be relied upon.
A36A MUSTANG, not Apache, should have either 4 or 6x50cal, not 4x50cal & 4x30cal
B18/23, While i know slots are short, the B23 is about 65mph faster, not a good pairing but B23 numbers aren't that high.
F4U-1/AU1 & Corsair I, as explaind I have never seen the mixed armament, always 6 x 50cal Prototypes dont count)
P26A, RHS has 2x50cal, should be 2x30cal or 1x50cal & 1x30cal.
P43A, RHS has 2x30cal & 2x50cal, sbe 4x50cal.
P400, RHS has 1x20mm & 6x.30cal, sbe 1x20mm, 2x50cal & 4x303
Beaufighter VIF replace Vickers K with Brownings
Beaufighter X, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Beaufighter 21 is totally missing.
Hudson, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Hurricane IIB, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Kittyhawk I/P40D should be Kittyhawk 1A/P40E, only small numbers of KittyI and about 20x P40D made. Both RAAF & RNZAF used KittyIA with 6x50cal.
Lancaste BIII, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Liberator V, replace Vickers K with Brownings
Sunderland III, replace 12.7mm Vickers with Brownings, maybe 2x303 Vickers K remain in S mount.
Vengenace, RHS has 4x30cal F while most used in Burma/New Guinea had 4x50cal (I think you have A31 against A35 used in more action)
Vildebeest, replace 12.7mm Vickers with 1x 303Browning F & 1 x .303 Vickers K TR
Wellington IC should be replaced by IIIC, maybe early units had IC but changed, replace Vickers K with Brownings

Plus, please explain what the AA 8th(9th) Division is???

To start at the end - the AA 8th (9th) Division is

the Australian Army Division originally named 8th which eventually served under the name 9th.
Seemed like the clearest way to describe it.

Australian - and British - and Indian - military forces love to change things - and in WITP mostly we cannot change them once they are on the board. Mostly we go with the way they appear. But RHS makes an effort to let things change - often a unit will "evolve" toward its final form - and sometimes we tell you when it changes names. Thus the ROC 9th Field Army - renamed 99th Field Army later in the war - is the 9/99th Field Army in RHS. And note that Field Army has a specific meaning - a two division corps - vs a Group Army - which is a three division corps.

As for the FM-2 - it is in the form GM says it was made.
For P-400 - and many other cases above - I assure you - the data is strait out of references. It likely DOES differ from other references. I am aware of many such issues. That does not mean the reference I used is best - it is just the one I used. For Allied planes - there are so many - each got only a few minutes of review at a time. I can spend hours reading about one type - and then end up with more hours trying to decide who to believe - because they differ from each other. I am willing to look at any specific case you think warrants a different choice. But know I didn't dream it up. Nor - I imagine - did whoever did the stock airplanes.
For RAF - note that I used RAF official data. That does not mean it is right - but it was a reasonable starting point.

For this - and almost any other - datum - I need more than IMHO. I need a source. I also need the RHS slot number.
Give me both and I will verify and correct - usually in one day.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

We have Vickers K .303 and Vickers V .303 airccraft guns available - in addition to Browning .30 - Lewis .303 - 7,.5 mm MAC M-39 - 7.7 mm SFAT - 7.62 mm ShKAS - 7.92 mm FN - 7.9 mm MG-17 - 7.9 mm MG-81 - all just for Allied .30 cal class armament. If you can show a particular machines primary production variant uses a particular weapon - we will use it.

With all of these you managed to miss the .303 Browning as used by every modern British aircraft, plus a number of the older types.

I don't have the slots. In many cases the names differ but the data is the same. We only have the "right" name for "flavor" - not function. In this case - I regard the Browning .30 and the Browning .303 as close enough to combine them - and you are reading the name to mean "error" when - from my point of view - it is "best choice." If we get more slots in AE we can break them out in more detail. As it is - I think we have too many .30s in the mix - and we probably should combine more types for WITP. But it takes too much time to review hundreds of Allied planes - so I never bothered. You are getting into the modders art here - you MUST compromise - and WHICH compromise is a matter of art and opinion. There is no perfect choice - and no chance to please everyone with any given choice one can make. It isn't that the RHS data is "wrong" - it is that it combined several kinds. There are many instances of this. And ALL forms of WITP do this - wether it is understood or not.

I agree that if slots are tight you make decisions, though I think dropping the .303 Browning was a poor choice. The problem Sid, is that you went with the .303 Vickers K rather than the .30cal Browning. CHS did the opposite and had the .303 and no .30cal which made US armed aircraft look odd.

Its strange that you never bothered to check Aircraft stats, i find it amongst the easiest data to source and the editor is pretty good at presenting it.

[JeffroK]

Re Australian 9th Infantry Division

You seem to find an odd fact and run with it.

All Australian Divisions were formed and remained with the same name, there was some rearranging of Brigades between Divisions but by April 1941 these had stabilised.
FYI the 8th Division was lost in Singapore.

 I cant see how a unit which fought at Tobruk & El Alamein as the 9th Division and is immortal as "The Rats of Tobruk" would have any other name.

As for providing slot numbers, go look them up yourself, spend some time and effort with getting the mods which are so associated with you, correct.

I have 3-4 books relating to British & American Aircraft plus a number of history books which relate to WITP and include statistics. In addition I checked about 6 web sites on the Corsair, I had never seen your fitout so had a good look for it.

By the way, the scen70 download has put the Australian road/rail net somewhere south of Tasmania, Panama is about 10 hexes north but the rest appears to be perfect.

Its been deleted