Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 1:31:36 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I've requested these fixes before several times but never gotten any reasonable response from Matrix or the group currently working on patches.

1. Can patrol and transport planes be made kamikaze-capable? It should be quite possible given the code base ( simply a case of extending a capability already present in other planes).

2. Can the bug which has kamikaze air groups attacking land bases ( and doing no damage) finally be fixed? It is rather disgusting to see 100 or 200 kamikazes wasting themselves on an allied airbase 300 miles distant instead of the Allied CV TF 60 miles offshore.

These seem simple fixes and are actual bug fixes as opposed to "enhancements" as such they should have some priority for being fixed.

Post #: 1

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 1:54:37 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I don't know if number 1 is historically relevant but number 2 is a real joke.

I've never reached the kamikaze years because PBEM is slow and the AI is just so bad one gets bored in early 42 the first time playing it. Do they actually crash into land bases? Gawd that is bad.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 9/30/2006 1:56:07 AM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 2

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 10:08:50 AM

goodboyladdie

Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline

Is the phrase "with major impacts" in the title an intentional pun?

I hope it's in a patch before I get that far in the game. It would break my heart if I had got that far as a Jap player, just to see such a silly thing happen with one of the few weapons remaining.

< Message edited by goodboyladdie -- 9/30/2006 10:11:57 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 3

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 11:12:03 AM

mc3744

Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline

Yep, that sounds really bad (I mean the kamikaze thing).

I'm far from there, but ...

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to goodboyladdie)

Post #: 4

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 11:36:35 AM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

this is really ugly bug, however i could live with that if new code is introduced:

Kamikazes have chance to get through Allied CAP. We can disscus how much is likely for some Kamis to get through CAP, 20-30 percent?

_____________________________

(in reply to mc3744)

Post #: 5

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 12:53:31 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

2. Can the bug which has kamikaze air groups attacking land bases ( and doing no damage) finally be fixed? It is rather disgusting to see 100 or 200 kamikazes wasting themselves on an allied airbase 300 miles distant instead of the Allied CV TF 60 miles offshore.

A caring commander like you would hate to see something terrible happen to his Kamikaze pilots, right?

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 6

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 1:52:08 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

The chance for them to get through the CAP should be more like 2-3%.

_____________________________

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 7

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 2:20:26 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Answers:

1. There are many documented cases of patrol planes, recon planes ( Dinahs and the like) and transports ( particularly transports to be honest) being used in kamikaze attacks in late 44 and 45. It isn't an exaggeration to say that as the war came to a close the Japanese simply looked around for EVERYTHING that could fly and looked to pack it full of explosives and sent it on a kamikaze mission. If Japan had been invaded you'd have seen not only fighters, bombers etc but also out-dated trainers, Nates, Thoras, Emilys, Dinahs etc sent out on kamikaze missions.

2. Do they crash into land bases.... Well I have an AI vs AI game under RHS 4.48 which is now in mid-44. The Japanese have created HORDES of kamikaze units. Unfortunately whenever they base these kamikaze units anywhere near an Allied base the planes seem to preferentially crash into the base ( doing no damage) as opposed to crashing into the enemy fleet:

Here's an example:
Day Air attack on Suchan [AMUR] , at 66,34

Japanese aircraft
H8K2 Emily x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
H8K2 Emily : 10 destroyed

And the next day the same unit continues to destroy itself...
Day Air attack on Suchan [AMUR] , at 66,34

Japanese aircraft
H8K2 Emily x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
H8K2 Emily : 6 destroyed

For those of you who don't know where Suchan is. It is just south-east of Vladivostok. What seems to have happened is that the Home Defence air units which have been made into kamikaze units are picking the closest Allied base ( in the Soviet Union) and are simply flying over to it every day and crashing into it ( doing no damage). The end effect of this is that the Japanese plane pools have been emptied in the weeks following the conversion of the first unit of that plane type.

Pauk,
Even that fix wouldn't suffice since I have played multiple turns in which the Japanese kamikaze units PREFER to fly into a distant Allied ground base instead of attacking a closer Allied task force... This is particularly problematic given that Japanese planes often have very long range and thus are quite likely to find several Allied ground bases within their range.

Halsey,
Well, if you look at the post-war Allied the hit rate per sortie was a little over 10%. I forget the exact figure but it is something like 3400 sorties for 34 sinkings and 340 hits. Still, I would FAR rather a better air model which naturally allows leakers as opposed to another unrealistic fix on top of an unrealistic air model.

Oleg,
Yeah

. That's precisely it

. I, personally, can't wait for RHS to come out with a 43 or 44 scenaio so I can just transfer 80% of the airforce to kamikazes. They sound like my kind of weapons system.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 8

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 3:10:42 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I wonder if PzB and Andy Mac have experienced this in their game?!!

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 9

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 3:35:37 PM

kkoovvoo

Posts: 253
Joined: 10/1/2004
From: Slovakia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I wonder if PzB and Andy Mac have experienced this in their game?!!

Yes, look at the top of page 106 for example.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 10

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 3:36:06 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Gotta say I've never, EVER seen a kamikaze attack a land base, except when I defined them as Kami's from the start (in the editor). Then they started with the Naval Attack/Port Attack combo, and did attack a US land base. Other than that, never.

I'd be interested to see some proof of this...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 11

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 4:43:11 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Terminus,

If you read my post you'll see two attacks on the BASE of Suchan by a kamikaze unit. I included the combat report of this to illustrate the point. Also PzB has had this happen in his game....

Well, I've made my AI vs AI game a head to head game for a few turns during an Allied CV raid to test kamis... My findings are as follows:

1. Kamis still attack ground targets.

2. Transports cannot be turned into kamis by humans BUT the AI can create them. When created by the AI they can still fly troop transport and later be used as kamis. When they are used as kamis they do get hits and those hits are pretty devastating because of their high max load.

3. What is really weird is that patrols can be turned into kamis AND so can the transport versions of the Mavis and Emily. One can also turn recons into kamis even though they are usually useless because they have a load of zero.

4. If you label the transports as patrols they can transport supplies, be turned into kamis. Not sure about transporting troops but will check that out.

5. High-altitude kami attacks do seem to experience a drop in accuracy vs low-altitude attacks. I've been sending in Oscars at 35000 feet and Zekes and bombers at 6000 feet and the Oscars hit significantly less often.

And for examples: End- July 44. About a dozen Allied CVs and CVLs are supporting an amphibious invasion of Tinian. I rushed about 1200 kamis into Pagan and sent them at the Allied CVs over the course of 4 days. I exchanged the 1200 planes for 3 CVs and 2 CVLs. Not great but not too bad either...

Day Air attack on TF at 65,60

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 36
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell x 4
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty x 13
Ki-43-II Oscar x 75

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 12
F6F-5 Hellcat x 48

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 31 destroyed
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell: 4 destroyed
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty: 13 destroyed
Ki-43-II Oscar: 75 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wildcat/Martlet IV: 3 damaged
F6F-5 Hellcat: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Intrepid
CA Portland
CLAA Jacob Van Heemskerck
CVL Cowpens, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire
CVL Bataan
CV Victorious
CA Baltimore
DD Rowe
CVL Belleau Wood

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Rangoon [Burma] at 29,33

Japanese aircraft
L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby: 12 destroyed

Allied Ships
AP Empire Tamar
AP Talma

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 65,60

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 19
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell x 12
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty x 3
Ki-43-II Oscar x 50

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 12
F6F-5 Hellcat x 46

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 16 destroyed
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell: 12 destroyed
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty: 3 destroyed
Ki-43-II Oscar: 50 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wildcat/Martlet IV: 2 damaged
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Bon Homme Richard, Kamikaze hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CV Saratoga, Kamikaze hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CV Essex

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 65,60

Japanese aircraft
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina x 9
L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby x 12
Ki-44IIa Tojo x 4

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 12
F6F-5 Hellcat x 44

Japanese aircraft losses
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina: 9 destroyed
L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby: 12 destroyed
Ki-44IIa Tojo: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wildcat/Martlet IV: 1 damaged
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Bon Homme Richard, on fire, heavy damage
CV Saratoga, Kamikaze hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CV Essex, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Day Air attack on TF at 67,67

Japanese aircraft
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell x 6
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty x 7
Ki-43-II Oscar x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell: 6 destroyed
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty: 7 destroyed
Ki-43-II Oscar: 15 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Minneapolis, Kamikaze hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CA Indianapolis, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire
CA Houston
CL Richmond, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire
CL Detroit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 67,67

Japanese aircraft
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Suffolk, Kamikaze hits 2, on fire

Day Air attack on TF at 64,59

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 16
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell x 2
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty x 4
Ki-43-II Oscar x 10
Ki-44IIa Tojo x 39
Me-109E-4 Mike x 42
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann x 9

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 12
F6F-5 Hellcat x 44

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 11 destroyed
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell: 2 destroyed
G4M1/Ki-50 Betty: 4 destroyed
Ki-43-II Oscar: 10 destroyed
Ki-44IIa Tojo: 21 destroyed
Me-109E-4 Mike: 27 destroyed
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann: 9 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wildcat/Martlet IV: 4 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 16 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Intrepid, Kamikaze hits 2
CVL Wilmington
CV Victorious
CVL Belleau Wood, Kamikaze hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CVL Bataan, Kamikaze hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CVL Cowpens

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 64,59

Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 17
B6N2 Jill x 9
L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby x 42
Ki-43-II Oscar x 2
Ki-44IIa Tojo x 35
Me-109E-4 Mike x 6
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann x 6
Ki-21-II Sally x 8
Ki-34/59/L1N1 Thora x 23

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 8
F6F-5 Hellcat x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 9 destroyed
B6N2 Jill: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby: 42 destroyed
Ki-43-II Oscar: 2 destroyed
Ki-44IIa Tojo: 30 destroyed
Me-109E-4 Mike: 4 destroyed
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann: 6 destroyed
Ki-21-II Sally: 8 destroyed
Ki-34/59/L1N1 Thora: 23 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wildcat/Martlet IV: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
F6F-5 Hellcat: 6 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 1, Kamikaze hits 12, on fire, heavy damage
CV Bunker Hill, Torpedo hits 2, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 64,59

Japanese aircraft
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell x 6
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina x 3
Ki-43-II Oscar x 94

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 7
F6F-5 Hellcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2/Ki-42 Nell: 6 destroyed
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina: 3 destroyed
Ki-43-II Oscar: 63 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wildcat/Martlet IV: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Kamikaze hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
CV Bunker Hill, Kamikaze hits 2, on fire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 64,59

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 9

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 7
F6F-5 Hellcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-II Oscar: 9 destroyed

Allied Ships
CVL Bataan, Kamikaze hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 64,59

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-II Oscar x 3

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 7
F6F-5 Hellcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-II Oscar: 3 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 64,59

Japanese aircraft
B6N2 Jill x 23

Allied aircraft
Wildcat/Martlet IV x 7
F6F-5 Hellcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N2 Jill: 23 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Bunker Hill, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire

That's 2 days worths of attacks... Needless to say the strikes didn't stop the amphibious assault at all. Looks like even the AI can complete an amphibious invasion in 44 against pretty much the best the Japanese can send against them... Obviously a human vs human game would allow better strategic planning etc but on a purely tactical level the Allied superiority in 44 seems to be preserved in RHS EOS, although reduced when compared to stock.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 12

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 5:29:48 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

I'm wondering if there is a correlation between ground attacking ones and what thier 'orders' were before conversion i.e naval primary/ground secondary, would they avoid ground attacks if just set to naval and no secondary before conversion.

Nemo- that 'may' explain why your AI units hit russia on a regular basis ?

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 13

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 5:44:47 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

I'm wondering if there is a correlation between ground attacking ones and what thier 'orders' were before conversion i.e naval primary/ground secondary, would they avoid ground attacks if just set to naval and no secondary before conversion.

Nemo- that 'may' explain why your AI units hit russia on a regular basis ?

We should not be dealing with this. I'm sure I'm not alone in my growing annoyance regarding how hush hush everything is regarding how this game works or why.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 14

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 10:53:56 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

I'm wondering if there is a correlation between ground attacking ones and what thier 'orders' were before conversion i.e naval primary/ground secondary, would they avoid ground attacks if just set to naval and no secondary before conversion.

Nemo- that 'may' explain why your AI units hit russia on a regular basis ?

We should not be dealing with this. I'm sure I'm not alone in my growing annoyance regarding how hush hush everything is regarding how this game works or why.

I agree Ron , this really should have been a no1 priority about 2 years ago imo. forget enhancements this is a very very serious BUG, and should be squished pronto.

Personally i'm none too bothered to know all the mechanics behind the AI actions, BUT I do expect the game to run properly.

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 15

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/30/2006 11:24:15 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Well I've raised this before and raised it privately with the guys now working on the patches, before 1.801. I was very dismissively told that this, among other things, was an "enhancement" and that I had been approached to "test" not to offer "enhancements".

It wasn't even acknowledged that these two issues were bugs. At that time the disillusionment with the context within which the patches were being produced began. Still, after a couple of months when I saw this happening again in a game I decided to raise it again.

And for those who query whether it might just be an RHS thing. Check page 106 on PzB's AAR. He lost about 50 kamikazes in a single day when they hurled themselves at an Allied ground base. Sadly I have to predict that nothing will be done.

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 16

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/1/2006 12:35:09 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

Looks like the Kamikazes sunk a couple of Essex class CVs. I would be happy with those results.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 17

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/1/2006 1:04:00 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well I've raised this before and raised it privately with the guys now working on the patches, before 1.801. I was very dismissively told that this, among other things, was an "enhancement" and that I had been approached to "test" not to offer "enhancements".�

It wasn't even acknowledged that these two issues were bugs. At that time the disillusionment with the context within which the patches were being produced began. Still, after a couple of months when I saw this happening again in a game I decided to raise it again.

And for those who query whether it might just be an RHS thing. Check page 106 on PzB's AAR. He lost about 50 kamikazes in a single day when they hurled themselves at an Allied ground base. Sadly I have to predict that nothing will be done.

I'm definitely with ya' on this Nemo...This is NOT an "enhancement" issue.Whoever told you this is either saying it is not a priority(for them), or they are themselves historically ignorant.
Japan (of course) certainly placed a priority on stockpiling their training planes, liaison planes, transports, bombers,etc., for Kamikaze use as a planned and executable defense organisation.
We know that even though a small percentage of them "got thru", it certainly was costly to the Allies to deal with them, and the attacks suffered by the Essex class carriers and picket destroyers are certainly hard to explain away as "an enhancement" issue.............

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/1/2006 1:07:33 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 18

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/1/2006 4:00:21 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Wouldn't the simple solution be to NOT put kamikazes on any land target attack mission?

Or is there really something deeper here?

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 19

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/1/2006 4:26:47 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well I've raised this before and raised it privately with the guys now working on the patches, before 1.801. I was very dismissively told that this, among other things, was an "enhancement" and that I had been approached to "test" not to offer "enhancements".�

It wasn't even acknowledged that these two issues were bugs. At that time the disillusionment with the context within which the patches were being produced began. Still, after a couple of months when I saw this happening again in a game I decided to raise it again.

And for those who query whether it might just be an RHS thing. Check page 106 on PzB's AAR. He lost about 50 kamikazes in a single day when they hurled themselves at an Allied ground base. Sadly I have to predict that nothing will be done.

This is a design error, which in my mind is a bug. Anything which does not work as designed should be fixed in a patch with no purchase necessary as the customer paid for a flawed product. There is no way kamikazes were deliberately designed to crash bases.

Now enhancements such as a revamped A2A model, or land combat etc, while I still think should come under a patch given the sorry state they were released in, could be swallowed by the customer given the sheer size of the project and the original price, which was fair for a functioning game. Seeing that one has to pay the programmers, enhancements or major redesigns need to be charged to the customer.

Again, I'd be real ticked off if we had to pay for something which fixes things which should have been working in the first place and which was paid for already.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 20

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/2/2006 10:11:37 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Bump since no-one from Matrix has given any response.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 21

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/2/2006 11:07:22 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The chance for them to get through the CAP should be more like 2-3%.

You won't get out of here with this

. Now you are (officialy) JFB and should think about all tweakings done for the Allies in early period of the war. Now it is a time for us, Halsey san

I didn't say that ALL Kamis should get through CAP, but would be logical that 20 or 30 % chance and 20 kamies from 200 kamies assigned to mission going through CAP isn't too much

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 22

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/3/2006 12:50:43 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Bump since no-one from Matrix has given any response.

You posted Friday after working hours: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 9/29/2006 6:31:36 PM

Today is Monday, don't you think your expectations for response times from Matrix are a bit high?

I am sure someone from Matrix (a mod maybe) will post something this week on these issues.

Until then, pop open a beer and be cool.

Flipper

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 23

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/3/2006 12:54:10 AM

FeurerKrieg

Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Until then, pop open a beer and be cool.

Flipper

This is most sound advice I've heard on this forum in a long time.

_____________________________

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 24

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/3/2006 1:10:34 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The chance for them to get through the CAP should be more like 2-3%.

You won't get out of here with this. Now you are (officialy) JFB and should think about all tweakings done for the Allies in early period of the war. Now it is a time for us, Halsey san

I didn't say that ALL Kamis should get through CAP, but would be logical that 20 or 30 % chance and 20 kamies from 200 kamies assigned to mission going through CAP isn't too much

JAFB

_____________________________

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 25

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/3/2006 7:05:36 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Flipper,

Mods do check this forum over the weekend as do those working on patches... Failure to comment is not due to failure of awareness of this complaint, it is because they choose not to.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 26

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/10/2006 2:00:32 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

bump

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Flipper,

Mods do check this forum over the weekend as do those working on patches... Failure to comment is not due to failure of awareness of this complaint, it is because they choose not to.

Nemo,

I still think think it was unrealistic to expect a response from a Matrix person in less then 1 business day. And while I wouldn't want them to drop everything they are working on every time you come up with questions. At some point I would hope you would get a response to your ideas more often than not.

You assuming they are saying "go jump in a lake" could be right or wrong. It also could be they are backed up working on other issues (like the next patch).

Flipper

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 27

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/10/2006 8:21:52 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

bump

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Flipper,

Mods do check this forum over the weekend as do those working on patches... Failure to comment is not due to failure of awareness of this complaint, it is because they choose not to.

Nemo,

I still think think it was unrealistic to expect a response from a Matrix person in less then 1 business day. And while I wouldn't want them to drop everything they are working on every time you come up with questions. At some point I would hope you would get a response to your ideas more often than not.

You assuming they are saying "go jump in a lake" could be right or wrong. It also could be they are backed up working on other issues (like the next patch).

Flipper

Nemo and I have chatted (in several emails) about the issues. We're in synch!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 28

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/10/2006 8:46:22 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

bump

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Flipper,

Mods do check this forum over the weekend as do those working on patches... Failure to comment is not due to failure of awareness of this complaint, it is because they choose not to.

Nemo,

I still think think it was unrealistic to expect a response from a Matrix person in less then 1 business day. And while I wouldn't want them to drop everything they are working on every time you come up with questions. At some point I would hope you would get a response to your ideas more often than not.

You assuming they are saying "go jump in a lake" could be right or wrong. It also could be they are backed up working on other issues (like the next patch).

Flipper

Nemo and I have chatted (in several emails) about the issues. We're in synch!

I am glad to hear that. I had faith in you guys. I only "bumped" it after a week because I had seen nothing about it.

Flipper

P.S. Now get back to work.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 29

RE: Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts - 10/10/2006 8:28:53 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Aye, jwilkerson has the essence of it. All synched up.

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Request for 2 SIMPLE fixes... with major impacts

Page: [1] 2 next > >>