Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Would be funny if it wasnt so sad

 
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 >> Tech Support >> Would be funny if it wasnt so sad Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/15/2006 7:59:56 AM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		Hi everyone,

I have an issue here. No sure if its ever come up before. Can anyone see whats wrong with this picture? Hint: this is the Kate squadron from the Hosho. Normal max compliment is 5.

I had moved the unit to the Taiyo. Next turn the max compliment jumped to 27 and the unit drew additional planes. Imagine my surprise when I clicked on the Taiyo and saw 60-odd planes aboard (both the Kate and Zero squadrons jumped to 27).

This is the regular camapaign 42A, 1.8, NOT a clean install, no mods other than maps and art.

Thanks

Onime




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok
Post #: 1
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/15/2006 9:14:29 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		The problem is that you moved the air unit off its home carrier. They have been numerous reports of problems with squadrons changing size when moved between or off of carriers. Basically, don't do it. The program can't really handle it.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 2
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/15/2006 1:27:24 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

The problem is that you moved the air unit off its home carrier. They have been numerous reports of problems with squadrons changing size when moved between or off of carriers. Basically, don't do it. The program can't really handle it.


This is exactly correct - Squadrons should remain with their original carrier.

Carrier Air Group Squadrons ALWAYS remain internally associated with the carrier on which they arrived. Each squadron is allocated a certain percentage of it's home carrier's capacity (and that percentage can change over time). Moving the squadron to a land base or another carrier does not change this allocation.

Quite frankly I do not like this myself, but that is the way it is. It would be a major modification to change this process and it is not going to happen soon.




(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 3
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/15/2006 2:22:38 PM   
Aterpa


Posts: 88
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline 		I have not yet had a problem with moving carrier airgroups to land bases (beside a change of the command HQ of the airgroup) but I once transported some carrier airgroups on board of CVEs. After some days they expanded their size to fit exactly the capacity of that CVEs.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 4
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 12:43:55 AM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		Hi everyone,

Thank you for the responses. I guess it doesnt pay to move airgroups. Its such a pain, however, because the IJN has several CVEs without airgroups, and its a struggle to find land-based units small enough to fit.

However, the saga continues. I unloaded the group at Truk upon arrival. Here is what happened.

Regards,

Onime




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Aterpa)
Post #: 5
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 1:16:19 AM   
hexgod

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 4/21/2005
Status: offline 		I have made a modification of the main scenario that adjusts some of these issues. I set my carrier borne air groups with a maximum value which fixed this problem, but makes the air group size fixed and unvariable.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 6
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 2:05:56 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hexgod

I have made a modification of the main scenario that adjusts some of these issues. I set my carrier borne air groups with a maximum value which fixed this problem, but makes the air group size fixed and unvariable.


I am sorry to say that this will not work. The executable takes control and overrides the maximum air group size set in the editor. In fact, it may modify it several times during the game. The change is most pronounced for U.S. Carrier airgroups but Japanese ones change as well.

The game considers a Carrier Air Group as an entity. The only advice I can give is NEVER move a squadron from one carrier to another.

(in reply to hexgod)
Post #: 7
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 2:23:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: hexgod

I have made a modification of the main scenario that adjusts some of these issues. I set my carrier borne air groups with a maximum value which fixed this problem, but makes the air group size fixed and unvariable.


I am sorry to say that this will not work. The executable takes control and overrides the maximum air group size set in the editor. In fact, it may modify it several times during the game. The change is most pronounced for U.S. Carrier airgroups but Japanese ones change as well.

The game considers a Carrier Air Group as an entity. The only advice I can give is NEVER move a squadron from one carrier to another.



Any chance more info can be provided in the OOB to better illuminate which squadrons start with which carriers seeing that there is a code related complication if they are moved?


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 8
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 2:25:53 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		So what happens when a CV is sunk and it's air groups divert to a land base? How do you treat them then?

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 9
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 2:38:39 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: hexgod

I have made a modification of the main scenario that adjusts some of these issues. I set my carrier borne air groups with a maximum value which fixed this problem, but makes the air group size fixed and unvariable.


I am sorry to say that this will not work. The executable takes control and overrides the maximum air group size set in the editor. In fact, it may modify it several times during the game. The change is most pronounced for U.S. Carrier airgroups but Japanese ones change as well.

The game considers a Carrier Air Group as an entity. The only advice I can give is NEVER move a squadron from one carrier to another.



Any chance more info can be provided in the OOB to better illuminate which squadrons start with which carriers seeing that there is a code related complication if they are moved?



No Ron - when we get around to fixing this we are going to fix it right. What is needed is player control over composition of the Carrier Air Group - including a differentiation between squadrons transferred aboard as a permanent part of the CAG and those that are just being ferried.


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 10
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 2:42:39 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

So what happens when a CV is sunk and it's air groups divert to a land base? How do you treat them then?


It's hopeless... just resign!!

I've run into this more than once. Oh, the pain...

Basically, you can't do much of anything. The worst one i've run into is i THOUGHT a carrier was about to sink and took the groups off. It didn't sink. Good luck getting the squadrons to go back to normal size... If anyone has a method of getting them to fix the squadrons, please let us know!!!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 11
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 2:44:28 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

So what happens when a CV is sunk and it's air groups divert to a land base? How do you treat them then?


I don't specifically know. I ASSUME that the CAG is still a unit and the squadrons retain their size based on the original carrier capacity. I do not believe there is any specific process to "free" the groups from the sunk CV.

If fact, Version 1.8 changed the way carrier squadrons were handled when ashore to prevent another reported bug with squadrons growing so large that they could not be transferred back to the CV.

Now, before you all jump in here and ask for mods to this process, this is actually one of my pet peeves and I want it fixed too. The fact that it is not yet fixed is an indication of the size of the change.


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 12
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 3:59:21 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		So, would it be feasible to *cringe* insert an airgroup limit that is player definable, such as we have for altitude, reaction range, and nav search levels?

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 13
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 4:39:08 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: hexgod

I have made a modification of the main scenario that adjusts some of these issues. I set my carrier borne air groups with a maximum value which fixed this problem, but makes the air group size fixed and unvariable.


I am sorry to say that this will not work. The executable takes control and overrides the maximum air group size set in the editor. In fact, it may modify it several times during the game. The change is most pronounced for U.S. Carrier airgroups but Japanese ones change as well.

The game considers a Carrier Air Group as an entity. The only advice I can give is NEVER move a squadron from one carrier to another.



Any chance more info can be provided in the OOB to better illuminate which squadrons start with which carriers seeing that there is a code related complication if they are moved?



No Ron - when we get around to fixing this we are going to fix it right. What is needed is player control over composition of the Carrier Air Group - including a differentiation between squadrons transferred aboard as a permanent part of the CAG and those that are just being ferried.




Even better!!! Rock on Don!


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 14
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 4:41:01 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

So, would it be feasible to *cringe* insert an airgroup limit that is player definable, such as we have for altitude, reaction range, and nav search levels?


No Sir, not really. We have to consider total CAG size in relation to carrier capacity, changes in complement over time (more fighters, then more more fighters, etc), difference between permanent and temporary airgroups, and several other things that do not spring to mind right now.

It is not an easy fix and requires that a sizeable section of code be gutted and reworked. There are some un-obvious programming problems that show up when one looks into changing the logic. It is not going to happen soon.

I gave my honest comments on this issue and at the same time indicated that a fix is not imminent. But I must repeat: a fix is not imminent.





(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 15
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 4:52:35 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

So, would it be feasible to *cringe* insert an airgroup limit that is player definable, such as we have for altitude, reaction range, and nav search levels?


No Sir, not really. We have to consider total CAG size in relation to carrier capacity, changes in complement over time (more fighters, then more more fighters, etc), difference between permanent and temporary airgroups, and several other things that do not spring to mind right now.

It is not an easy fix and requires that a sizeable section of code be gutted and reworked. There are some un-obvious programming problems that show up when one looks into changing the logic. It is not going to happen soon.

I gave my honest comments on this issue and at the same time indicated that a fix is not imminent. But I must repeat: a fix is not imminent.



I thought that might be the case. Like I've told a few people in my life, it is better to ask the question and get the answer than to guess.


_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 16
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 11:02:40 AM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		Hi everyone,

I remember hearing somewhere that there was a new feature under development that would allow the player to add/remove pilots and planes from an airgroup at will. I think it would solve all size regulation problems for air units because you would not need to control the actual unit size, just the max limit. If you can set an "upper end firewall" and let the player control everything from 0-max, it would not only be a great game feature but would also likely eliminate many of these unit size bugs. This way you guys would not even have to fix the existing bugs. Instead, the player would have the ability to fix the issue himself. For example, in my last post you'll see that the group went from 5 to 27 to 3. Now it has 27 pilots and 3 planes. If such a tool existed, I would simply be able to send the excess pilots back to the pool and problem solved.

I'm not sure what this would do for those who are requestiong a system for moving specific pilots (like keeping the experienced ones out of transport units for example) as I dont know whats involved on the programming end. But this strikes me as being somewhat easier to accomplish.


Onime

< Message edited by Onime No Kyo -- 5/16/2006 11:04:42 AM >

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 17
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 6:40:25 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

So what happens when a CV is sunk and it's air groups divert to a land base? How do you treat them then?


I lost the Kaga in one of my PBEMs and her air units dirverted to a base. They all have equal numbers of planes and pilots (odd). They have 9, 12 and 14 respectively. All planes in excess of 9 are in reserve. I will use them for awhile on land (taking care not to move them to a restricted command base) and will eventually disband them into carrier trained air groups.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 18
RE: Would be funny if it wasnt so sad - 5/16/2006 6:45:05 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		I have a problem with Hiryu's fighter daitai. Hiryu was seriously damaged (78 sys and 97 flt damage at worst) but survived. She eventually made it back to the home islands where her current damage is 44. When she was damaged, her fighter complement was reduced to 2 planes and 17 pilots, with a max of 2 planes. I patiently waited for her damage to go below 50. That happened and her fighter complement didn't change. It still hasn't. Anyone have any suggestions? I have had replacements on for the fighters for months. Their max strength is still 2.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> Would be funny if it wasnt so sad Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.844