Ground Attack missions "losing" their targets

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ground Attack missions "losing" their targets

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 >> Ground Attack missions "losing" their targets

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ground Attack missions "losing" their targets - 5/30/2007 2:28:20 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

In my current stock scenario 15 game against the AI, I have a large battle occuring in China. Gobs of Chinese troops along with some other Allied troops have got a ten division plus force of Japanese cut off and are slowly (and very bloodily I might add) grinding them down. I have a large number of air units assigned to support this, flying Ground Attack missions. As I am starting to destroy Japanese LCUs, I am noticing that many of these air units are having their targets get changed to hex 0,0. It seems that if they attacked an LCU that gets destroyed in the land combat phase, they "lose" their target.

It appears that while the player can only assign what hex a Ground Attack mission attacks, the program actually assigns it to attack a specific unit and it continues to attack that unit regardless of all else on subsequent turns. Even if the air unit gets stood down for a turn or more and then re-assigned to Ground Attack the same hex as before, it attacks the same LCU (if it exists). The routine to assign specific LCU targets is apparently not being properly called and/or is broken.

The battle can be seen in either of these two saves previously posted for other bug reports: http://rapidshare.com/files/33047498/witp017.pws http://rapidshare.com/files/33774937/witp018.pws It is just southeast of Changsha, hex 47,37. Air units attacking are based in Changsha, Hengchow, Amoy, Swatow and Pescadores. If I remember to do so, I will try to get a pair of before and after saves with some specific units.

_____________________________

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.

Post #: 1

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 5/30/2007 9:45:32 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Well, I wasn't quite right. Here are before: http://rapidshare.com/files/34188353/witp009.pws and after: http://rapidshare.com/files/34188448/witp019.pws saves. The before is just before hitting end of turn, no orders need to be issued. Out of Swatow the 258, 82, 110 and 134 squadrons attacked the 116 IJA Div; out of Hengchow the 3 CBS, 5 CBS and 9 CBS attacked the 27 and 110 divisions and; out of Pescadores the 12 BG attacked the 68 division. The ground troops then launched a Deliberate Attack that destroyed the 40 and 22 IJA divisions; elements of the 68 division banzai'd but the unit should still exist. ALL the air units in Swatow, Amoy, Changsha, Hengchow and Pescadores that were set to Ground Attack 47,37 have been reset to attack 0,0, even the ones that did not fly.

_____________________________

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 dtravel)

Post #: 2

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 5/30/2007 10:57:25 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Oops, I forgot about the AVG up at Ichang. Wonder how many drop tanks they've managed to stuff on to their P-40s in trying to attack the North Pole.

_____________________________

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 dtravel)

Post #: 3

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 5/31/2007 8:01:07 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

I've seen the same effect. I found that if a unit is assigned to attack 0,0, if you stand them down and reassign them to the same hex, they will choose a new target.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 4

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 5/31/2007 11:37:59 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

You don't even have to stand them down, just assign them a target. But I'm not interested in workarounds. I want the bug fixed so I can move on to bugging them about the next one.

_____________________________

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 wdolson)

Post #: 5

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 5/31/2007 9:01:36 PM

Woos

Posts: 683
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

It appears that while the player can only assign what hex a Ground Attack mission attacks, the program actually assigns it to attack a specific unit.

Can't say anything about the code but I can confirm this for the savegame file. Air groups assigned to ground attack store LCUs as their target, not hexes. That also explains why they shift their target to a new hex, if a LCU retreats.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 6

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 12:12:40 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Some additional information on this. It appears that the air units only lose their target if a LCU is in the target hex is destroyed by ground combat. If units are removed due to attrition or the "units surrounded" part, the air units retain their target setting.

_____________________________

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 Woos)

Post #: 7

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 2:54:01 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

I think in the realm of bugs, this is a minor annoyance. Plenty of more important things to spend time debugging IMHO.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 8

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 1:39:33 PM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

I really can't just bypass that statement like I can the vast majority of others.

Yep, on the surface someone may be able to classify it as a minor annoyance, but since someone (dtravel) has done considerable research into the cause of this problem, I feel that a thank you would be more appropriate than the response given.

As an example of a "minor annoyance", the "big fix" of the last patch was for the loading bug (minor annoyance) which took almost a year to be fixed. Now, a "minor annoyance" multiplied many hundreds/thousands of times of occurance and again by many hundreds/thousands of players can have a tendacy to become a major bug when viewed on such a scale.

Perhaps we could be provided with a list of guidelines as to what would constitute a minor annoyance and what would constitute a serious bug so that we players have an idea of what we should be reporting and whether or not it is worth the effort of doing so?

Disclaimer: just my humble opinion, of course, and has absolutely no value whatsoever except to myself and no bearing on the reality here.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 9

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 5:37:18 PM

rtrapasso

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

Minor annoyance is when you just have to repeat the action again the next turn to get the action you desire, i.e. - just reset the target again next turn.

Major annoyance is when nothing you can do will produce the actions that should be possible and it effects overall gameplay, i.e. - inability to move from one hex to the next down an unblocked road, inability to load or unload cargo from a cargo-carrying ship, etc. Having a unit disappear and having a unit teleport would fall into this category.

Leader bugs might fall somewhere in between - it USUALLY doesn't affect gameplay that much (but it might if someone like Halsey or Yamamoto vanishes).

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 10

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 5:41:06 PM

rtrapasso

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Some additional information on this.� It appears that the air units only lose their target if a LCU is in the target hex is destroyed by ground combat.� If units are removed due to attrition or the "units surrounded" part, the air units retain their target setting.

OK - i downloaded the turn and ran it... at the end of the turn, 4 of the air units at Swatow had reset their targets to 0,0... the fifth unit (that did not fly) still had no target.

If i understand this correctly, this is the extent of the bug? It appears that the enemy units were attacked by air during the turn.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 11

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 9:12:43 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Since air attacks take place before the ground attack that caused the target resetting, yes. But they would not attack the next turn or ever again until the player resets the air unit's target. Given the way air attacks are handled in the game, the player would never know the units were not flying until and unless he goes in to that individual unit's control window and checks its target setting. And if he is unaware of this bug, he would have no reason to do so. The only reason I noticed it was because this was a major battle involving lots of air support and one day I suddenly realized that I hadn't seen any Ground Attacks at all there for a game week.

It may seem like a minor issue but it requires the player to check every air unit in the area set to ground attack whenever an enemy LCU is destroyed (since there's no way to sort them by target and I sure as *bleep* don't memorize every single air units' targets every turn). That can be a lot of mouse clicks and going in and out of unit windows. When you get to 30, 40, 50 or more, its not "minor" anymore. I understand there are higher priority issues but don't be dismissive to the customers. Plus I know enough to know that this should be a relatively easy fix. (Or at least it should be.

) Having one programmer spend half a day tracking down and correcting the one line of code for a "minor" issue can build a lot of goodwill and patience while they spend weeks trying to fix a "major" problem.

_____________________________

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 rtrapasso)

Post #: 12

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 9:19:33 PM

rtrapasso

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

i've have reported the bug (which my job as a beta - i don't do programming on WITP.)

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 13

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/11/2007 9:26:16 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i've have reported the bug (which my job as a beta - i don't do programming on WITP.)

Good enough then.

_____________________________

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 rtrapasso)

Post #: 14

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/12/2007 10:00:06 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

I really can't just bypass that statement like I can the vast majority of others.

Yep, on the surface someone may be able to classify it as a minor annoyance, but since someone (dtravel) has done considerable research into the cause of this problem, I feel that a thank you would be more appropriate than the response given.

Thank you. But, in the realm of bugs, this is a minor annoyance. Because truth be told, you shouldnt be flying missions every turn (its hard on morale and readiness). Especially to the same target. At least from a historical perspective. The 8th airforces "big week" had 5 raids in 7 days and about wore the entire airforce out.

Leader bug. Probably the most important problem in the game.

Sync bug. Right up there with leader.

Disappearing units or units popping across the map for no reason (fixed?).

Ships leaving port without being fully loaded (still there).

A few others I would put as a higher priority than this. Personally.

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 15

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/12/2007 1:08:26 PM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

Please don't thank me....I didn't find this problem. However, as one who wrote his first computer program in 1965 and was a senior systems analyst, I do feel that I can state that this is a bug. Just one more bug in a program (this game) that was released with too many of them which are still being found three years (short a few days) after release and which will never be resolved to the paying customers satisfaction. Happens way too often nowadays. I know you guys are trying to iron out some of them and it is appreciated, but I don't think that you can dictate that a bug is not a bug and only a "minor annoyance". If you are going to be "mo' better help" that you need to take the paying customers a bit more seriously and not sluff off their efforts to also improve this game.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 16

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/12/2007 5:01:25 PM

rtrapasso

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Please don't thank me....I didn't find this problem. However, as one who wrote his first computer program in 1965 and was a senior systems analyst, I do feel that I can state that this is a bug. Just one more bug in a program (this game) that was released with too many of them which are still being found three years (short a few days) after release and which will never be resolved to the paying customers satisfaction. Happens way too often nowadays. I know you guys are trying to iron out some of them and it is appreciated, but I don't think that you can dictate that a bug is not a bug and only a "minor annoyance". If you are going to be "mo' better help" that you need to take the paying customers a bit more seriously and not sluff off their efforts to also improve this game.

interesting - you ASK for an opinion - you get one - and then you say where do i get off on giving an opinion.

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 17

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/12/2007 8:19:28 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

JW isnt paid to fix things. It isnt his full time job. He only has so much time available to do it. Where would you have him invest his time? Personally I would have him spend it on things that arent just "a minor annoyance" I think we all owe him a lot of thanks, and we also should be asking for things that will fix the game before we fix annoyances. My .02.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 18

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/13/2007 2:45:56 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Because truth be told, you shouldnt be flying missions every turn (its hard on morale and readiness). Especially to the same target. At least from a historical perspective. The 8th airforces "big week" had 5 raids in 7 days and about wore the entire airforce out.

Interesting to contrast that to peoples' responses here: When Do You Cease Air Ops?

_____________________________

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 Yamato hugger)

Post #: 19

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/13/2007 3:48:20 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Well thats the difference between real life and a game I guess. OK, YOU decide. What SHOULD JW be working on? Is this really worth his time more than any of the problems I listed already? Or can you perhaps check your planes once in a while (I check mine every turn) and make sure they are doing what you want them to be doing?

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 20

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/13/2007 7:11:34 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Rtrapasso has already done what I needed. He confirmed that it was a bug and put it on the list. That was it.

In the future, I would like bug reports to not be dismissed because you (who as I understand it aren't even an employee of Matrix, just a volunteer) don't think its important or your personal style of play never encounters it. I've worked tech support. You don't stay in business by blowing off customers' complaints like that. I wasn't expecting it to suddenly become the top priority. All I was expecting (or perhaps I should say "hoped for") was for it to be logged to be worked on eventually. Now that Rtrapasso has done that, its done with for now as far as I'm concerned.

_____________________________

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 Yamato hugger)

Post #: 21

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/13/2007 11:43:16 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Dont think I dismissed it. I gave MY opinion on the subject. My opinion counts just as much as yours, no? I am a customer of Maxtrix as well no? And in this customers opinion, this "bug" (and I will grant you, it shouldnt work this way) certainly isnt something that I (as a customer) would want them wasting time even LOOKING at while there are many MANY more severe problems that could be fixed.

Thank you

(steps off soapbox)

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 6/13/2007 11:44:16 PM >

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 22

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/14/2007 5:53:47 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Please don't thank me....I didn't find this problem. However, as one who wrote his first computer program in 1965 and was a senior systems analyst, I do feel that I can state that this is a bug. Just one more bug in a program (this game) that was released with too many of them which are still being found three years (short a few days) after release and which will never be resolved to the paying customers satisfaction. Happens way too often nowadays. I know you guys are trying to iron out some of them and it is appreciated, but I don't think that you can dictate that a bug is not a bug and only a "minor annoyance". If you are going to be "mo' better help" that you need to take the paying customers a bit more seriously and not sluff off their efforts to also improve this game.

I started programming some time after you, in the early 1980s, though I started very old school (machine language) and eventually got into Windows programming. I'm also an Electronic Engineer by training, so I've spent years down on the hardware level.

Old operating systems were fairly simple beasts and the programmer had pretty much complete control over the whole system. The pre-GUI OSs like Unix, DOS, etc. took some direct control away, but you still had a lot of direct control. GUIs abstract the system more and you spend a lot of time as a programmer making system calls to do what you want. That introduces lots of vectors for errors.

Program size also opens you up to bugs too. The bigger the program, the more chances there are of bugs creeping in. Management pressures such as time to market usually force programmers to do a less than optimal job.

Last year I started a company selling a software product I wrote. We had one of the dullest beta tests in software history. We had quite a few users pounding away on it and only had one minor bug that was issolated to Windows 98, that I already knew about. I put a lot of extra time into ensuring there were no bugs. I fixed all known bugs before going to beta test. We ended up with a rock solid product that is, in our opinion, better than any other on the market in our niche. However, we essentially missed our market window. When we started this project, the market was poorly served, but many others moved in while we were developing. Part of the delays were due to other factors than just my perfectionism with the software development. Since I needed to make another living while developing this product, I had stretches of time when I couldn't get time to work on it.

There is the old engineer's maxim: Good - Fast - Cheap: Pick Two.

Comparing WitP to other games of the same size and complexity, it has a typical number of bugs. The big difference between this game and other games is that Matrix continues to support it with people actually doing bug fixes three years after it's initial release.

Go pick up some of the classic games like Great Naval Battles. Even the last released version of that game has many serious quirks.

The game market is very different from the commercial software market. Different forces drive it. Technically, the challenges are similar, but the products follow different market rules. Matrix is unusual in their support of WitP. Go research other games released three years ago. Most have either only been updated with another game based on the same engine was released, or they are now available for $10 in a bin at Office Depot and the company that developed it has either gone out of business or is off on other projects and can't be bothered with fossil-ware from way back in 2004.

Yes WitP has bugs and I've kevetched about my share of irritating bugs/features that got under my skin. As a consumer, the pace of bug fixes is agaonizingly slow, and I'd love to see my pet bug get fixed. However, as a programmer who has done everything from embedded programming on custom circuits, to working with primitive operatins systems, to programming Windows, I realize that these things take a while and I appreciate that Matrix is continuing to support this game.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 23

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/14/2007 1:23:16 PM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

If I went and picked up Great Naval Battles, then I would have two copies of the full series so I think I will not do this. I am quite familiar with their problems.

The only point I have been trying to make in this thread is this: This thread lies within the subforum entititled "War in the Pacific Support". Customers are requested to post bug reports here. A customer did and was sluffed off. I felt that the response he received was totally inappropriate. Then I am told that there are no bugs, only annoyances - minor and major. Been around too long to accept that type of BS. Bugs exist in this program and new ones will be found. I am thankful for any improvements made to this game and have stated so in numerous past posts, including the one quoted.

If the official policy now is not to accept or acknowledge that new bugs will still be found, and that there are only old "annoyances" (must be some kind of "newspeak" or yuppie-yap) then perhaps the support subforum should be closed and the more appropriate place for new "annoyances", or bugs as they have been more appropiately known throughout the history of data processing, might be within the Wish List.

Also note that neither I nor the one who reported this bug (I will tell it as it is) made any request to getting this fixed immediately or moved up to the top of the bug (I did it again) list. It was simply a bug (yes, I am still saying bug) report to be added to the list. We are then both told separately by Yamato hugger to decide the priority of the bugs (once again) to be fixed. This I took to be simply more BS being spouted. If it is not, then please provide me with the full bug (I never learn, do I?) list as well as the full documentation for them in hardcopy format and I would be honored to set the priority. But the only one who would be happy with the priority that I set would be me, right? But then again, you did make me the offer in good faith, did you not?

So to summarize, are we still allowed to report bugs (shame on me) and be able to do so without fear of being treated as a plague upon the WITP society?

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 24

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/14/2007 4:39:44 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

We are then both told separately by Yamato hugger to decide the priority of the bugs (once again) to be fixed.

Excuse me?

quote:

I think in the realm of bugs, this is a minor annoyance. Plenty of more important things to spend time debugging IMHO.

IMHO means In MY HUMBLE OPINION. Think you need to rethink this post. Where do you get off accusing ME of deciding priorities of things to get fixed? Where do EITHER of you get off deciding that I dont deserve the courtesy of having an opinion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

So to summarize, are we still allowed to report bugs (shame on me) and be able to do so without fear of being treated as a plague upon the WITP society?

You can report all the bugs you want, Im sure the Matrix folks appreciate it. If you live in fear of my opinion, then you have a lot of fear in front of you. I give my opinion. When Im wrong, I admit it. When I dont feel I am I wont. I said I would rather if Matrix spent their precious few hours of bug chasing on more important matters, whats wrong with that? Again, I am not entitled to an opinion?

quote:

If the official policy now

Since when did IMHO become "official policy"?

Wake up and smell what youre shoveling.

Edit: US Army 1975 to 1986.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 6/14/2007 4:45:44 PM >

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 25

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/14/2007 4:45:58 PM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

...

So to summarize, are we still allowed to report bugs (shame on me) and be able to do so without fear of being treated as a plague upon the WITP society?

Yes, of course we are still allowed to report "bugs" or "issues" (not all issues are bugs - though all bugs are probably issues). Can't really respond to fears and plagues, I guess some fear of the plague is healthy!

if history is any guide, the plague will return one day!

While it would be nice if our volunteer team could offer the same type of support that paid groups do, I would like to see all of us at least showing a level of common respect. But as you imply, this means we should be able to state our opinions without being personally demeaned and I certainly agree with that. And I mean all of us, me, you, all of us. My watch phrase here is "issues not people" .. so we should feel free to beat up on the issues without thinking that we will be beat up on as "people" in return. "Issues - not People" seems simple enough to me.

That being said, I think this forum is now a much better behaved group than we were two years ago, I guess we're mellowing with age, a bit!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 26

RE: Ground Attack missions "losing" their tar... - 6/14/2007 4:56:26 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Sorry. Tired and that struck a nerve. Been up all night tracking leaking planes/pilots. I think I have it nailed finally to where its repeatable. Going to get some sleep and run 1 more test before I turn it over to Rob.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 27

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> Ground Attack missions "losing" their targets

Page: [1]