Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 7:49:23 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
LY

Not much given away, pretty much what you've written in your emails! Ive not encountered as many problems as you and the two times I've tried to use merge, then follow it seems to have worked fine. Knowing how meticulous you are in the composition of your TF's it precludes any issues such as different ship speeds within TF and son on. Hope it doesn't mean then end of our Watchtower game.


_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 721
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 7:50:36 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Following on from my post #706, I am still having considerable problems with task forces that disregard the orders I have given them. I have already posted two relevant saves in a Tech Support thread, in which I gave the following details of one set of problems I had encountered:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Final problem. There are various TF's with 'follow' orders, with the lead ASW TF 51 being followed by other TF's, each with an order to trail TF 51 by 1 hex, but with no stand-off at destination. In turn these following TF's are followed by other TF's but with NO separation. Thus, for example, TF 52 is to trail TF 51 by 1 hex, and in turn TF 12 is to trail TF 52 by 0 Hex - hope that's clear! Problem is that save 010 shows all these TF's in the same hex (short of their destination); i.e. the orders issued have failed to make TF 51 perform its role as a vanguard anti-submarine sweep.


Another turn has now passed, before which I had modified these TFs' orders so that TF 51 should still remain out in front by one hex, and all the other TF's should stand off TF 51 by one hex when it reached its destination hex. Following the combat resolution phase of the turn in which these amended orders were entered, the position is now as follows:

(1) TF 51 is one hex short of its destination hex.
(2) One TF that was ordered to trail TF 51 by one hex is occupying the same hex as TF 51
(3) Three TFs that were ordered to trail TF 51 by one hex are trailing it by 2 hexes
(4) Three more TFs that were ordered to trail the TFs mentioned in (3) by zero hexes are trailing them by three hexes. As a result of the orders issued these last three TFs should have ended up one hex behind TF 51, along with the TFs mentioned in (3); in fact they have ended up five hexes behind.


This outcome bears no resemblance to what should have happened, and has resulted in my major fleet units being spread out over a distance of 200 miles rather than 40. I could have no complaint if my ships had been dispersed by enemy action, but nothing like that has occurred, and my careful attempts to advance the fleet in mutually supporting task groups have been completely nullified by this failure to follow the orders I gave.

This isn't the only problem I am having with disobedient TFs. In this same turn I had a FT TF ordered to meet, then follow, an ASW TF ordered to sortie from its base then return. Instead, the FT transport simply went straight to the ASW TF's home base, leaving the ASW TF stranded at the point at which I had expected the meeting to take place and from which I expected it to return. It did not return ahead of the FT TF as ordered.

Another ASW TF was ordered out to meet an incoming convoy which it was then ordered to follow. It appears to have gone out to the meeting point, since it is now showing expenditure of op points, no doubt from refuelling. Trouble is, it didn't stay with the TF it was ordered to meet, but just went out and came straight back to base.

I'm sorry to have to say that I have lost all confidence in the game's ability to make task forces follow what appeared to me to be reasonably straightforward and sensible orders of the kind for which I assume the 'meet' and 'follow' mechanisms were devised. I can accept that some departure from given orders could take place, reflecting the effects of the elements and enemy action. However, when there is such a total failure of TFs to follow the movement orders I have given, there really isn't much point in my attempting to make effective plans for the use of my units. Instead, I might as well order a headlong charge at the enemy on the basis that the outcome is going to be determined entirely by chance and in no way influenced by anything I've done to enhance my prospects of victory.

I suppose I could follow Chad Harrison's suggestion and move the individual TFs manually to explicit destination hexes, but I can't say that I'm any more confident about how far task forces are going to move per turn. Rather than have a whole lot of new features for task force movement that cannot be relied upon to work, I would much rather have a few simple features that do work and that I can rely upon. Otherwise playing the game is just a waste of my time.

There. I've probably given much useful intelligence to my PBEM opponent in this post, but I'm past caring. Sorry, but I have well and truly exceeded my exasperation quotient for the day.



I had no idea orders such as these could even be attempted to be implemented

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 722
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 8:11:47 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
I'm sorry you are having these difficulties.

Several issues have been found and corrected in this area - with significant help from the saves you have posted. I do not know if every item is fully corrected, but I do believe that all of the specific items from the saves have been addressed.

A majority of the issues were caused by two things:

1. A Bleed over from AI processing. The AI has several special TF movement features that "help" it with complex instructions. There is a different and richer set of options available to the human player. Late in the development cycle, some of the "human" functions were enabled for the AI. This "tightened" the coupling between AI and human TF processing and allowed the bleedovers. Unfortunately they are each rather specific and no all encompassing solution has been found. We just keep sticking Dutch Boy’s Fingers into it. Hopefully it is nearly solved, although more complex series of instructions to a TF may still find a gap in the process. Note that you can always correct such a problem by simply reassigning a TF to a destination (even if it is the same as the current destination). This will reset the controls that are confusing things.

2. A series of design alterations in Meet TF processing. The original Meet (and Follow) used to have a path convergence process that attempted to find a meeting point x moves ahead. If necessary, one or the other TFs would stop to allow the other to catch up. Both of these functions were unpopular during Beta testing, especially the stop and wait. We also found that players made somewhat more excessive demands on Meet that we had expected. TFs from distant locations and disparate speeds, for instance. Also a tendency to use Follow and Meet interchangeably - the original design of follow was for TFs behind the followed TF with Meet being for TFs ahead of the met TF.

Follow was adjusted to resort to direct closing and a speed adjustment that did not include full stop. To compensate, the following TF could “automatically” increase to full speed for one or more turns to attempt to catch up.

Meet was also adjusted but with an eye of movement efficiency. The offending part of this adjustment was the selection of meeting point when the “meeting” TF was closer to the destination of the “met” TF that the “met” TF was. In effect, both TFs would move to the destination and meet there. This was removed in Patch 1 and replaced with a somewhat complex calculation of a meeting point – one that fell back to the Follow process if necessary. Since Patch 1 we have found a couple of “typo” level issues with this process as well as a “damn, how did I ever make that mistake” level one.


< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 10/1/2009 8:14:52 PM >

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 723
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 8:15:42 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

LY

Not much given away, pretty much what you've written in your emails! Ive not encountered as many problems as you and the two times I've tried to use merge, then follow it seems to have worked fine. Knowing how meticulous you are in the composition of your TF's it precludes any issues such as different ship speeds within TF and son on. Hope it doesn't mean then end of our Watchtower game.



Merge I haven't found a need to use, but 'follow' I regard as highly important. I want my ASW screen to find your sub before it finds my SAG

I'm trying work around this as best I can. As I write this, I'm concocting a fresh set of TF orders, but just now the supper bell tolled, so there will be a delay before I can send the next turn.

It tolls for thee.

_____________________________




(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 724
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 8:18:44 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
of that i'm sure! but it may toll back

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 725
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 8:19:49 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I'm sorry you are having these difficulties.

Several issues have been found and corrected in this area - with significant help from the saves you have posted. I do not know if every item is fully corrected, but I do believe that all of the specific items from the saves have been addressed.

A majority of the issues were caused by two things:

1. A Bleed over from AI processing. The AI has several special TF movement features that "help" it with complex instructions. There is a different and richer set of options available to the human player. Late in the development cycle, some of the "human" functions were enabled for the AI. This "tightened" the coupling between AI and human TF processing and allowed the bleedovers. Unfortunately they are each rather specific and no all encompassing solution has been found. We just keep sticking Dutch Boy’s Fingers into it. Hopefully it is nearly solved, although more complex series of instructions to a TF may still find a gap in the process. Note that you can always correct such a problem by simply reassigning a TF to a destination (even if it is the same as the current destination). This will reset the controls that are confusing things.

2. A series of design alterations in Meet TF processing. The original Meet (and Follow) used to have a path convergence process that attempted to find a meeting point x moves ahead. If necessary, one or the other TFs would stop to allow the other to catch up. Both of these functions were unpopular during Beta testing, especially the stop and wait. We also found that players made somewhat more excessive demands on Meet that we had expected. TFs from distant locations and disparate speeds, for instance. Also a tendency to use Follow and Meet interchangeably - the original design of follow was for TFs behind the followed TF with Meet being for TFs ahead of the met TF.

Follow was adjusted to resort to direct closing and a speed adjustment that did not include full stop. To compensate, the following TF could “automatically” increase to full speed for one or more turns to attempt to catch up.

Meet was also adjusted but with an eye of movement efficiency. The offending part of this adjustment was the selection of meeting point when the “meeting” TF was closer to the destination of the “met” TF that the “met” TF was. In effect, both TFs would move to the destination and meet there. This was removed in Patch 1 and replaced with a somewhat complex calculation of a meeting point – one that fell back to the Follow process if necessary. Since Patch 1 we have found a couple of “typo” level issues with this process as well as a “damn, how did I ever make that mistake” level one.



So can we be correct in assuming these issues will be dealt with in Patch 2?

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 726
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 8:32:45 PM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

So can we be correct in assuming these issues will be dealt with in Patch 2?


Why yes, of course.

(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 727
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 8:55:41 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline


_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 728
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 9:04:53 PM   
Don Bowen


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

Three truths.

1. All Generalities are lies.
2. Programming causes bugs.
3. Fixing bugs is programming (see #2).

(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 729
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 9:49:05 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Three truths.

1. All Generalities are lies.
2. Programming causes bugs.
3. Fixing bugs is programming (see #2).

The most pithy description of the issue I've ever seen.

Attempting to model real life requires:
An infinite set of inputs;
An infinite set of variables; and
An infinite set of outputs.

Resulting in:
An infinite probability of error.

So, one must generalize, but all generalizations are lies, so one must use analogs. Ain't life fun?

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 730
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 10:00:18 PM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Three truths.

1. All Generalities are lies.
2. Programming causes bugs.
3. Fixing bugs is programming (see #2).

The most pithy description of the issue I've ever seen.

Attempting to model real life requires:
An infinite set of inputs;
An infinite set of variables; and
An infinite set of outputs.

Resulting in:
An infinite probability of error.

So, one must generalize, but all generalizations are lies, so one must use analogs. Ain't life fun?


Of all the posts I have ever read - this is the most recent.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 731
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 10:15:23 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Of all the posts I have ever read - this is the most recent.

Yeah, been trying to teach the dog to piss in bowl; every time she hops up, the phone rings!

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 732
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 11:08:32 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

LMAO!

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 733
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 1:26:18 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
Don, thank you for your comprehensive response in post #723.

FWIW, both the failed meets to which I referred involved head-on intercepts, but I could have been guilty of pre-empting the meet code by predicting where one meet would occur and ordering the TF that was to be met to go to that point then return.

I had a good chuckle at "We also found that players made somewhat more excessive demands on Meet that we had expected." You mean you weren't aware that the end-user will always find an ingenious way to turn your code into a train wreck?!

I also got a laugh out of “damn, how did I ever make that mistake”. I've spent enough time staring in dropped jaw disbelief at my own code to know that my capacity for such elementary error knows no limit.

When the dust settles on patch #2 or whatever, all I ask is to be confident the game will do what I am told it will do, so it's my opponent I can be fighting and not the game itself. Simple but reliable works much better for me than "really, really clever, but it may never happen."

_____________________________




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 734
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 1:43:43 AM   
Don Bowen


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

I absolutely guaranty that, except for any mistake, everything will be perflecdt.

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 735
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 3:17:52 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

perflecdt


Ok, if I knew what that meant would I  be happy or concerned?


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 736
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 3:23:34 AM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

perflecdt


Ok, if I knew what that meant would I  be happy or concerned?



Yes

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 737
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 10:57:07 AM   
Adronson

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: Knoxville town
Status: offline
The title of this thread mentions "OOB Issues," but I'm not sure if this is the place to mention this. It definitely involves OOB but likely doesn't rise to the level of "Issue."

There seem to be a lot of missing type II LST's in the ship availability list. Is there some reason they were left out?

I know they are just numbers to some folks and it's not a big deal in the game which numbers are in and which are out, but some of the ones gone saw a lot of action later in the war. My Dad's ship is among them, LST-681, which was in the Philippine invasions and Okinawa and had either two of three battle stars, depending on the source.

Edit: Another non-issue in the Typo division is that some of the LST's have a dash between the letter and the number "LST-674" and some don't "LST 538" with the result that the list of LST's doesn't alphabetize properly.

< Message edited by Adronson -- 10/2/2009 11:32:03 AM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 738
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 8:15:55 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adronson
The title of this thread mentions "OOB Issues," but I'm not sure if this is the place to mention this. It definitely involves OOB but likely doesn't rise to the level of "Issue."
There seem to be a lot of missing type II LST's in the ship availability list. Is there some reason they were left out?
I know they are just numbers to some folks and it's not a big deal in the game which numbers are in and which are out, but some of the ones gone saw a lot of action later in the war. My Dad's ship is among them, LST-681, which was in the Philippine invasions and Okinawa and had either two of three battle stars, depending on the source.

There are literally hundreds of LST/LCIs built on the west coast that may, or may not, have served in-theater, not to mention hundreds of others that may, or may not, have transited the ditch. And when you add the hundreds of Liberties, you end up with over a thousand vessels.

Now, who did, and who didn’t, serve in Pac for a sufficient period of time to be included in the OOB? And how does one know? There are hints and indications, but they are valid for maybe 8-10% of the possibilities; and there has never, ever, been a listing of class-type service by theater.

Could be done, perhaps, but would take some years, a great deal of effort, and have no real value even in situations like this. For example, if the Liberty ship SS Ben Dover was historically in the Alaska Theater in September 1943, what would happen to “reality” if a player put her into a convoy to Sydney in August? Woof!! So, yes, the very large ship classes are representational, and not specific. Sorry about your Dad’s boat – lemme see if I can sneak it in.
quote:

Edit: Another non-issue in the Typo division is that some of the LST's have a dash between the letter and the number "LST-674" and some don't "LST 538" with the result that the list of LST's doesn't alphabetize properly.

Not a typo, but a differentiation. An LST (-) is US, an LST (sp) is British.

_____________________________


(in reply to Adronson)
Post #: 739
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 9:17:34 PM   
Adronson

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: Knoxville town
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Sorry about your Dad’s boat – lemme see if I can sneak it in.


Thanks for the personal service. I've been playing since the original SSI version came out and have always been amazed at the level of detail. It gets better with every redesign.

Sorry, I should have picked up on the difference between US and UK designations.

Regarding LST's, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships have recently updated and expanded their listing of LST's. It is now fairly complete and usually includes details of service. Transfers to the UK, theater of operations, assaults and landings, and number of battle stars are all there now. I'm not sure when they updated it, but I don't recall that level of detail last time I checked it.

Not that I am advocating a redo of the LST OOB. There are hundreds of them.

DANFS - L listings

< Message edited by Adronson -- 10/2/2009 9:33:11 PM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 740
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/2/2009 9:49:47 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adronson
Regarding LST's, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships have recently updated and expanded their listing of LST's. It is now fairly complete and usually includes details of service. Transfers to the UK, theater of operations, assaults and landings, and number of battle stars are all there now. I'm not sure when they updated it, but I don't recall that level of detail last time I checked it.

Yes. We know that site, too. But there are hundreds of LSTs, and hundreds of other ships in other classes, and I would rather go boat racing on a weekend than lookup the history of LCI-666.

If you are volunteering to spec these out, I would be highly appreciative. You are a better man than I, gunga Adronson.

_____________________________


(in reply to Adronson)
Post #: 741
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/3/2009 5:00:59 PM   
Adronson

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: Knoxville town
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
If you are volunteering to spec these out, I would be highly appreciative.


I'll see what I can do.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 742
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/3/2009 7:35:09 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
I just wanted to check in here as to how the whole: Minimal, Tactical, Full refuel options *should* be working. I can not get them to work on my end and the manual is kind of mum about how exactly they should work ingame.

My understanding is that a TF set to either minimal or tactical refuel options would only draw enough fuel needed for its current assignment plus a little extra depending on whether it was minimal or tactical. So for instance, I have a cargo TF go from San Diego to Sydney. Once it gets to Sydney, it does not have enough fuel for the home run - but I dont want it to fully refuel because it only needs a little extra to make it home to San Diego. So I set it to *minimal* refuel, and hit *refuel TF from port*. All the ships fully top off. Even when I try it if the TF starts at SD, has a destination of Sydney but a home of SD and is set to *minimal* refuel, it will either not automatically refuel at all in Sydney so it has enough bunker for the leg home.

So anyways, how should it work? Do you have to let it do it on its own, or should it still work if you manually order a TF to refuel?

Again, this is most likely operator error. But I just want to make sure that it is working as designed and I am just missing something (which is . . . ? )

Thanks in advance!

Chad

(in reply to Adronson)
Post #: 743
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/3/2009 7:51:10 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
I just wanted to check in here as to how the whole: Minimal, Tactical, Full refuel options *should* be working. I can not get them to work on my end and the manual is kind of mum about how exactly they should work ingame.

My understanding is that a TF set to either minimal or tactical refuel options would only draw enough fuel needed for its current assignment plus a little extra depending on whether it was minimal or tactical. So for instance, I have a cargo TF go from San Diego to Sydney. Once it gets to Sydney, it does not have enough fuel for the home run - but I dont want it to fully refuel because it only needs a little extra to make it home to San Diego. So I set it to *minimal* refuel, and hit *refuel TF from port*. All the ships fully top off. Even when I try it if the TF starts at SD, has a destination of Sydney but a home of SD and is set to *minimal* refuel, it will either not automatically refuel at all in Sydney so it has enough bunker for the leg home.

So anyways, how should it work? Do you have to let it do it on its own, or should it still work if you manually order a TF to refuel?

Again, this is most likely operator error. But I just want to make sure that it is working as designed and I am just missing something (which is . . . ? )

Thanks in advance!

Chad

I'm just a Bozo on this bus too, Chad, so take my comments with a large grain of salt. Don't know and am probably too stupid to have it right, but I "think" the refuel options work for "at sea" refuel. You hit port and gas up, you will gas up. But then, I'm probably wrong, as usual.

If this is important to you, maybe post it on the Nav Issues thread. Maybe a coder will see it and respond. Good luck.

< Message edited by JWE -- 10/3/2009 8:11:11 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 744
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/3/2009 8:41:27 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
John

As always, thanks for the prompt reply. I will make a thread outside of this and see if that gets a coder's attention.

By the way, everything looks great. Playing both against the AI and PBEM, and everything is superb.

Keep up the great work!

Chad

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 745
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/4/2009 4:34:54 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but seems that unlike in WitP, in AE Amphibious Command Ship (AGC) cannot fully load Amphibious Force HQ. See:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2257368&mpage=1&key=�

This shouldn't be too hard to fix, after all, it did work in WitP. (Just don't hate me for saying it's easy).




< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 10/4/2009 4:36:08 PM >


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 746
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/4/2009 6:21:19 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but seems that unlike in WitP, in AE Amphibious Command Ship (AGC) cannot fully load Amphibious Force HQ.

This shouldn't be too hard to fix, after all, it did work in WitP. (Just don't hate me for saying it's easy).

I see where people suggest using 2 or more AGCs to solve this. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that approach. The idea behind the AGC is to host a HQ unit that provides command and control (combat modifiers) to invasion units. The operational part of a Corps HQ ain’t really all that big.

In the game, an HQ LCU provides lots of other functions and is fairly large in terms of device/squad content, most of which have little bearing on the C&C functions. So why not split it up? And why shouldn’t any HQ fragment eventually rebuild? Even if Howlin Mad got whacked, it wouldn’t make his Corps HQ disappear – somebody would step up, maybe Navy TF and/or MC divisional staff would wear two hats for a while, but them slots gonna be filled.

Unless there is something else going on, I see no issue with landing a fragment, getting the parent whacked, and then promoting the fragment to parent. So, in my poor, stupid sense of things, I would probably resist increasing the “capacity” of an AGC, or reducing the “load cost” of an HQ LCU, so long as there is the option to load the HQ on multiple AGCs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 747
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/6/2009 3:52:42 PM   
El Savior

 

Posts: 337
Joined: 7/31/2003
From: Finland
Status: offline
I want to raise coastal gun and Japanese AI script issue.

In Grand Campaign Japanese are making naval bombardment raids against Pearl Harbor about once a month. The real issue here is that coastal guns are almost ineffective against attacking Japanese ships. In my last game Japanese attacked only with heavy cruisers and sunk CV Yorktown under repair and about 30 additional ships. Only handful of shots was shot against Japanese ships. Ouahu's coastal guns didn't do anything to counter them... The same problem lies with other fortress bases like Singapore.

Please make coastal guns much more deadly. Now defending coastal guns are a joke. Second, if coastal guns cannot be fixed, please fix Japanese AI that it will not make raids against PH so frequently.

_____________________________

El Savior

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 748
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/6/2009 4:10:10 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I'd like to see combat reports of that, because frankly, in my experience, any bombardment group that visits Singapore gets mauled. And I've never even heard of anyone stupid enough to try bombarding Pearl.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to El Savior)
Post #: 749
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/6/2009 7:30:25 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
On the other hand I had several xAKs (tonnage 5900+) in amphibious invasions at aleutians scenario sunk after 1 (ONE) hit from 12cm CD gun ... One would say that hole foot by foot big couldnt sink a ship that big... 

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 750
Page:   <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
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

1.047