RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ...

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: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ...

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: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ...

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 [15] 16 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 4:15:38 PM

Mike Solli

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

We will probably release a "hot fix" for patch02 - not sure exactly when of course - but shooting for end of this week. This will be an EXE ONLY patch.

Candidates for inclusion are:

01 - Supply/Resource overflow issues and related drag issues.

Yay! Thanks Joe!

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 421

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 4:45:18 PM

Admiral Scott

Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline

Fantastic!
Thanks guys.

Throw in as many tweaks and fixes possible I say.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 422

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 5:26:14 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

We will probably release a "hot fix" for patch02 - not sure exactly when of course - but shooting for end of this week. This will be an EXE ONLY patch.

Candidates for inclusion are:

01 - Supply/Resource overflow issues and related drag issues.

I have noticed sudden surges in supply. Frisco went from respectable numbers in one day to 999,999 fuel and supply the next day.

02 - Artillery - toning down some more - and increasing supply consumption.

It appears to me that the Chinese just die much easier than other units. That, coupled with their extremely low rate of recovery from disruption quickly leads to super weak units. I have noticed that Patch 2 does seem to limit the damage due to supply constraints in Darwin. Before Patch 2 I could bombard every day with 2000+ causalities inflicted on the Japanese, after Patch 2, it takes up to 6 days for supply to go from red to grey in the bombarding units. The result is casualties are now much lower if bombarding on a daily basis, each unit bombards every 4th or 6th day now in Darwin.

03 - Various display issues - such as the ASW/Cloud crash problem!

I haven't had this problem...yet.

04 - ASW/Submarines - looking at this - will tweak if we can find issues.

I didn't notice a problem before (probably a function of opponents' style of play-both are conservative with subs) and haven't seen enough action since Patch 2 to comment.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 423

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 5:32:52 PM

Takeshi

Posts: 51
Joined: 8/11/2009
From: West TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

We will probably release a "hot fix" for patch02 - not sure exactly when of course - but shooting for end of this week. This will be an EXE ONLY patch.

Candidates for inclusion are:

01 - Supply/Resource overflow issues and related drag issues.

02 - Artillery - toning down some more - and increasing supply consumption.

03 - Various display issues - such as the ASW/Cloud crash problem!

04 - ASW/Submarines - looking at this - will tweak if we can find issues.

Thanks for the quick response to problems. You guys are great!

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 424

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 5:55:03 PM

scott64

Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Would like to see improved supplies in China. After 8 days almost all cities still have no supplies and none is moving other cities.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me

Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Takeshi)

Post #: 425

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 8:27:06 PM

cantona2

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

We will probably release a "hot fix" for patch02 - not sure exactly when of course - but shooting for end of this week. This will be an EXE ONLY patch.

Candidates for inclusion are:

01 - Supply/Resource overflow issues and related drag issues.

02 - Artillery - toning down some more - and increasing supply consumption.

03 - Various display issues - such as the ASW/Cloud crash problem!

04 - ASW/Submarines - looking at this - will tweak if we can find issues.

Joe will this mean a restart for ongoing games?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 426

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 8:53:25 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

No WITP AE update (to date) has required a restart, though some changes (primarily date changes) do not take effect until a new game is started. I don't expect any of the code changes being looked at would only work with a fresh start, they should apply to ongoing games as well.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to cantona2)

Post #: 427

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 9:17:43 PM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

We will probably release a "hot fix" for patch02 - not sure exactly when of course - but shooting for end of this week. This will be an EXE ONLY patch.

Candidates for inclusion are:

01 - Supply/Resource overflow issues and related drag issues.

02 - Artillery - toning down some more - and increasing supply consumption.

03 - Various display issues - such as the ASW/Cloud crash problem!

04 - ASW/Submarines - looking at this - will tweak if we can find issues.

Joe will this mean a restart for ongoing games?

Those "EXE ONLY" words I used above are code for "restart will not buy you anything' - since the restart is just loading up the data again

.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to cantona2)

Post #: 428

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/14/2009 9:41:57 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Pardon me for being a dingbat, Joe, but would this require PBEMers to use Admiral Dadman's methodology for upgrading a PBEM or would each individual just hotfix their own .exe and be done with it?

Thanks,

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 429

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 1:31:41 AM

jwilkerson

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

Not sure what the dadman process is - but I wouldn't change the process - do whatever you normally do - if it has worked before - it will work again.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 430

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 2:45:22 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

We will probably release a "hot fix" for patch02 - not sure exactly when of course - but shooting for end of this week. This will be an EXE ONLY patch.

Candidates for inclusion are:

01 - Supply/Resource overflow issues and related drag issues.

02 - Artillery - toning down some more - and increasing supply consumption.

03 - Various display issues - such as the ASW/Cloud crash problem!

04 - ASW/Submarines - looking at this - will tweak if we can find issues.

Nice. THanks for the great support.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 431

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 8:33:55 AM

JamesM

Posts: 1017
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: QLD, Australia
Status: offline

I do not know if this has been reported but I am encountering a graphics glitch (I would not call it a bug because I am able to work around it) when selecting damaged ships for surface combat task forces. It is easier to refer to the attached image then trying to explain it in words.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jamesm -- 12/15/2009 8:36:51 AM >

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 432

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 9:31:57 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

I have seen that as well a few times, but not always.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to JamesM)

Post #: 433

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 12:55:36 PM

vaned74

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline

Is the effect of forts on arty, air, or naval bombardment being looked at for inclusion in the hotfix? Actually giving the defending troops some protections against bombardment for being in a fortification would make a big difference in the survivability of defending troops.

Also, note that even though we all talk about Japanese bombardments of Chinese troops being overeffective, this works both ways. Try putting 5 US arty units on heavily fortified hex (level 6) like Iwo with 30,000 defending Japanese troops and see what happens after 10 days of bombardment. You'll find the Japanese defense pretty well destroyed. The net result is land combat is way too favorable to the attacker at this time.

Obviously fort effects and supply consumption are coding issues, but, on the effects in land combat and the massive casualties, has anyone thought to simply reduce the anti-soft values by say 25% across the board?

Is anti-soft the governing parameter for bombardment effects or is "effect" the parameter that matters and "anti-soft" only used for fire combat in deliberate or shock attacks?

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 434

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 1:03:45 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I'm seeing the multiple names on top of the list also whenever picking ships for a new TF. I'm not sure but it may be any of the combat TF's (Surface, bombardment, CV, etc) that it shows up on.

(in reply to vaned74)

Post #: 435

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 1:10:38 PM

GB68

Posts: 113
Joined: 8/4/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vaned74

Is the effect of forts on arty, air, or naval bombardment being looked at for inclusion in the hotfix?� Actually giving the defending troops some protections against bombardment for being in a fortification would make a big difference in the survivability of defending troops.

Also, note that even though we all talk about Japanese bombardments of Chinese troops being overeffective, this works both ways.� Try putting 5 US arty units on heavily fortified hex (level 6) like Iwo with 30,000 defending Japanese troops and see what happens after 10 days of bombardment.� You'll find the Japanese defense pretty well destroyed.� The net result is land combat is way too favorable to the attacker at this time.

Obviously fort effects and supply consumption are coding issues, but, on the effects in land combat and the massive casualties, has anyone thought to simply reduce the anti-soft values by say 25% across the board?

Is anti-soft the governing parameter for bombardment effects or is "effect" the parameter that matters and "anti-soft" only used for fire combat in deliberate or shock attacks?

I agree that the artillery effect seems to large.......

But to use the example of Iwo Jima in reality, a tiny islet, battered into the next century by weeks of air and naval bombardment, yet, IRL it still took the US 6 weeks to clear the island.

OK, maybe you could say effective resistance was defeated within 1 or 2 weeks, but it goes to show that battle results cannot always be effectively resolved in a turn resolution!

< Message edited by GB68 -- 12/15/2009 1:11:23 PM >

_____________________________

"Are you going to come quietly, or do I have to use earplugs?"
- Spike Milligan

(in reply to vaned74)

Post #: 436

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 1:22:25 PM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm

I do not know if this has been reported but I am encountering a graphics glitch (I would not call it a bug because I am able to work around it) when selecting damaged ships for surface combat task forces. It is easier to refer to the attached image then trying to explain it in words.

Yes this is one of the display issues that has been addressed for the "hot fix" - I referred to this as one of the "various display issues".

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to JamesM)

Post #: 437

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 1:36:12 PM

Nikel

Posts: 355
Joined: 3/24/2009
Status: offline

jwilkerson, any possibility of including the tutorial in the hotfix?

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 438

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 2:36:37 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Not sure what the dadman process is - but I wouldn't change the process - do whatever you normally do - if it has worked before - it will work again.

@ jwilkerson:

This is the Admiral Dadman process on the forum sticky:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2233574

I'm assuming that we will need to do this for the hotfix? Thanks for your response.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 439

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 3:09:56 PM

cantona2

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

We will probably release a "hot fix" for patch02 - not sure exactly when of course - but shooting for end of this week. This will be an EXE ONLY patch.

Candidates for inclusion are:

01 - Supply/Resource overflow issues and related drag issues.

02 - Artillery - toning down some more - and increasing supply consumption.

03 - Various display issues - such as the ASW/Cloud crash problem!

04 - ASW/Submarines - looking at this - will tweak if we can find issues.

Joe will this mean a restart for ongoing games?

Those "EXE ONLY" words I used above are code for "restart will not buy you anything' - since the restart is just loading up the data again .

Thanks

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 440

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 3:13:13 PM

cantona2

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

I'm also getting the same as posters #436 and #432 above

_____________________________

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

(in reply to cantona2)

Post #: 441

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 3:50:59 PM

goran007

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/3/2009
From: croatia
Status: offline

First of all: I beg you dont make artillery useless.

Artillery does take lives and it effects receiving end as fatigue and disruption.
All that nonsense about my guys in lev 3 fort took artillery bombardment for 20 days and are now destroyed, wtf... just ignore.

If you let you guys being bombarded for week or two and you expect that troops trained and led as bad as Chinese offer resistance to superior numbers of Japan, forget it, that shouldn't happen.

General rule is: if evenly trained and led armies are in combat and attacker has 5:1 artillery; 5:1 in tanks; at least 3:1 in soldiers. Defender will loose 90% of time. Losses should be from 50-80% AV (hard to judge human losses)
Also AE does benefit defenders because easiest way to destroy an army is to envelop it and destroy it with artillery what isen't really modeled in a game.

Another thing is morale of the units, 50% or more for Chinese shouldn't be possible.
People who know that are outgunned, outnumbered, who eat leather belts to survive, who don't belive in country or leaders aren't motivated to fight.

During beta patch i also noticed that medium combat activity in China eats a lot of supplies, a lot more than before. So plz be careful increasing it even more.

(in reply to cantona2)

Post #: 442

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 4:36:03 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

Any chance we can get a fuel request option like there is for supplies ? As japan I'm growing tired of sending AKs to pick up 1k, 2k or even 3k fuel from bases that have never and never will see a combat unit in them ever. And the worse part is within a week or two of picking up the fuel it will be moved back.

Xargun

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 443

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 5:48:51 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

I hope the issue of unable to create midget subs at some locations is included in the hot fix.

see
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2314823

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 444

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 6:02:01 PM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

Don't put any ships at the base which drives up fuel req and if there is a need then fuel is sent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Any chance we can get a fuel request option like there is for supplies ? As japan I'm growing tired of sending AKs to pick up 1k, 2k or even 3k fuel from bases that have never and never will see a combat unit in them ever. And the worse part is within a week or two of picking up the fuel it will be moved back.

Xargun

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi�AeAi �AeAi�Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 445

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 6:15:57 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Don't put any ships at the base which drives up fuel req and if there is a need then fuel is sent.

Usually the only ship the visits this base is the AK that is loading up the fuel there. But there are tons of bases that have never had any ships visit that have fuel.

Xargun

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 446

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 9:06:43 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Don't put any ships at the base which drives up fuel req and if there is a need then fuel is sent.

Usually the only ship the visits this base is the AK that is loading up the fuel there. But there are tons of bases that have never had any ships visit that have fuel.

Xargun

You might want to make sure that TF is set to "Do not refuel". Could that be the cause?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 447

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/15/2009 11:22:40 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Hopefully the hotfix will tone down the subs. My opponent put a couple of torpedoes in the Enterprise and then methodically stripped away her escort on the trip home. Once she was alone in the ocean, she took a couple more torpedoes. Bubble, bubble. One CVTF wiped out, no damage to the subs. Yes, I would expect that from modern SSNs, but not from WWII Japanese RO-boats.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 448

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/16/2009 12:28:16 AM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

I'll second that, haven't had much problems with them myself, but I can't blame my opponent for complaining a couple of times, escorts always seem to be the first to go when my subs come in. Hope it gets fixed before he gets a chance to turn the tables :)

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 449

RE: Patch 01 ... Patch 02 ... Patch 03 ... - 12/16/2009 12:32:35 AM

Don Bowen