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 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/4/2011 6:53:21 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		Nothing big but could the positioning of the screen in case of a surface combat be changed?
When I have sub combat the screen is on the right edge and the hex with the action is shown on the left side, in a surface action the screen is still on the right edge but the hex with the action seems to be in the middle now and so you can't see where the action takes place because of the big surface combat screen, any chance you could change that?
I also wonder if the centering on a base when clicking thru air units could also be changed, when I go thru TFs, LCUs or industry the screen isn't centering would be nice if that would work for air units too.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 91
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 1:13:11 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		A bug affecting scenario where scenario production for a player is OFF.
When land devices are to be returned for the Japanese player, the device is converted to MP,ARM,etc points and added to the resource pool.
However, if production is OFF, then these resources are not used to build new devices.
This could lead to a leakage of devices especially if the device build rate is low.

Next change will address that by adding directly to the pool if the scenario production is off for the player.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 92
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 1:55:36 AM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Has anyone noticed anything strange with LCU device upgrades or replacements with latest beta?

I have a LCU with a funny list of devices that match their TOE but have about 6 more types of devices which aren't any part of the TOE. Don't even appear anywhere on the unit's TOE path as far as I can tell.

I think the sub-units were mixed up before they recombined to make the parent LCU as I have not really noticed any issues elsewhere.



Something weird like here?
This is the 51st Div. An example of several similar divisions in my PBEM.
AFAIK it has never been formed from groups/subunits & never divided and even though it partially upgraded
(notice the + along the first INF section and none next to the second one below).

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level.


What do you actually mean by "suppressing"? Simply removing the additional lines without "paying up" with the standard equipment will result in great imbalance as those units will loose bulk of their AVs...

SAVE:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by viberpol -- 3/5/2011 1:44:34 PM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 93
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 6:18:34 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Michael,

In a PBM I am running 1106i - the current 'official' patch (not the Beta), and I've run into a problem so I checked the list in the first post in this thread to see if a fix is already in the Beta. I didn't see it, so I thought I should ask if it is new and you need saves.

It's February 1944 and the '44 squads are available for USMC and USA units. Rather than wait several months until enough squads are available to upgrade an entire division at a time I divided the divisions, resulting in the /A/B/C units being created. These smaller units upgraded fine, and as they did so I rebuilt them back to full divisions. The problem is that now all of the divisions are commanded by wimpy LTC instead of good generals. I do not know if the generals just disappeared or if they are in the leader pool.

Is this a known bug? Is it already fixed in the Beta? Do you need saves?

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 94
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 7:39:54 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Michael,

In a PBM I am running 1106i - the current 'official' patch (not the Beta), and I've run into a problem so I checked the list in the first post in this thread to see if a fix is already in the Beta. I didn't see it, so I thought I should ask if it is new and you need saves.

It's February 1944 and the '44 squads are available for USMC and USA units. Rather than wait several months until enough squads are available to upgrade an entire division at a time I divided the divisions, resulting in the /A/B/C units being created. These smaller units upgraded fine, and as they did so I rebuilt them back to full divisions. The problem is that now all of the divisions are commanded by wimpy LTC instead of good generals. I do not know if the generals just disappeared or if they are in the leader pool.

Is this a known bug? Is it already fixed in the Beta? Do you need saves?

Send me a save. I have noticed similar things while testing device upgrade themselves.
Have done some changes to preserve the highest ranked leader to take over the recombined LCU.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 3/5/2011 1:25:35 PM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 95
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 12:33:20 PM   
mikkey


Posts: 3142
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline 		michaelm, if I looking window "Task Force in this hex" and click on the specific TF than in the TF window button "Back", do not return me to the previous window "Task Force in this hex" but works similar as button "Exit" and close all windows. It could be adjusted so that they can be press "Esc" return to the previous window? Thanks michaelm

_____________________________


(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 96
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 1:30:24 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikkey

michaelm, if I looking window "Task Force in this hex" and click on the specific TF than in the TF window button "Back", do not return me to the previous window "Task Force in this hex" but works similar as button "Exit" and close all windows. It could be adjusted so that they can be press "Esc" return to the previous window? Thanks michaelm


Funny. it does work properly if you click on a 'Task Force in hex' icon in the bottom left of screen.
I'll compare the two.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to mikkey)
Post #: 97
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 1:39:03 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Has anyone noticed anything strange with LCU device upgrades or replacements with latest beta?
I have a LCU with a funny list of devices that match their TOE but have about 6 more types of devices which aren't any part of the TOE. Don't even appear anywhere on the unit's TOE path as far as I can tell.
I think the sub-units were mixed up before they recombined to make the parent LCU as I have not really noticed any issues elsewhere.


Something weird like here?
This is the 51st Div. An example of several similar divisions in my PBEM.
AFAIK it has never been formed from groups/subunits & never divided and even though it partially upgraded
(notice the + along the first INF section and none next to the second one below).
Hard to say which is which but Tracker shows the first one is 710 ('43 squad) and second 707 (old one).

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level.


What do you actually mean by "suppressing"?
Simply removing the additional lines without "paying up" with the standard equipment will result in great imbalance as those units will loose bulk of their AVs...
Only if empty? Maybe transfer the extra squads in form of standard equipment (based on TOE) in which case it would reset itself to default after some attrition?

EDIT: Here's the printscreen I was unable to upload last time.
As mentioned, I never (according to Tracker and my memory) split this division nor created from subunits.
It seems that some divisions upgraded only partially.
Some grew in stregth, but some lost the part of it's AV (see the 16th division that magically lost 300 APs couple of turns ago; save attached in the previous post).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by viberpol -- 3/5/2011 2:35:17 PM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 98
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/5/2011 8:08:17 PM   
mikkey


Posts: 3142
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikkey

michaelm, if I looking window "Task Force in this hex" and click on the specific TF than in the TF window button "Back", do not return me to the previous window "Task Force in this hex" but works similar as button "Exit" and close all windows. It could be adjusted so that they can be press "Esc" return to the previous window? Thanks michaelm


Funny. it does work properly if you click on a 'Task Force in hex' icon in the bottom left of screen.
I'll compare the two.

thank you michaelm!

_____________________________


(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 99
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/6/2011 3:16:37 AM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level.


Not sure if this is relevant, but I remember a note from Andy Mac that he added 0 (zero) AV Support to help the AI move air groups around. They were not in the TOE ...



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 100
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/6/2011 4:54:58 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level.


Not sure if this is relevant, but I remember a note from Andy Mac that he added 0 (zero) AV Support to help the AI move air groups around. They were not in the TOE ...



The suppression is only from the point of view of showing on the screen.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 101
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/6/2011 7:13:58 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships?
Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 3/6/2011 7:15:54 AM >

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 102
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/6/2011 9:28:16 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Has anyone noticed anything strange with LCU device upgrades or replacements with latest beta?
I have a LCU with a funny list of devices that match their TOE but have about 6 more types of devices which aren't any part of the TOE. Don't even appear anywhere on the unit's TOE path as far as I can tell.
I think the sub-units were mixed up before they recombined to make the parent LCU as I have not really noticed any issues elsewhere.


Something weird like here?
This is the 51st Div. An example of several similar divisions in my PBEM.
AFAIK it has never been formed from groups/subunits & never divided and even though it partially upgraded
(notice the + along the first INF section and none next to the second one below).
Hard to say which is which but Tracker shows the first one is 710 ('43 squad) and second 707 (old one).

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level.


What do you actually mean by "suppressing"?
Simply removing the additional lines without "paying up" with the standard equipment will result in great imbalance as those units will loose bulk of their AVs...
Only if empty? Maybe transfer the extra squads in form of standard equipment (based on TOE) in which case it would reset itself to default after some attrition?

EDIT: Here's the printscreen I was unable to upload last time.
As mentioned, I never (according to Tracker and my memory) split this division nor created from subunits.
It seems that some divisions upgraded only partially.
Some grew in stregth, but some lost the part of it's AV (see the 16th division that magically lost 300 APs couple of turns ago; save attached in the previous post).




Yes. There are actually two different IJ Squads in that unit. Can't see where the 707 device (with no upgrade specified) came from as the unit starts with 709 (upgrading to 710).

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 103
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/6/2011 1:06:10 PM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level.


Not sure if this is relevant, but I remember a note from Andy Mac that he added 0 (zero) AV Support to help the AI move air groups around. They were not in the TOE ...



The suppression is only from the point of view of showing on the screen.


Ach, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!

Have a good one ...


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 104
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/6/2011 2:38:11 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Your doing a great job of enhancing this system Michael.

Any way to do something about ships gaining some actual base level experience without combat?

Anything has to be better than it is now.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 105
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/6/2011 4:44:36 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships?
Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer.


I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 106
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/7/2011 1:48:56 AM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships?
Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer.


I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW.


I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ...


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 107
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/7/2011 4:26:21 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships?
Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer.


I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW.


I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ...



Thanks, didn't know that.

But what about the enemy ships listed as sunk, their names are correct aren't they?

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 3/7/2011 4:50:33 PM >

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 108
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/7/2011 9:01:34 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Your doing a great job of enhancing this system Michael.

Any way to do something about ships gaining some actual base level experience without combat?

Anything has to be better than it is now.


+1, I have ships on patrol (ASW) and it would be nice if they picked up expierence from drills or something.

_____________________________


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 109
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/7/2011 9:07:04 PM   
CaptDave

 

Posts: 659
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships?
Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer.


I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW.


I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ...



It's actually pretty realistic to know at least the class of a ship, or something close. IRL the sub commanders needed this information to determine the ship's mast height so they could judge distances and speeds correctly (or let the TDC do it).

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 110
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/8/2011 1:42:58 AM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships?
Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer.


I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW.


I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ...



Thanks, didn't know that.

But what about the enemy ships listed as sunk, their names are correct aren't they?

No, FOW defintely prevails there. I get messages all the time about "CA Houston incorrectly declared sunk", particularly when you sink it the second time.

Even then, FOW is in play and it still might not be the Houston, but another in her class.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 111
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/8/2011 4:10:24 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		Nice to hear, but how far goes this FoW?
I just had a lucky incident were a sub hit the Akagi with one torpedo some hexes off the coast of Japan and later it's listed as sunk near Osaka, so on what can I depend:
-A CV sunk
-Only a sunk ship of whatever type
-Or even nothing sunk at all

Sorry for hijacking the thread for my question, maybe the moderator should move this to a new thread.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 112
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/8/2011 4:34:33 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Nice to hear, but how far goes this FoW?
I just had a lucky incident were a sub hit the Akagi with one torpedo some hexes off the coast of Japan and later it's listed as sunk near Osaka, so on what can I depend:
-A CV sunk
-Only a sunk ship of whatever type
-Or even nothing sunk at all

Sorry for hijacking the thread for my question, maybe the moderator should move this to a new thread.


All are possible. A ship may or may not be sunk and it may or may not be a carrier and it may or may not be a specific ship. You can depend on the data as much as a World War II commander could.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 113
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/8/2011 5:12:49 AM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Nice to hear, but how far goes this FoW?
I just had a lucky incident were a sub hit the Akagi with one torpedo some hexes off the coast of Japan and later it's listed as sunk near Osaka, so on what can I depend:
-A CV sunk
-Only a sunk ship of whatever type
-Or even nothing sunk at all

Sorry for hijacking the thread for my question, maybe the moderator should move this to a new thread.

In addition to what Dan said: you can be pretty sure it wasn't the Big E that you hit.

Other than that, take it with a grain of salt. Particularly any mentioning of sinkings ...



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 114
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/8/2011 7:06:25 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		And I was so happy to revenge the loss of the Enterprise.

Well well I just can't stop asking:
Sunken ships have an impact on the score so when I may or may not have sunk something how trustful is score especially regarding the automatic victory calculation?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 115
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/9/2011 11:07:52 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I also wonder if the centering on a base when clicking thru air units could also be changed, when I go thru TFs, LCUs or industry the screen isn't centering would be nice if that would work for air units too.


Which menu are you referring to? Can't seem to see any difference, but most likely haven't chosen your key sequence.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 116
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/9/2011 1:21:09 PM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

And I was so happy to revenge the loss of the Enterprise.

Well well I just can't stop asking:
Sunken ships have an impact on the score so when I may or may not have sunk something how trustful is score especially regarding the automatic victory calculation?

In a current AI test game I have going looking at Allied Ships sunk on the Info screen:

From the IJ side: 152 ships / 2885 VP's
From the Allied side: 230 ships / 3781 VP's

That's loading up the same save, just switching sides. So, the IJ has sunk a lot more ships (smaller ones) than they know about... almost 80 ships and 900 VP's. I can tell you that in the IJ op notes, that each turn one or two more allied ships are reported sunk from previous turns. So, this gap is closing ....

So, what you see on your info screen still has FOW ...

I think the FOW is more pronounced for IJ as their intel power is lower. But this is just my perception ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 117
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/9/2011 8:34:17 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		@PaxMondo
Thanks, really nice to see that FoW runs so deep.

@michaelm
Well simply mark a hex with a base and click thru the things lined up at the bottom, when I click on a TF, LCU or industry the screen isn't centering but when clicking on an air group the screen centers on the hex the unit is in.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 118
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/9/2011 10:08:55 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline 		Any ETA for the official patch? There will be some new beta or this version will become the official patch?
Thanks in advance,
bye.


_____________________________


(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 119
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 3/13/2011 6:43:19 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		Beta updated - there are changes in this to better handle devices on LCUs. This will combine multiples in the list under one entry if below TOE, and/or add the excess back into the pool. Thus making them available to other units during the next turn.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.016