RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May

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 1108m4 updated 16 May

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 1108m4 updated 16 May

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/16/2011 10:20:24 PM

BigDuke66

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

I had an Australian artillery unit(1st Medium Regiment) with a British TOE, it made a TOE upgrade again to a British TOE but now it is also listed as British unit not Australian anymore, I guess it should work that way or?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 691

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/16/2011 10:27:43 PM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Michael,

Is the altitude tweak the solution to the kamikaze bug? Should kamikazes now go in at the altitude the player selects instead of defaulting to 9,000 feet?

If it is I'll go with this change for my current game. Lack of kamis is a killer in the late-war scenarios.

The setting of 9K actually wasn't the cause of the issue. The Kami were still coming in at 6K regardless of what was being stated on the reports.
The CAP was being set to intercept at a incorrect alt, which resulted in being able to intercept easier. This has always been there, but is obvious on the low level intercepts where the random alt setting could moved the CAP from its patrol alt to almost on top of the raid.

Just be aware that this fix of the bug may make low level intercept much harder, unless the CAP is placed lower than maximum altitude. It also could have impact on other air attacks. This is why I have not updated it as a normal beta until some players could try it out.
Once you change to m4, you can't go back from what I can see due to a new entry in the save file. I have yet to try tracker to see if it ignores the new entry as it should.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 692

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/16/2011 10:56:28 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

So, are the planes still forced to come in at 6,000 feet? ( albeit with the CAP positioned a little less perfectly to intercept ). Previously they would come in at 100 feet or 30,000 feet if that's what you chose.

I'll test this in an ongoing game and feed back. I'm trying to split CAP with low only, high only and hi-low mixes of strikes so we'll see how it goes.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/16/2011 11:55:33 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 693

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/17/2011 12:50:08 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Quick testing shows low-level strikes now come in very low, are spotted late and usually leak a little. In testing I found a clear correlation between speed of the low level kami ( 100 feet ) and likelihood of getting through the CAP. The faster it was, the less time to intercept and the more leaked through.

Ohkas worked well also, their high speed and low altitude made them very difficult to intercept. They have a terrible hit rate once they break through but at least most of them do break through.

High level kamis didn't appear to stay at the altitude I set... It appears to have dropped down to a lower altitude as planes with ceilings well below the ceiling of the Ki-43IIIs shot some of them down. Overall though 50% of the raid got through which seems fairly reasonable to me and a big improvement on the last beta AND, crucially, the previous official executable.

So, pending further play/testing my initial assessment this seems to fix the bug and also improves on the behaviour of the previous official executable ( wherein Ki-43 IIIs flying at max altitude were pretty much uninterceptable by planes with lower ceilings ). Obviously I'll have to test more but so far so good.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 694

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/17/2011 1:02:18 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Michael,

Is the altitude tweak the solution to the kamikaze bug? Should kamikazes now go in at the altitude the player selects instead of defaulting to 9,000 feet?

If it is I'll go with this change for my current game. Lack of kamis is a killer in the late-war scenarios.

The setting of 9K actually wasn't the cause of the issue. The Kami were still coming in at 6K regardless of what was being stated on the reports.
The CAP was being set to intercept at a incorrect alt, which resulted in being able to intercept easier. This has always been there, but is obvious on the low level intercepts where the random alt setting could moved the CAP from its patrol alt to almost on top of the raid.

Just be aware that this fix of the bug may make low level intercept much harder, unless the CAP is placed lower than maximum altitude. It also could have impact on other air attacks. This is why I have not updated it as a normal beta until some players could try it out.
Once you change to m4, you can't go back from what I can see due to a new entry in the save file. I have yet to try tracker to see if it ignores the new entry as it should.

So far no problems with Tracker & 1108m4. If there is something specific I should look for just let me know.

Update: I spoke too soon, Tracker gives the error: "Can't Read Save File"

Isn't there a .dll that the AE team gave to the Tracker Guys to read the save file?

< Message edited by witpqs -- 5/17/2011 4:13:15 AM >

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 695

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/17/2011 10:01:40 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I had an Australian artillery unit(1st Medium Regiment) with a British TOE, it made a TOE upgrade again to a British TOE but now it is also listed as British unit not Australian anymore, I guess it should work that way or?

If the TOE has a British nation set, then it will be passed onto the unit as part of the TOE upgrade. IIRC, the type of unit/suffix can also be changed by this if so set.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 696

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/17/2011 10:38:11 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Michael,

Is the altitude tweak the solution to the kamikaze bug? Should kamikazes now go in at the altitude the player selects instead of defaulting to 9,000 feet?

If it is I'll go with this change for my current game. Lack of kamis is a killer in the late-war scenarios.

The setting of 9K actually wasn't the cause of the issue. The Kami were still coming in at 6K regardless of what was being stated on the reports.
The CAP was being set to intercept at a incorrect alt, which resulted in being able to intercept easier. This has always been there, but is obvious on the low level intercepts where the random alt setting could moved the CAP from its patrol alt to almost on top of the raid.

Just be aware that this fix of the bug may make low level intercept much harder, unless the CAP is placed lower than maximum altitude. It also could have impact on other air attacks. This is why I have not updated it as a normal beta until some players could try it out.
Once you change to m4, you can't go back from what I can see due to a new entry in the save file. I have yet to try tracker to see if it ignores the new entry as it should.

So far no problems with Tracker & 1108m4. If there is something specific I should look for just let me know.

Update: I spoke too soon, Tracker gives the error: "Can't Read Save File"

Isn't there a .dll that the AE team gave to the Tracker Guys to read the save file?

Did you copy the new DLL from m4 zip to the tracker install directory? It might still be using the older one.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 697

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/17/2011 5:23:53 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Hi Michael,

Would it be possible to adjust it so that you can halt production of ships even if they aren't yet draining shipyard points (i.e., before they slide down on the cue)? The way it currently is, I have to look through my ship production every turn to see if any can be halted. Of course, any ships that are halted should still slide down until they start consuming production points at which points they should stop sliding.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 698

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/17/2011 9:37:29 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Michael,

Is the altitude tweak the solution to the kamikaze bug? Should kamikazes now go in at the altitude the player selects instead of defaulting to 9,000 feet?

If it is I'll go with this change for my current game. Lack of kamis is a killer in the late-war scenarios.

The setting of 9K actually wasn't the cause of the issue. The Kami were still coming in at 6K regardless of what was being stated on the reports.
The CAP was being set to intercept at a incorrect alt, which resulted in being able to intercept easier. This has always been there, but is obvious on the low level intercepts where the random alt setting could moved the CAP from its patrol alt to almost on top of the raid.

Just be aware that this fix of the bug may make low level intercept much harder, unless the CAP is placed lower than maximum altitude. It also could have impact on other air attacks. This is why I have not updated it as a normal beta until some players could try it out.
Once you change to m4, you can't go back from what I can see due to a new entry in the save file. I have yet to try tracker to see if it ignores the new entry as it should.

So far no problems with Tracker & 1108m4. If there is something specific I should look for just let me know.

Update: I spoke too soon, Tracker gives the error: "Can't Read Save File"

Isn't there a .dll that the AE team gave to the Tracker Guys to read the save file?

Did you copy the new DLL from m4 zip to the tracker install directory? It might still be using the older one.

I did once Damian advised me to, and it works! Thanks.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 699

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/18/2011 2:09:36 PM

michaelm75au

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

When a LCU takes replacements, it can upgrade them in order to match the TOE if the new device exists in the pool.
The old devices are returned to the pool, but the squad type ones aren't being automatically upgraded to the new device as per the normal device upgrade process.

I will be duplicating that normal device upgrade process into the LCU replacement code.

Also, as a result of this, I find it difficult to get the device numbers (used, in pool) to add up properly. The used total doesn't change (+ , - the same number) and it in't obvious that there has been some sort of device movement.

As a result, I will be making a subtle change.
If the device is being added back to the pool from the device auto-upgrade, it will be added to the 'produced this turn' rather than subtracted from 'used'. It just seems to make more sense when looking at the numbers.

[edit]
This is still under review. The numbers bit, not the upgrade.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 5/18/2011 10:14:02 PM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 700

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/19/2011 7:25:59 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

Upgraded to m4 today due to technical issues in my PBEM and now when I try to load the combat replay my opponent sent me it says "PWHEX file differs. continue Y/N". What have I done wrong? Just copied the exe and the other file into the AE folder and said "replace".

Previous version I had was the latest official patch, is there any step I skipped?

thx

edit: could run the replay without problem, have I screwed up something now?

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/19/2011 7:49:32 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 701

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 1:34:09 AM

BigDuke66

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

As I'm still learning the game I have now checked the AGs withdraw/disband topic and I wonder if it's just me that finds that the appropriate names are switched.
From the manual:
***
The assets of units subject to forced withdrawal are returned to the pilot and aircraft pools.
This is not the case for of units subject to forced disbandment, representing out-of-theatre transfers and similar.
***
Disbanding is for me that the unit ceases to exit but planes & pilots are still there, that's why they are merged into similar units at the same location when you disband a unit that is not "forced" or land in the pool.
Withdrawal is for me the movement of a unit to another location(in this case out of theater), pilots & aircrafts land in the replacement pool when withdrawing a unit that is not "forced"(in case of a voluntary .

So shouldn't a forced withdrawal mean that the unit is need somewhere else and of course not empty but full with planes & pilots?
And should a forced disbandment mean that the units ceases to exist(because of restructuring leads to the disbandment, for example the disbandment of Hq squadrons) and so planes & pilots are left behind and can be distributed again?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 702

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 1:39:48 AM

witpqs

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

You might have a point about better terminology but the manual seems to be in concert with the way the buttons work in the game. Changing it now would confuse lots of people.

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 703

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 4:15:27 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Upgraded to m4 today due to technical issues in my PBEM and now when I try to load the combat replay my opponent sent me it says "PWHEX file differs. continue Y/N". What have I done wrong? Just copied the exe and the other file into the AE folder and said "replace". Previous version I had was the latest official patch, is there any step I skipped?

thx

edit: could run the replay without problem, have I screwed up something now?

Upgrading would not have done this.
The message means that the pwhexe file is different between the two players. Suggest you and your component compare pwhexe files - check size and date of files as one of you might have a different version. (IIRC, a couple of mods have changed the pwhexe file and this would have replaced the official one.)

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 704

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 20 May - 5/20/2011 7:28:42 AM

michaelm75au

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

[1108m4]
Tweaked Wrong altitude was being used in some cases. Could impact raid, co-ordination and low level intercepts [MEM]
Fixed Overflowing list caused lockup during air/land combat [MEM]
Fixed Carry over replacement delay on LCU recombining [MEM]
Changed Color of supply dot to yellow [MEM]
Added Option to release or retire low experienced named pilots - in group and reserve lists [MEM}
Fixed Error in movement of fuel and determination of excess resources [MEM]
Tweaked Pilot overflow to clear more pilots. Corrected some discrepancies in pilot numbers [MEM]
Fixed Auto-upgrade of squad devices when LCU taking replacements that cause an upgrade [MEM]
Fixed Fragments were taking settings from parent, rather than group being created from [MEM]

I will probably create an install file tomorrow if nothing else comes up.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by michaelm -- 5/21/2011 4:28:36 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 705

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 7:36:20 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Upgraded to m4 today due to technical issues in my PBEM and now when I try to load the combat replay my opponent sent me it says "PWHEX file differs. continue Y/N". What have I done wrong? Just copied the exe and the other file into the AE folder and said "replace". Previous version I had was the latest official patch, is there any step I skipped?

thx

edit: could run the replay without problem, have I screwed up something now?

Upgrading would not have done this.
The message means that the pwhexe file is different between the two players. Suggest you and your component compare pwhexe files - check size and date of files as one of you might have a different version. (IIRC, a couple of mods have changed the pwhexe file and this would have replaced the official one.)

hmm, other than copying the two files of the patch into the AE folder I did nothing. Going to check with my opponent.

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 706

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 8:00:40 AM

michaelm75au

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

I wished I had planned a way to allow a mod to use its own map and pwhexe files if they were different to the originals.
The use of a different pwhexe file can change the outcome of some things resulting in a different outcome when I try to reproduce some bugs.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 707

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 8:53:55 AM

berto

Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I wished I had planned a way to allow a mod to use its own map and pwhexe files if they were different to the originals.

If you could still figure out a way, that would be fantastic.

_____________________________

Campaign Series Legion https://cslegion.com/
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1515
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles, Civil War Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 708

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 10:40:49 AM

goatan

Posts: 46
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline

can some one point to a link for m4 all ican find is m3 at the start of this thread.

i found it.

< Message edited by goatan -- 5/20/2011 10:47:37 AM >

(in reply to berto)

Post #: 709

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 1:19:34 PM

Rainer79

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline

One thing I've noticed is that after upgrading 4E bombing efficiency has skyrocketed. They can now get several time more hits than comparable attacks under the last official patch. I would really ask to either tone them down to previous levels and/or introduce some sort of balancing mechanism like the "bomber failed to find target due to range/weather" for naval strikes.

A couple of excerpts from the last CR:
Morning Air attack on Hengchun , at 84,67

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 137 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 42 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 145

Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y1 Judy: 1 destroyed on ground

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
65 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Airbase hits 164
Airbase supply hits 30
Runway hits 1960

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hengchun , at 84,67

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y1 Judy: 1 destroyed on ground

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 221

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batan Island , at 85,70

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 119 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 95

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-III Dinah: 2 destroyed on ground

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
45 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 103
Airbase supply hits 53
Runway hits 714

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 9900 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batan Island , at 85,70

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 12

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 175

The attack height of 9900 ft instead of the standard 10k ft also looks a bit strange to me.

< Message edited by Rainer79 -- 5/20/2011 1:20:40 PM >

(in reply to goatan)

Post #: 710

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 2:23:10 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

just what I was going to post too.

Is this some sort of super FOW introduced with the beta or are we really speaking about 5-6 times more hits achieved by bombers than before? These hit rates are absolutely insane compared to what I�ve seen in all the years before. And I can confirm, all my bombers were set to 10000ft. When you needed a full armada of B-29 to knock out an airfield under the latest official patch, with the m4 beta a dozen B-29 is enough as they seem to carry a full load of LGBs now. I�ve never seen 145 bombers achieve 2000+ hits before. Also attached the safe if needed.

cheers

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/20/2011 2:26:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rainer79)

Post #: 711

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 2:53:10 PM

Icedawg

Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: goatan

can some one point to a link for m4 all ican find is m3 at the start of this thread.

i found it.

Where did you find it? I've been looking for it to.

(in reply to goatan)

Post #: 712

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 3:01:39 PM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

just what I was going to post too. Is this some sort of super FOW introduced with the beta or are we really speaking about 5-6 times more hits achieved by bombers than before? These hit rates are absolutely insane compared to what I�ve seen in all the years before. And I can confirm, all my bombers were set to 10000ft. When you needed a full armada of B-29 to knock out an airfield under the latest official patch, with the m4 beta a dozen B-29 is enough as they seem to carry a full load of LGBs now. I�ve never seen 145 bombers achieve 2000+ hits before. Also attached the safe if needed.

cheers

Will review. The altitude being different by same amount does seem too weird.

Number of hits does not mean damage has been inflicted. You could have 1000 hits and still cause no damage.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 5/20/2011 3:50:30 PM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 713

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/20/2011 4:03:41 PM

Akzium

Posts: 4
Joined: 7/30/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

Where did you find it? I've been looking for it to.

post #705 :)

< Message edited by Akzium -- 5/20/2011 4:04:54 PM >

(in reply to Icedawg)

Post #: 714

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/21/2011 3:41:52 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

just what I was going to post too. Is this some sort of super FOW introduced with the beta or are we really speaking about 5-6 times more hits achieved by bombers than before? These hit rates are absolutely insane compared to what I�ve seen in all the years before. And I can confirm, all my bombers were set to 10000ft. When you needed a full armada of B-29 to knock out an airfield under the latest official patch, with the m4 beta a dozen B-29 is enough as they seem to carry a full load of LGBs now. I�ve never seen 145 bombers achieve 2000+ hits before. Also attached the safe if needed.

cheers

Will review. The altitude being different by same amount does seem too weird.

Number of hits does not mean damage has been inflicted. You could have 1000 hits and still cause no damage.

thx michaelm

but wouldn�t that have always been true? Like I�ve said, the bombers seem to achieve numerous times more hits than before, damage or not, I guess with 2000 hits it�s more likely to actually do damage than with 300 hits. Rainer would have to comment if the bombers actually do damage, my recon regularly tells me 100% damage on the targets.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/21/2011 3:42:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 715

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/22/2011 7:19:14 AM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Hi

I've got a problem with the resolution. It seems that the game screen is not 'stretching' to wide screen proportions. Is there something I can do about it?

Thanks

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 716

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/22/2011 8:39:20 AM

Rainer79

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Rainer would have to comment if the bombers actually do damage, my recon regularly tells me 100% damage on the targets.

The fields were totally trashed (100/100). Only Takao fared a bit better at 60/90 IIRC.

BTW I also noticed that on the "manage ship repairs" screen a ship's crew experience rating is listed twice.

< Message edited by Rainer79 -- 5/22/2011 8:40:55 AM >

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 717

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May - 5/22/2011 10:33:35 AM

michaelm75au

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

I couldn't see where it could have been so different in latest beta.
Last change I could see was in first beta (1108a).
However, attack at or above 10K are not having their odds modified like those below to emaulate the spread of the stick.

Will fix that:
Revised combat results for same attacks as above. Results still basically close Hengchun and Batan Is airfields.
Note that this will also impact non-airfield which are attacked at 10K or above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hengchun , at 84,67

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 132 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 41 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 145

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Airbase hits 41
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 261

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hengchun , at 84,67

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 125 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 39 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 16

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 41

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batan Island , at 85,70

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 101 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 95

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-III Dinah: 1 destroyed on ground

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 33
Airbase supply hits 12
Runway hits 216

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batan Island , at 85,70

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 41

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hengchun , at 84,67

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 134 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 42 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 9

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 29

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

< Message edited by michaelm -- 5/22/2011 10:41:21 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Rainer79)

Post #: 718

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m5 updated 22 May - 5/22/2011 11:06:39 AM

michaelm75au

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

[1108m4/5]
Tweaked Wrong altitude was being used in some cases. Could impact raid, co-ordination and low level intercepts [MEM]
Fixed Overflowing list caused lockup during air/land combat [MEM]
Fixed Carry over replacement delay on LCU recombining [MEM]
Changed Color of supply dot to yellow [MEM]
Added Option to release or retire low experienced named pilots - in group and reserve lists [MEM}
Fixed Error in movement of fuel and determination of excess resources [MEM]
Tweaked Pilot overflow to clear more pilots. Corrected some discrepancies in pilot numbers [MEM]
Fixed Auto-upgrade of squad devices when LCU taking replacements that cause an upgrade [MEM]
Fixed Fragments were taking settings from the parent group, rather than group being created from [MEM]
Fixed AA rockets not showing up in some of the class/ship waepon lists [MEM]
Fixed Unable to get plane replacement on smaller groups [MEM]
Fixed Some reported altitudes are 100' off the correct value [MEM]
Tweaked Air attacks at 10K were not being adjusted for misses when checking each bomb dropped.
[A miss after a hit should end the 'stick' or increase the odds of any further bombs in same 'stick' of missing.]

First post has updated installer

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 719

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m5 updated 22 May - 5/22/2011 1:06:18 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

great support as always, thx michaelm

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 720

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108m4 updated 16 May