Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keldun

I' m having a weird bug, sometimes when I select an air group, the game sends me to a completely different group.
This can be a bit messy when forget to double check the name of the unit with all its available command and I try to send some medium bomber to do some low ground attack but end up sending some ki-27b fighters to do it instead
Here is a small video that I recorded of the bug, I' m using patch 1108p9 and the scenario is the number 1 without any mods other than the map showing garrison requirement.
In that video, I first select the 47th I.F.Chutai without problem but after that when I try to select the 51st I.F.Chutai Det, the game sends me to the 12th Tpt.Chutai instead.

quote:


That's a known issue (at least I know it). Normally clicking the left arrow for previous air group calls up the selected one.
Simply take your time after selecting the airgroup und check, if it is the correct one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

[1108p9]
Added Restriction filter to army lists - filter by [S], [R], (R) or None [MEM]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theages



"By the way, I think your dedication would qualify for the Companion of the Order of Australia award."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keldun
Could you give me a link to the post showing other know issue please so I dont report other known issue
Thank you

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Here we go.

TF 517 is a Tanker TF unloading fuel at Suva, I looked thru some other TFs and it doesn't seem to be tied to specific TF type or what the TF is unloading, simply if the TF is unloading something the popup will show "docked at base" instead of "unloading".
This is under p9, I haven't tried the latest beta yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theages

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keldun
Could you give me a link to the post showing other know issue please so I dont report other known issue
Thank you

To my knowledge there is no (un)official known issues list.
As you can see in the changes list (1st post), there were many issues resolved and features added. It is still a work in progress. Every now and then additional issues or requests arise.
Only michaelm would / could know "all" the unresolved known issues (assuming they are on his to-do-list)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Note I have slightly changed the Restriction filter.
The [S] and [R] stay as they are, but (R) will now include the unit (a) if it is (R) OR (b) if the HQ it is attached to is restricted - an implied (R) to the unit.
This then allows for an Unrestricted option in the filter to cover any units that are not inflicted with any restrictions to their HQ or unsage.

[p9c]
Tweaked TF list popup shows more detailed info for 'load' controls when in a base [MEM]
Tweaked The Restriction filter for (R) will include units attached to Restricted HQs [MEM]

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I was looking at the individual icon type popups. Didn't think you were referring to the lists.
I have had several attempts at getting that popup right.

[edit]
okay. I have tweaked this messages further for next time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

Can the ship arrival list be changed?

All the arrivals scheduled when the Russians are activated are shown with a deferral date from current date. Change the display of those units to starting with the scheduled 1945 activation date rather than a 1 day etc deferral from current date, at least until the Russians are activated?

If there is just a flag that gets changed upon activation, perhaps the 1945 date can be used as default.

The unit arrival list would be much easier to peruse.

Just a thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I was looking at the individual icon type popups. Didn't think you were referring to the lists.
I have had several attempts at getting that popup right.

[edit]
okay. I have tweaked this messages further for next time.

Hey thanks!


One question I have is, are the messages of the different phases during turn processing in anyway needed?
If not I would recommend to remove them as it would considerably speed up the processing of the turn if those messages don't even appear, some phases are so fast done that the message of the phase is longer on screen than the phases itself took to be calculated, sure you can turn off message delay but then all messages are skipped what is not helpful at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

Michael, in some old patch the following rule has been introduced:

The new rule says: "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

I have posted to an old thread but kindly ask for your comments here too.
This turn (p8) I've got an assault triggered by a division sent to aid the defense E of Sibolga.
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force Assault Value = 652
Defending force Assault Value = 1752
Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 3490
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

True, there may be not enough troops to met the 1/3 AV rule (although the 652 vs 1752 AV seems ok).
I'm perfectly ok with shock attacks when crossing the river without enough AV.
But maybe, just maybe, a shock attack should not be triggered regardless of who own the hex?

I owned the hex. I own it for months! Not from the previous turn.
Why the crossing trigger shock attack if the hex is mine?

Based on (my) ;) simple logic, IMHO its seems a bit weird that the forces crossing into friendly hex well secured for months suffer such terrible losses. I think that if I own the hex, I've got total control of the place and the crossing is secured.

Creating bridgeheads and getting into an enemy occupied hex is one thing, normal troops movement in secured hex is something different. Should it trigger the shock attack if my troops are simply moving on a bridge to fill the long owned trench line somewhere 40 miles away?
Some losses from long range enemy bombardment attack ok, but a shock attack and annihilation of a whole division?

If in your view hex control doesn't matter during river crossing, maybe there should be some check of who owns more hexsides of the contested hex? (in metaphore -- who has more land secured, check if the forces there are not encircled etc.; like 0 - 2 shock attack, 3 bombardment attack, 4 - 6 no punishing attack at all)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

Michael, in some old patch the following rule has been introduced:

The new rule says: "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

I have posted to an old thread but kindly ask for your comments here too.
This turn (p8) I've got an assault triggered by a division sent to aid the defense E of Sibolga.
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force Assault Value = 652
Defending force Assault Value = 1752
Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 3490
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

True, there may be not enough troops to met the 1/3 AV rule (although the 652 vs 1752 AV seems ok).
I'm perfectly ok with shock attacks when crossing the river without enough AV.
But maybe, just maybe, a shock attack should not be triggered regardless of who own the hex?

I owned the hex. I own it for months! Not from the previous turn.
Why the crossing trigger shock attack if the hex is mine?

Based on (my) ;) simple logic, IMHO its seems a bit weird that the forces crossing into friendly hex well secured for months suffer such terrible losses. I think that if I own the hex, I've got total control of the place and the crossing is secured.

Creating bridgeheads and getting into an enemy occupied hex is one thing, normal troops movement in secured hex is something different. Should it trigger the shock attack if my troops are simply moving on a bridge to fill the long owned trench line somewhere 40 miles away?
Some losses from long range enemy bombardment attack ok, but a shock attack and annihilation of a whole division?

If in your view hex control doesn't matter during river crossing, maybe there should be some check of who owns more hexsides of the contested hex? (in metaphore -- who has more land secured, check if the forces there are not encircled etc.; like 0 - 2 shock attack, 3 bombardment attack, 4 - 6 no punishing attack at all)?

First thing of top of my head is that there is no concept of 'how long have I owned the hex'.
River crossings have been a bone of contention since the early days of WITP from memory.
And as far as this is concerned, I can look at a save of this combat to see if there is a bug, but I can't rearrange the core ground combat system.
Sorry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

michaelm,

I've given two lengthy replies on the main forum regarding this matter and I have seen no evidence of a bug.

However, there might now be a graphical glitch. In days of old, when both sides had LCUs in the same hex, the hex was contested and both the white "A" and white "B" would be displayed when the show hex control was switched on. It appears that since you introduced the supply chain notification (ie it shows the numbers in an AI game but in PBEM only a dot to show which hexes a supply flows through) that both letters no longer are displayed for a contested hex. Now only one letter appears to be displayed.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Now Alfred has to come up with the screenshot I had asked for
I could as well dig into the old versions (which I all archived).
Is it possible to load a 1108p9c save with an outdated version?
EDIT: No, it shows "Saved game fails to load" (1106i).

PS: Michael, please do not perceive this as questioning your competence.

quote:

Apology extended to you too Rainer, see post #446.

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

Michael, in some old patch the following rule has been introduced:

The new rule says: "50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

I have posted to an old thread but kindly ask for your comments here too.
This turn (p8) I've got an assault triggered by a division sent to aid the defense E of Sibolga.
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force Assault Value = 652
Defending force Assault Value = 1752
Japanese adjusted assault: 0
Allied adjusted defense: 3490
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

True, there may be not enough troops to met the 1/3 AV rule (although the 652 vs 1752 AV seems ok).
I'm perfectly ok with shock attacks when crossing the river without enough AV.
But maybe, just maybe, a shock attack should not be triggered regardless of who own the hex?

I owned the hex. I own it for months! Not from the previous turn.
Why the crossing trigger shock attack if the hex is mine?

Based on (my) ;) simple logic, IMHO its seems a bit weird that the forces crossing into friendly hex well secured for months suffer such terrible losses. I think that if I own the hex, I've got total control of the place and the crossing is secured.

Creating bridgeheads and getting into an enemy occupied hex is one thing, normal troops movement in secured hex is something different. Should it trigger the shock attack if my troops are simply moving on a bridge to fill the long owned trench line somewhere 40 miles away?
Some losses from long range enemy bombardment attack ok, but a shock attack and annihilation of a whole division?

If in your view hex control doesn't matter during river crossing, maybe there should be some check of who owns more hexsides of the contested hex? (in metaphore -- who has more land secured, check if the forces there are not encircled etc.; like 0 - 2 shock attack, 3 bombardment attack, 4 - 6 no punishing attack at all)?