New Beta fix #338

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

New Beta fix #338

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 >> New Beta fix #338

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

New Beta fix #338 - 1/7/2012 5:36:07 PM

millersan

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/7/2012
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Hi All, this is my first post.

First let me say this is a great game, but....
to any that are not aware..........if you're playing this game without the new Beta, the US Navy has 1944 RADAR & fighter control capability in 1/42! I found this out the hard way (see post "this is just wack...on 1-3-12) as a Jap player who was smashed in test after test in an even up CV fight. Wildcats & Buffs tearing up every incoming Jap raid and US SBD's hitting at 35% and vals at 3.7%. We ran tests with planes at dif altitudes and Jap CV in Dif TF and it just didn't matter. As a student of the WITP all my adult life I knew these results were bogus and was very upset the design team would create a masterpiece with a fatal flaw.
We posted the results and got lots of responses about this or that and then got one about the RADAR bug. After installing the Beta and running the battle again the results were about as expected (although I thought my elite pilots should have done better and his Buffs done worse, but I can live with it).

So...tell everyone you know about this fix. Without it the game is a waste of time.

Mark

Post #: 1

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/7/2012 6:37:29 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

That does not mean much without knowing parameters. You can see from multitude of AARs that A2A works reasonably well in 80-90% of cases.

There are several ways to "screw up" and 60% of those can be traced to "problem between chair & keyboard, 40% for bad dice rolls". For example, having Vals to fly over 15k is classic way..since then they level bomb and rarely hit anything.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to millersan)

Post #: 2

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/7/2012 7:10:18 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: millersan

Hi All, this is my first post.

First let me say this is a great game, but....
to any that are not aware..........if you're playing this game without the new Beta, the US Navy has 1944 RADAR & fighter control capability in 1/42! I found this out the hard way (see post "this is just wack...on 1-3-12) as a Jap player who was smashed in test after test in an even up CV fight. Wildcats & Buffs tearing up every incoming Jap raid and US SBD's hitting at 35% and vals at 3.7%. We ran tests with planes at dif altitudes and Jap CV in Dif TF and it just didn't matter. As a student of the WITP all my adult life I knew these results were bogus and was very upset the design team would create a masterpiece with a fatal flaw.
We posted the results and got lots of responses about this or that and then got one about the RADAR bug. After installing the Beta and running the battle again the results were about as expected (although I thought my elite pilots should have done better and his Buffs done worse, but I can live with it).

So...tell everyone you know about this fix. Without it the game is a waste of time.

Mark

if you are speaking about the thread where the IJ player has put his Vals and many of his Kates at 20000ft to LEVEL BOMB, well, this has nothing to do with a radar bug but is purely a player fault.

If you haven't understood (it seems so as you are stating those hit rates

), you may well go back once more and read the numerous answers THAT BOMBERS SET TO 20000FT ARE GOING TO LEVEL BOMB FROM THAT HEIGHT AND ARE NOT DIVE BOMBING! What do you expect from a dive bomber that is level bombing with a 250kg bomb from 20000ft? I think the three hits or so from the Vals are 3 hits TOO MANY by the way they were used.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/7/2012 7:12:14 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to millersan)

Post #: 3

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/7/2012 9:39:58 PM

Treetop64

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline

If things go poorly, it's the game's fault.

Where is the combat report data of this "even up CV fight"?, unless you're talking about the one in the "This is just wack..." thread. Most problems users experience can be traced to the misunderstanding and misapplication of resources in the game, as in the example shown in the "wack" thread, setting your DBs to a level bombing altitude.

Surely you must have figured that out by now - the "wack" thread is nearly a week old. Why are you posting about this issue again?

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 4

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/7/2012 11:41:42 PM

millersan

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/7/2012
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Wow....nice group. Just wanted to point out the beta is needed for a good game. We tried multiple tests with Jap bombers at 10, 14, 15, 20k. Nothing worked due to the Bug that gave US contact at 160 miles allowing every fighter they had to be at altitude and intercept.

(in reply to Treetop64)

Post #: 5

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/7/2012 11:58:04 PM

witpqs

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

I don't know of any such bug, or it being fixed in the Beta. Perhaps I missed it.

You mentioned Vals getting 3.7% hit rate and SBDs getting 35% hit rate - I think people explained the Val issue pretty well. SBDs do hit well sometimes, but if you think it's a problem that they did then you could post all the relevant details, like pilot skills, etc.

(in reply to millersan)

Post #: 6

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 12:03:47 AM

awaw

Posts: 127
Joined: 1/11/2010
Status: offline

Not sure about it, but I interpreted millersan as saying that, the air attacks failed due to superior radar contact that allowed the allied CV to put up a very strong cap.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 7

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 1:08:51 AM

Treetop64

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline

Too vague, subjective, and incomplete.

What witpqs meant was what specifically are your air group settings. How are you setting up your groups, pilot and equipment condition, etc. etc...? You know, "relevant details". A screenshot of the air unit information page and a read on the Combat Report would be helpful for starters.

_____________________________

(in reply to awaw)

Post #: 8

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 1:44:10 AM

sdevault

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you are speaking about the thread where the IJ player has put his Vals and many of his Kates at 20000ft to LEVEL BOMB, well, this has nothing to do with a radar bug but is purely a player fault.

If you haven't understood (it seems so as you are stating those hit rates ), you may well go back once more and read the numerous answers THAT BOMBERS SET TO 20000FT ARE GOING TO LEVEL BOMB FROM THAT HEIGHT AND ARE NOT DIVE BOMBING! What do you expect from a dive bomber that is level bombing with a 250kg bomb from 20000ft? I think the three hits or so from the Vals are 3 hits TOO MANY by the way they were used.

What is the ideal dive-bombing altitude setting?

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 9

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 1:45:14 AM

Treetop64

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline

10,000 - 14,000 feet.

_____________________________

(in reply to sdevault)

Post #: 10

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 1:57:47 AM

sdevault

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline

I've left it at 12k but I can't remember ever hitting a DD, so I thought I'd double-check.

_____________________________

(in reply to Treetop64)

Post #: 11

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 2:00:02 AM

Treetop64

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline

DDs are very hard to hit. They're fast, nimble, and narrow.

_____________________________

(in reply to sdevault)

Post #: 12

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 2:07:05 AM

sdevault

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline

Could be that nasty FOW fooling me though.

_____________________________

(in reply to Treetop64)

Post #: 13

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 2:32:18 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: millersan

Wow....nice group. Just wanted to point out the beta is needed for a good game. We tried multiple tests with Jap bombers at 10, 14, 15, 20k. Nothing worked due to the Bug that gave US contact at 160 miles allowing every fighter they had to be at altitude and intercept.

Hi Miller. Be advised some of these responders to your thread question probably helped design or participated in some way w/ the construction of the newer version of WitP, called AE. So they may take dislike to the construction of your question based on the fact they perceive you to be attacking the game by calling a bug issue when high probability is you are not familiar w/ the system. Recommend in future the format of your question should be more along the lines of asking for help instead of declaring a bug.

< Message edited by bigred -- 1/8/2012 2:34:54 AM >

(in reply to millersan)

Post #: 14

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 2:39:26 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

FYI, one of my favorite quotes:

quote:

Feltan:
I concur with your thoughts on WITP-AE being a work in progress. Thank God that it is; we should all consider ourselves very fortunate.

After having spent a considerable amount of time developing military simulations (that are used within the military, not commercial ones), I regularly have to pinch myself and remind myself that this "game" is actually available. I am not sure if it has occured to many players, but if this product had been available, say, 25 years ago the Defense Department would have seized it on the basis of national security, slapped a Top Secret classification on the whole thing, and we would never see it again. The potential applications for WITP-AE to modern day planning would have been too great to allow this to float around to potential adversaries. Warts and all, WITP-AE is a great acheivement; it is really the only product of its class.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 15

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 2:57:36 AM

sdevault

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

FYI, one of my favorite quotes:
quote:

Feltan:
I concur with your thoughts on WITP-AE being a work in progress. Thank God that it is; we should all consider ourselves very fortunate.

After having spent a considerable amount of time developing military simulations (that are used within the military, not commercial ones), I regularly have to pinch myself and remind myself that this "game" is actually available. I am not sure if it has occured to many players, but if this product had been available, say, 25 years ago the Defense Department would have seized it on the basis of national security, slapped a Top Secret classification on the whole thing, and we would never see it again. The potential applications for WITP-AE to modern day planning would have been too great to allow this to float around to potential adversaries. Warts and all, WITP-AE is a great acheivement; it is really the only product of its class.

I've found no warts.

Uncontrollable and unexpected things happen in life and they are not always controllable. Such is war, such is life. But there is no doubt that this game IS the pinnacle of this genre.

_____________________________

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 16

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 3:12:44 AM

bradfordkay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: millersan

Wow....nice group. Just wanted to point out the beta is needed for a good game. We tried multiple tests with Jap bombers at 10, 14, 15, 20k. Nothing worked due to the Bug that gave US contact at 160 miles allowing every fighter they had to be at altitude and intercept.

Perhaps the responses seem a little harsh, but the vast majority of us have been playing this game for years without encountering the "bug" you describe. I know that my own experiences tell me that in 1942 the carrier battles in this game are very even, not the one sided slaughter you describe. The hundreds of AARs you can read on this forum describe the same situation, thus the level of dis-credulity you are encountering. Look at the thousands upon thousands of posts on this forum - do you honestly believe that this "bug" would have passed unseen with so many dedicated players?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to millersan)

Post #: 17

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 6:56:45 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

There really was a bug with radar detection. Now beta patch have fixed that.

That bug does have some impact of millersan's battle. Still, he's fighting a battle that's not going to end well for Japan, because he just doesn't have enough fighters.

Even with this 160 NM absurd detection range it's still possible to fight succesful carrier battle as Japan. This is an example from my latest PBEM turn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vanikoro at 122,145

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 60 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 92
     B5N2 Kate x 99
     D3A1 Val x 68

Allied aircraft
     F4F-4 Wildcat x 69

Japanese aircraft losses
     A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed
     B5N2 Kate: 7 destroyed, 8 damaged
     D3A1 Val: 5 destroyed, 17 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
     F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
     CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
     CA Vincennes, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
     CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
     CA Chester, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
     CLAA San Juan, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
     CA Quincy, Bomb hits 5, on fire
     CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 1, on fire
     DD Morris
     DD Gridley
     CLAA San Diego, Bomb hits 2, on fire
     DD MacDonough
     CL Nashville
     DD Craven
     CA Northampton, Bomb hits 2, on fire
     CL St. Louis
     DD Henley

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 18

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 11:43:57 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: millersan

Wow....nice group. Just wanted to point out the beta is needed for a good game. We tried multiple tests with Jap bombers at 10, 14, 15, 20k. Nothing worked due to the Bug that gave US contact at 160 miles allowing every fighter they had to be at altitude and intercept.

People here are very helpful if you frame your comments as a question rather than a statement, as mentioned above, and also gave relevant information in terms of pilot settings and battle reports that show 'correct' IJN DB settings and CAP settings as opposed to the previous thread which had very inneffective setting for these aricraft. When you come in with a chip on your shoulder you pass it on to others. Be respectful and humble and you'll receive the same and better form many here.

It's a good group. Just proud of what they've helped achieve with this game.

(in reply to millersan)

Post #: 19

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 12:05:20 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

It does not matter how many a/c you have on CAP in CV batttles IMO, if they have a decent escort then most of the bombers will get through. Two examples from my game a few turns back:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vizagapatnam at 41,43

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 111
A6M5 Zero x 71

Allied aircraft
Sea Hurricane Ib x 8
F4F-4 Wildcat x 56
SBD-3 Dauntless x 108
TBF-1 Avenger x 68

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Sea Hurricane Ib: 2 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 5 destroyed, 17 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
TBF-1 Avenger: 4 destroyed, 11 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CV Junyo, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 3
CL Jintsu
CV Shokaku
CL Sendai
CV Zuikaku
CV Hiyo, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA Nachi
CVL Shoho, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Haruna
CVL Ryuho, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
DD Arashi
CA Ashigara
DD Hatsuzuki
CL Yura
BB Kongo
DD Oshio
DD Myojinami

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
30 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 3000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
17 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
29 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 8000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
18 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
18 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 8000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
13 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
6 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
12 x TBF-1 Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Akagi-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
6 planes vectored on to bombers
Kaga-1 with A6M3a Zero (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers
Soryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers
Hiryu-1 with A6M3a Zero (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers
Shokaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers
Zuikaku-1 with A6M5 Zero (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
9 planes vectored on to bombers
Junyo-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
Hiyo-1 with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers
Shoho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
Zuiho-1 with A6M3a Zero (4 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes
8 planes vectored on to bombers
Taiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (1 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
6 planes vectored on to bombers
284 Ku S-1 with A6M3a Zero (4 airborne, 8 on standby, 12 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
16 planes vectored on to bombers

Fuel storage explosion on CV Hiyo
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring a Japanese CV
Fuel storage explosion on CV Junyo
Ammo storage explosion on CVL Shoho

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vizagapatnam at 44,42

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 84
A6M5 Zero x 70
B6N1 Jill x 172
D4Y1 Judy x 249

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 91

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 3 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 4 destroyed
B6N1 Jill: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged
B6N1 Jill: 5 destroyed by flak
D4Y1 Judy: 5 destroyed, 13 damaged
D4Y1 Judy: 4 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB South Dakota
BB Washington, Bomb hits 2
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Wasp, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB North Carolina, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk
DD Shaw, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk
DD Fanning, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
DD Gridley, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk
CA Houston, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CL Columbia, Bomb hits 11, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2
CV Saratoga, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CV Hornet, Torpedo hits 1
DD Worden, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Drayton, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
DD Lamson, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
CL Boise
CA Indianapolis, Torpedo hits 1
CL St. Louis

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
16 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
3 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
15 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
7 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
18 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
14 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
18 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
22 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
17 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
18 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
17 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
6 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
13 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
9 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
9 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
10 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
14 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
18 x B6N1 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
17 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
19 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
1 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
6 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
9 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
7 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
7 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
12 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
7 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
8 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
8 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
7 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
1 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
5 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
1 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
5 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
8 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VF-2 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
VF-3 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 6 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
VF-42 with F4F-4 Wildcat (1 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes
VF-8 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
VRF-1F with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 17000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes
VRF-5F with F4F-4 Wildcat (4 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
No.273 Sqn RAF with Sea Hurricane Ib (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes

Training flight from No.273 Sqn RAF has been caught up in attack
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Wasp
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Shaw
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Fanning
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Houston
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Drayton
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CL Columbia
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Gridley
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Yorktown
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Lamson
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Saratoga

I got the luck this turn as his bombing accuracy was reduced by the bad weather. Note almost 200 Zeros on CAP managed to shot down about only 10 bombers. My counter strike was the most awesome carrier strike I have seen in numbers in any WITP/AE game. Perfect co-ordination and I think I lost only 3 or 4 bombers to his CAP...................

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 20

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 5:48:25 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

just out of interest how do we know if planes miss for BAD WEATHER????

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 21

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/8/2012 9:50:44 PM

Knyvet

Posts: 138
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

Why are you assuming that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is because of radar??? I see nothing in the report indicating that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is radar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

There really was a bug with radar detection. Now beta patch have fixed that.

That bug does have some impact of millersan's battle. Still, he's fighting a battle that's not going to end well for Japan, because he just doesn't have enough fighters.

Even with this 160 NM absurd detection range it's still possible to fight succesful carrier battle as Japan. This is an example from my latest PBEM turn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vanikoro at 122,145

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 60 minutes

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 22

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 6:34:46 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knyvet

Why are you assuming that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is because of radar??? I see nothing in the report indicating that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is radar.

Well, mysteriously after beta patch fixed radar detection range, detections have dropped substantially... See Miller's example: detection range is much more reasonable, even though raid is much bigger

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

I complaned radar detection ranges long time a ago. There was a bug (they mixed yards, miles, nautical miles), and it's now fixed. I'm happy.

EDIT: In my example battle range was just 2 hexes, so allies detected japanese raid while they were still spotting planes on deck...

< Message edited by Puhis -- 1/9/2012 6:37:53 AM >

(in reply to Knyvet)

Post #: 23

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 1:53:56 PM

frank1970

Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 24

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 2:50:48 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

and would you realize that while he (or whoever) found a bug, it has nothing to do with the low hitrate of bombers set to 20000ft? Finding a bug is one thing, saying it is the reason why bombers didn't hit something, when something like close to 100% made it through Cap anyway is something different.

quote: US SBD's hitting at 35% and vals at 3.7%

has nothing to do with radar but a pure player's faulty setting. Guess I'm well known enough that I'm the last one defending something if the game is bringing up something really flawed, but in this case it was a players fault and the couple of bomb hits from Vals level bombing from 20000ft are unrealistic enough so instead of complaining about the low hit rate of the Vals, one should complain in a way like this: "I screwed up my settings and the game came up with a ridicoulos result in that 3 Vals scored a bomb hit on an enemy carrier while level bombing from 20000ft - it's a dive bomber, so how could it hit?"

< Message edited by castor troy -- 1/9/2012 2:55:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to frank1970)

Post #: 25

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 2:58:40 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knyvet

Why are you assuming that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is because of radar??? I see nothing in the report indicating that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is radar.

Well, mysteriously after beta patch fixed radar detection range, detections have dropped substantially... See Miller's example: detection range is much more reasonable, even though raid is much bigger

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

I complaned radar detection ranges long time a ago. There was a bug (they mixed yards, miles, nautical miles), and it's now fixed. I'm happy.

EDIT: In my example battle range was just 2 hexes, so allies detected japanese raid while they were still spotting planes on deck...

but wasn't it also said that no matter how close the two opposing carrier fleets are, it still can happen that radar spots them further away than the carriers are actually apart from each other? Range of radar, a die roll = result. If radar range > distance between fleets + positive die roll then raid is spotted further out than the carriers are away.

_____________________________

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 26

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 4:00:25 PM

ckammp

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

Sir,

Millersan did not find any bug, nor was any radar bug corrected in the last beta patch.

The radar bug was identified and corrected in beta patch 1108p4, released on 16 July 2011.
The current beta patch is 1108r6e, released on 1 January 2012.

The combat results experienced by Millersan are, in fact, related entirely to his style of play, and not due to any game bugs.

(in reply to frank1970)

Post #: 27

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 4:27:34 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: millersan
So...tell everyone you know about this fix. Without it the game is a waste of time.

Hi Millersan,

I am a regular "forum rat" and hadn't heard about this bug before, so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I don't play under any of the beta patches and have not experienced what you are describing. I can assure you that it is not always a problem with carrier / carrier battles on non-beta patched games. I've played several PBEMs (GC and scenerios) involving carrier / carrier battles and not seen this as a problem in those games.

I would certainly not classify my thousands of hours with this phenemonal game engine as a waste of time without the beta patch. I believe your conclusion to be a bit premature, with all due respect.

_____________________________

(in reply to millersan)

Post #: 28

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 9:02:10 PM

frank1970

Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

Sir,

Millersan did not find any bug, nor was any radar bug corrected in the last beta patch.

The radar bug was identified and corrected in beta patch 1108p4, released on 16 July 2011.
The current beta patch is 1108r6e, released on 1 January 2012.

The combat results experienced by Millersan are, in fact, related entirely to his style of play, and not due to any game bugs.

Sir,

this might be true with a high propability.
Else it is true, that a radar bug was corrected (maybe he, like me doesn�t read each and every detail in the list of changes per patch). I am quite sure, that the "bad feeling" Millersan might have had becuase of his unlucky choice of carrier tactics, was reduced by his finding, that there might at least a bug have affected his bad results.

Kind regards.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

(in reply to ckammp)

Post #: 29

RE: New Beta fix #338 - 1/9/2012 10:27:10 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

10,000 - 14,000 feet.

Which is rediculous, as the US Dive Bombers at Midway (perhaps the most successful dive bombing attach of the war) attacked from 17,000 feet.

(in reply to Treetop64)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> New Beta fix #338

Page: [1] 2 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

0.813

Slitherine

New Beta fix #338