RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Limited Public Beta Feedback



Message

Lebatron -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/1/2008 7:17:03 PM)

Marshall Art, the exact same thing happened to me during testing for the lastest beta patch(1.020). It cured it by cleaning out my save folder. On the next load up I was able to access the save screen. 



MrQuiet -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/1/2008 7:21:22 PM)

Marshall Art I think you should be having at least 2 versions of AWD.

You need 1.011 for your current 2 vs 2 games.
You need 1.020 for our current GlobalGlory game. (and your future 2 vs 2 games)

You will need another install when you get to the UV 2.1 games in the tournament. (New map needs its own instalation)

It does sound complex at first but if you send shortcuts to your desktop its pretty easy to keep everything strait.


[image]local://upfiles/16062/A5DE0CE953BD476BB786970F36749794.jpg[/image]



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/1/2008 9:27:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
When I tried to load a saved game the game crashed each time I hit the bring up saved games list button, No way to start a saved game...


Sorry about this. Unfortunately, the engine doesn't have any real file compatibility checking. When you merely click on a save file, without even trying to open it, AWD tries to open the file to read the map image to display in the file menu, and an incompatible file type can cause serious problems.

I added an explicit warning and instructions to delete old saves at the top of the thread.

I've wanted to improve this, but now it would break save compatibility again. And I was reluctant to make the changes given the work it would take to verify I don't break anything, and given that I always expect it to be "the last" patch.



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/1/2008 10:27:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar
quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
Forwarn45 reported a long standing problem with air targeting of naval units. This exists prior to 1.020 (probably all the way back to 1.000). Apparently air doesn't pick unique naval targets, frequently causing air to not find any target if its selected target has already been destroyed by a previous firing air unit.

IMHO this is well worth improving. And are you sure that cags always use unique targets? I don't have an example at hand, but I think they don't.


CAGs definitely don't use 100% unique targets, they are supposed to double up on CVs. After a CV is targeted twice, however, no additional CAG should target that CV until all other naval units are targeted.

CAGs use distinct targeting code from other air units, and its actually a bit difficult to understand. I'll have to try to comprehend it again before committing to any changes here.



Marshall Art -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/1/2008 10:30:54 PM)

Thank you all for the quick response - problem cured. It was the (1b) part of WanderingHead's added instructions. I was aware of (1a) already and do have 3 seperate installs. The 1.020 version just happened to be the one I used for 1.010 games earlier this year and I just updated it instead of creating a brand new one.



Marshall Art -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/13/2008 3:39:50 PM)

This is some feedback on the Global Glory scenario (3.0).

After the US responds to Japanese aggression in China event was triggered in Fall 1940 (rightfully so, due to Japanese Bombings...) all of a sudden the gift went straight down to 0 in the Summer 1941 turn, without any event messages. And no I did not move a single unit into Indochina.

If the resource gift is cancelled as in the stock scenarios in Summer 1941 what incentive has the Japanese player to not bomb China?



Lebatron -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/18/2008 5:48:19 PM)

Marshall Art, if you have suggestions and or observations about mods you should place them in the thread for that particular mod. I know both Brian, myself, and other future modders would prefer it this way. It's useful for us to have all player comments about our mods in one place. It gives us a history of issues/comments in one place. 



Lebatron -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/18/2008 6:00:58 PM)

During my current PBEM game, I've been noticing an irritating bug with auto supply. In areas like the pre-Barbarossa front where I have 1 supply in each area along the front, the auto supply feature keeps moving a point or two around for no reason when I enter a sub-menu. I think the sub-menu in question may be the repair screen. In any case, whatever one it is, you will hear the sound of supply trucks moving when you enter one of them. Then afterword I have to scan the map to locate the supply that moved for no reason and move it back.

This may be an old problem that I'm just noticing now. I was forced to play with it on because that's how my opponent set up the game.



Lebatron -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/18/2008 6:06:16 PM)

Sometimes in the detailed combat report screen I get repeats of nonsense combats that go on for miles. Literally you will get hundreds of lines to scroll through. Anyone else get this?



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/19/2008 9:25:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

This is some feedback on the Global Glory scenario (3.0).

After the US responds to Japanese aggression in China event was triggered in Fall 1940 (rightfully so, due to Japanese Bombings...) all of a sudden the gift went straight down to 0 in the Summer 1941 turn, without any event messages. And no I did not move a single unit into Indochina.

If the resource gift is cancelled as in the stock scenarios in Summer 1941 what incentive has the Japanese player to not bomb China?


Sorry, this is a bug in the data files. I had hoped to push out the fix with a quick patch turn around that hasn't happened yet.

**edit** I added a patched data file to the mod thread here. You can download that to correct the problem.

Unfortunately, it will only help new games, not games in progress.




WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/19/2008 9:28:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
During my current PBEM game, I've been noticing an irritating bug with auto supply. In areas like the pre-Barbarossa front where I have 1 supply in each area along the front, the auto supply feature keeps moving a point or two around for no reason when I enter a sub-menu. I think the sub-menu in question may be the repair screen. In any case, whatever one it is, you will hear the sound of supply trucks moving when you enter one of them. Then afterword I have to scan the map to locate the supply that moved for no reason and move it back.


That's not so much a bug as "auto supply just plain sucks". The only fix I could possibly contemplate is to eliminate the autosupply feature altogether.

Very early on in WAW, I had a game where I bought German transports for Sealion and was all prepped for invasion, but the autosupply (also turned on by accident) had moved supplies onto the transports the previous turn freezing them in place.




WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/19/2008 9:30:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
Sometimes in the detailed combat report screen I get repeats of nonsense combats that go on for miles. Literally you will get hundreds of lines to scroll through. Anyone else get this?


I still see various memory corruption bugs every now and then, like that one. But if anything I do think they are less frequent than they used to be.

This is too hard to track down. If it ever gets fixed it will be more likely from some random discovery.



MrQuiet -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/19/2008 4:58:30 PM)

quote:

That's not so much a bug as "auto supply just plain sucks". The only fix I could possibly contemplate is to eliminate the autosupply feature altogether.



I would agree to that.
I have made opponents start the game again because they turned on auto supply for my side.

*note* allways check the settings when recieving a new game just like allways checking location of subs before 'end movement phase'



Lebatron -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/19/2008 5:20:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

I have made opponents start the game again because they turned on auto supply for my side.



I know, I should have made Boerwar resend the opening turn. But I caught it to late. I don't know if it was by accident that he did so or maybe he just likes auto supply. I know the rest of us hate it[:@]



GKar -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/19/2008 5:42:42 PM)

Auto-supply is a work of the Devil!

[sm=comp16.gif] [;)]



GKar -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/20/2008 1:24:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

French surrender: surrender can now occur if East France is German controlled, but in this case Vichy will not be established: non-European French regions that typically become Vichy would remain WA controlled.
Could anyone elaborate on what that means, please? I just conquered Eastern France in a test game but failed to see any differences. [&:]



Lebatron -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/21/2008 3:24:18 PM)

I think Brian meant Southern France.



GKar -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/21/2008 7:45:20 PM)

Ah! That could be it.



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/27/2008 6:02:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar
quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
French surrender: surrender can now occur if East France is German controlled, but in this case Vichy will not be established: non-European French regions that typically become Vichy would remain WA controlled.
Could anyone elaborate on what that means, please? I just conquered Eastern France in a test game but failed to see any differences. [&:]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
I think Brian meant Southern France.


Yes, I meant Southern France. It used to be that if Southern France were German controlled then the surrender would not happen. Should the Germans somehow manage to arrive in Southern France, there is no reason they should be heavily penalized for it.



freetalk -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (1/31/2008 9:31:13 AM)

So what is the latest on 1.020?  when will it be released?



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 (2/4/2008 12:29:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freetalk
So what is the latest on 1.020?  when will it be released?


It is released as limited public beta. Anyone with a legit copy of the game can get it.

Do you mean non-beta release?

My expectation is that we'll have one more beta patch (don't know exactly when given my schedule), then give it a month or two of life before the cumulative changes become a full release.



freetalk -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (2/27/2008 3:49:54 AM)

Lately have been playing an opponent who
(as Allies) invades Portugal, builds up forces
invades Spain and eventually France via the south.
Nothing wrong with that as a strategy.
It is however a way around having to amphibiously invade France.
However I'd suggest that land forces attacking
France from Spain suffer a penalty.  Either:
France is treated as a fortified region in this case only, or
the number of units that can move is limited each turn.
The units in reality would be moving through a mountainous
area (Pyrenees), so it is not unreasonable to provide some limitation.
Any thoughts, anyone?



MrQuiet -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (2/27/2008 10:56:43 PM)

The only limitation I can think of would to maybe make a double boarder between Spain and S France. It would not limit the number of troops that can move but it would cost more supply to move them which would have to be shipped in which would decrease the number of reinforcement troops that would be shipped in due to moving more suppply for the attack.



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (3/4/2008 6:38:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freetalk
Lately have been playing an opponent who
(as Allies) invades Portugal, builds up forces
invades Spain and eventually France via the south.


Global Glory attempts to mitigate this in a couple of ways.

1) all neutral regions will generate 1 militia for every population point if they are land-attacked while neutral. GG also adds one pop to Portugal, so Portugal will generate militia when attacked.

2) There is a political event where Portugal leases the Azures to Britain. If/when this occurs, Portugal also sprouts a new militia.

3) GG has several political events which are supposed to more realistically model political responses to Allied/Axis activity. One of these events is that if Portugal is invaded by the WA then Spain will take an additional step towards the Axis (perhaps joining Germany) and sprout some new land units (regardless of whether it joins Germany).

4) the latest (unreleased/unpublicised) version of GG also has all of Vichy joining Germany if Spain or N Italy is captured by the WA.



GKar -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (3/4/2008 9:03:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

4) the latest (unreleased/unpublicised) version of GG also has all of Vichy joining Germany if Spain or N Italy is captured by the WA.

Sounds like a good idea to me.



freetalk -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (3/7/2008 7:52:45 AM)

Thanks WanderingHead. All good ideas. I think another option is simply to regard attacks on France from Spain only, are treated as rough terrain.



GKar -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (3/23/2008 9:13:26 PM)

I'm not sure that v1.020 neutral view mode is working as it should, please take a look at Scotland and Gibraltar in this screenshot.



GShock -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (3/27/2008 3:54:07 AM)

I am afraid the stock game is downloaded on 1.020 (not sure if it's beta or not) well...as Japan, if i set manual production the game just crashes at the first turn. 



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (4/25/2008 6:49:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar
I'm not sure that v1.020 neutral view mode is working as it should, please take a look at Scotland and Gibraltar in this screenshot.


I assume it was taken by an Axis player?

Interesting. My suspicion is that the screen shot was taken before the turn was closed out by the Axis player. During the Axis turn, a u-boat (or other unit, or spies) had visibility of Gib and the screenshot was taken before that was cleared. If I am right, then it isn't a FOW problem because the Axis player did have visibility that same turn.

Could my suspicion be correct?



GKar -> RE: Beta Patch v1.020 possible rule amendment? (4/25/2008 8:44:31 AM)

It could be correct, yes. I'm not entirely sure now, because the issue is was a month ago, but it could have happened as you said. Still, I think it is a little weird. I thought that neutral screenshots were meant to show only what can be seen by both sides regardless of the circumstances. Don't know how others think about it though.

Theoretically, such a "neutral" screenshot could give your enemy an information which you don't want him to have - where you moved or which province was revealed by spies.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6708984