Patch 1.02B things... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

Ophion -> Patch 1.02B things... (11/29/2007 2:01:43 PM)

Thanks very much for the chance to test the new patch!

Found it really good, especially Tarawa, but there were a few things I thought I should raise. Note this is from playing 1 scenario of Tarawa in "Mystery Variant" as Japan.

1) Landbase squadron transfer does not seem to work - you can select a landbase to transfer to but the launch button does not appear.

2) Torpedo animations in surface combat take ages, even with "Fast animation" selected.

3) Game seems to run a bit slower than it used to, but that may be my computer and the sheer amount of mayhem that was occuring...



Blond_Knight -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (11/29/2007 2:46:27 PM)

4) Can we have the option to use our default cursor instead of the the custom one in the game?



alexs -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (11/30/2007 12:01:35 AM)

1) I'll look into this one.
2) Yep, the torpedo animations have always taken a long time - i'll try to look for ways to increase their speed.
3) Not sure about this one. Nothing i've added with the latest patch should cause a real slowdown.


Blond Knight - If you want to use default windows cursors, try removing the "Cursors.srf" file from the Game\Resources folder and placing it in the game folder instead (so the resource system wont find it). This should cause the game cursors not to be found, and the default windows one's to be used.



Blond_Knight -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (11/30/2007 5:59:23 AM)

If you want to use default windows cursors, try removing the "Cursors.srf" file from the Game\Resources folder and placing it in the game folder instead (so the resource system wont find it). This should cause the game cursors not to be found, and the default windows one's to be used.

That did it.  Thank You very much.



Ophion -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/2/2007 2:16:10 PM)

Quick update having played a couple more times:
1) This issue is still here.
3) Runs fine now. Probably just me...

And a new one:
5) In the task group status screen you can't close it using the little "x" in the top right. You need to close it by hitting the TG status screen button at the bottom of the screen again.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/2/2007 7:07:24 PM)

I ran 102B last night and I'm seeing a small number of at least US platforms were the information blurb on weapons, etc is runnning to the right out of the "box" and off screen in some cases. Tarawa scenario, B-24's was one of the offenders. I do like the "planes on deck notice". I would be nice to see a "Hi/Lo CAP Encountered" "No CAP Encountered" as well. Land base attacks still need something more visual or at least more details as the the BDA (can be fuzzy for FOW purposes). Other then that I really enjoy the game. Thanks for the continued effort.



Joe D. -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/3/2007 1:37:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ophion

... And a new one:
5) In the task group status screen you can't close it using the little "x" in the top right. You need to close it by hitting the TG status screen button at the bottom of the screen again.


Ditto that.



alexs -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/3/2007 3:30:13 AM)

Hi Guys,
Thanks for the reports -

i've tracked down the issue where landbase squadrons wouldnt transfer and also fixed the disabled 'x' close button in the taskgroup screen.

Cheers
Alex




Ophion -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/3/2007 7:48:11 AM)

Thanks Alex!

Not to try to be a problem, but the sqn transfer issue also affects carrier squadrons too (not sure if fixing one will fix the other).




alexs -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/3/2007 8:36:53 AM)

Yep - the squadron transfer flag (called "Ship to shore transfer") in the squadrons editor was supposed to limit which squadrons could transfer from a carrier to a landbase. I got a little overzealous in the programming and decided the flag applied to all transfers instead of just transfers from a carrier.

You'll see that the final patch will still have the carrier to landbase restrictions where the scenario designer has designated that the squadron is not "ship to shore" capable.

Alex



teddys -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/5/2007 1:13:15 AM)

Carriers at war version 1.02 – Beta 1. In the editor all the scenarios except Tarawa, under edit countries, all the options not set. They are (0 hopeless) or ( 100 nm). In the manual you are told to set them.
IS this a problem unique to my setup or are they suppose to be not set?



RyanCrierie -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/6/2007 3:17:25 PM)

Question; will the Manual be updated for 1.02 to explain HOW to edit and set up maps/scenarios better? As it is now, making maps/scenarios is sort of a very hit and miss process...



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/7/2007 12:14:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: teddys

Carriers at war version 1.02 – Beta 1. In the editor all the scenarios except Tarawa, under edit countries, all the options not set. They are (0 hopeless) or ( 100 nm). In the manual you are told to set them.
IS this a problem unique to my setup or are they suppose to be not set?



Those scenario are using the data from the old CAW scenarios, which until v1.02 could not be edited. The release version 1.02 patch will include updated versions of all scenarios where the country data can be properly edited and will show the actual, correct values being used.

Gregor



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/7/2007 12:17:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Question; will the Manual be updated for 1.02 to explain HOW to edit and set up maps/scenarios better? As it is now, making maps/scenarios is sort of a very hit and miss process...


If you look inside the folder named Cape Matapan that the patch installed, you will find the Editor Tutorial document which attempts to explain working with Ships, Planes and Maps and has some template files.

If there's anything that's not explained by that, let me know and I'll work up something to cover it.

Gregor



RyanCrierie -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/7/2007 3:58:55 PM)

If there's anything that's not explained by that, let me know and I'll work up something to cover it.

Okay.

Once the Hex Map is complete, hit the Save Map to File button. This will create a bitmap in .BMP format, which you can then use as a basis for creating the display bitmap that the users will see.

This is completely backwards.

You can easily generate highly accurate bitmaps using freeware GIS software such as MICRODEM, which can be scaled to the exact scale you need for CAW; such as this one:

[img]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9642/orkneysyl1.gif[/img]

In the original release of CAW; you could actually "paint" the hex types over the bitmap; e.g. your hex type would appear OVER your bitmap, making maps easy.

However, with the first patch to CAW, that "feature" went away, and you cannot change the hex types until you flick to the hex map completely like so:

[img]http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2083/painthexesyy0.gif[/img]

Which lends it self to major errors and tediousness in flipping back and forth.



alexs -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/8/2007 2:00:28 AM)

Hi Ryan,
That option exists (albeit only internally for us at the moment). I've moved it to the general options file, and also added a slider on the map editor screen to control it.
I've also added a hotkey to toggle the 'show map hex surface' (hit the 's' key) so you can quickly flick between the 2 if thats your thing.

It will be released in the final v1.02 patch.

Alex



CapnDarwin -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (12/10/2007 2:13:30 PM)

Just as an FYI, I posted two bugs in the support forum on 102B.

Thanks.



Buck Beach -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/3/2008 12:19:16 AM)

Is there any chance of getting any optional color pallet?   I am red/green color blind and the Japanese TG practically disappear on the main screen.  I sure wish that game companies would remember there are a high percentage of people who have color vision problems.



Buck Beach -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/3/2008 12:21:04 AM)

I mentioned under the support thread a request for tech help the issue of cursor problems.  Is there any help to be found here?



sullafelix -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/3/2008 3:40:04 AM)

Sorry to but in, But , does this mean that in this new patch there will be all the scenarios from the original compilation? Thanks.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/5/2008 12:35:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Sorry to but in, But , does this mean that in this new patch there will be all the scenarios from the original compilation? Thanks.


No, but there is a brand new scenario, Tarawa, complete with all the mystery variations.

Gregor



sullafelix -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/5/2008 4:02:09 AM)

I saw your mention of a " Matapan " folder and began drooling. I own the newv CAW and have played it many times but I've never read about or opened the editor. Which is really surprising because I spent many many hours fiddling with the original game editor.

Now for the shameless plug. I have bought every game except Battles in Normandy you've ever made going back to the commodore and also all the run 5 magazines. The few times I had a problem or question your company has been the nicest and most responsive I've ever dealt with. Keep up the great work. May everyone who bashed the new CAW rot somewhere not nice.





Gregor_SSG -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/7/2008 12:51:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I saw your mention of a " Matapan " folder and began drooling. I own the newv CAW and have played it many times but I've never read about or opened the editor. Which is really surprising because I spent many many hours fiddling with the original game editor.

Now for the shameless plug. I have bought every game except Battles in Normandy you've ever made going back to the commodore and also all the run 5 magazines. The few times I had a problem or question your company has been the nicest and most responsive I've ever dealt with. Keep up the great work. May everyone who bashed the new CAW rot somewhere not nice.





I have used both Editors and the new CAW editor is a vast improvement on the old one. It's even better now in v1.02 as Alex has had a chance to make further refinements. It's so easy to see what forces are in each TG, and what the WarRoom actions are that I would urge everybody with any interest in scenario creation to take a look. In the Cape Matapan tutorial I've added comments to many of the WarCards to explain what the AI actions are intended to do and also referred to the manual for further info, so it's clear to see what the AI plan is.

Gregor



Unhappy -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/8/2008 8:50:19 PM)

I'm sure this is the wrong time to bring it up what with the imminent (?) arrival of the new patch, but I don't suppose there was a chance to add an air attack conditional effect? (For example - to make an air attack on a landbase or port a requirement of victory). It would really come in handy when creating scenarios.

Thanks.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/9/2008 12:25:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Unhappy

I'm sure this is the wrong time to bring it up what with the imminent (?) arrival of the new patch, but I don't suppose there was a chance to add an air attack conditional effect? (For example - to make an air attack on a landbase or port a requirement of victory). It would really come in handy when creating scenarios.

Thanks.


It's definitely too late for the next patch and in any case I'm not sure how we would handle it. Missions such as bombardment and invasion/cargo delivery are handed to a TG, and since you can't deliberately split a TG then the whole TG has to be sent on a mission.

The question then arises, what constitutes an air attack. Can I just send a single plane? Does an attack have to do damage or is sending it enough? Is it time limited? Taking Midway as an example, what mechanism would stop me from first crushing the US TGs and then bombing Midway later?

As you can see there are lots of questions to answer, and if its all designed just to recreate one morning at Midway, then I'm not sure its worth the effort. Do you have other situations in mind where it would be useful?

Gregor



Unhappy -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (1/9/2008 1:13:55 AM)

Well, I think an air attack conditional would be quite useful in many circumstances. For example, I am working on a scenario now where the Japanese go out of their way to bomb Colombo and Trincomalee in Ceylon without even bothering to bring along bombardment or invasion forces...so it really complicates the victory conditions that there is no conditional effect for air attacks. Same could be said of the bombing of Darwin in Feb. 1942, the Doolittle Raid, etc. Suffice it to say I think it would be useful often and its absence makes it more difficult to create realistic and appropriate victory conditions.

As for how to do it...well yeah that would be difficult. I would settle for a conditional that was triggered by inflicting a set level of damage on a landbase (airfield). As it is now landbases possess one of 16 damage states (0-15). So the conditional could be triggered by inflicting enough damage on the landbase (via bombardment or air attack) to reach a specified level. For example, the conditional might require the player to damage the landbase to level 4 (moderate damage) or level 7 (serious damage) or level 10 (critical damage) etc. This would be fun and useful because it would likely require multiple air strikes to inflict critical damage on the landbase. Points could be rewarded upon completion etc. as with existing conditionals.



Unhappy -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (2/8/2008 12:17:19 AM)

...I'm bumping this because I'm still interested to know whether an air attack conditional is a possibility someday in the future.

Thanks.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Patch 1.02B things... (2/8/2008 1:11:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Unhappy

...I'm bumping this because I'm still interested to know whether an air attack conditional is a possibility someday in the future.

Thanks.


I will talk to Ian Trout about it and see what he thinks, he is the ultimate authority on such matters.

Gregor



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875