Beta Patch v1.030 (Full Version)

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



Message

WanderingHead -> Beta Patch v1.030 (8/24/2008 5:26:09 AM)

Start a thread on any issues or observations on the beta patch.

Three observations from the beta release announcement thread:

1) CAGS were able to attack twice (Lucky1, alternate thread post #11)
2) issue with Japanese surrender (Lucky1, alternate thread post #12)
3) issues with transport movement (GShock, alternate thread post #14)

Save files in which these issues are easily reproducible would be much appreciated.



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/24/2008 1:17:34 PM)

I hope that you meant for use to continue the thread here....

I don't have the save for the Japanese non-surrender, but surmise that it was some sort of interaction - I had A-bombed Japan, but was unable to knock her out because she had some VPs (e.g., Solomons etc) that put her over the collapse threshold. Since I had troops handy, I simply invaded, and was able to take the home islands (all three) in two turns. But.... No surrender! Then, as I mentioned previously, Japan only surrendered when I had taken the other VPs. I was playing WA. Computer was playing all else..... I have played a couple of games (I have only two classes left and then finals!) in the interim and have not been able to reproduce the surrender issue. Will try to look at it in the coming days if I have time.....

Good work otherwise!



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/24/2008 5:32:20 PM)

Did u check for the "special surrender" rule option?



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/24/2008 8:11:44 PM)

Regarding Japanese surrender. The "Disable Special Surrenders" option should not effect this. That game option only effects surrenders that are implemented as random events (seen on the political event screen).

Note that the Japanese surrender does not occur right away, it occurs at the end of the turn.

I don't see how anything I did would have impacted this surrender rule, but it is always possible. I'd love to have a save to look at it.

One question: in the game in question, did Japan attack the WA, or did the WA DOW and attack Japan first? I don't think it should be relevent, but worth asking.



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/24/2008 10:43:22 PM)

Japan attacked the US (usual AI timelines).



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 7:32:25 AM)

I sent four files by email showing the glitch. Let me know if you did not receive them...

Cheers,

Sean



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 9:26:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
I sent four files by email showing the glitch. Let me know if you did not receive them...


Received.

Your observations (on the a-bomb) and your files are most valuable. Indeed, it appears that there is a bug which was introduced back in v1.020 when the a-bomb surrender was modified to require that the bomb be dropped.

The engine first checks for surrender based on occupation of Honshu, then it checks for a-bomb surrender. Somewhere in the a-bomb surrender code it can reset the surrender which was attained via the occupation.

Effectively, once the WA have the a-bomb and Japan's production is reduced below the a-bomb surrender threshold, occupation of Honshu will no longer cause surrender! The best thing is to a-bomb them again.

I have fixed this in my local version of the code, it will go out whenever the patch is promoted from beta.

Thanks a lot for the report and observations. That's what it takes to get it fixed.



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 12:13:11 PM)

Glad to be of assistance. I was hoping to try and reproduce the double CAG, but did not have the time. I will be a bit busy for the next two weeks (final exams), but will try to reproduce what I encountered there.... From what I remember, it involved attacking subs and then patrolling over them....



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 12:21:26 PM)

This might be off topic (if it is working as intended), but I recently noticed that if my transport capacity had been used up, my damaged units could not retreat. This makes sense, and may be how it was designed, but the issue had never caught my eye before. Specifically, I was playing as Japan and had used up all my transport moving units and supply. I then executed an attack in China. My damaged units were destroyed due to being unable to trace a path back to the factory. Is this normal or a glitch?



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 1:57:47 PM)

I think it's wad.

Sometimes i'd like to know how these units trace back to the closest available factory for repairs. It looks impossible to me that a damaged WA battleship in mediterranean sea goes back to UK for repairs when Spain is Axis controlled, there are submarines everywhere around UK and so on. It might be nice to actually give the Opfire capability on ships passing through areas occupied by enemy units but perhaps i am asking too much. Essentially, too often i see damaged units retreat to factories...in China vs Japan, it's easy to retreat to Honshu or Kyushu but the Western Allies escape too easily imho considering the huge paths to take to go back to a factory for repairs.

I ve tried playing with Fraps engaged but couldnt see anything wrong this time in my test game on the transport paths and levels. I have played 200 to all transport levels without problems...so i presume the real issue here is the transport capacity. Playing with less than 100 makes Japan unable to even arrive to Hawaii..much less to sustain even the single attack on pearl harbor...but luckily those levels are optionable :)



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 2:38:12 PM)

Sorry. My internet (and most other) slang is pretty bad.... I am guessing that wad = snafu. However, Fraps has lost me.....



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 4:17:53 PM)

WAD = working as designed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
if my transport capacity had been used up, my damaged units could not retreat.


This is what we call damaged unit "tracing to factory". It is not a retreat (for example you may even be victorious and advance in a land battle, but damaged units still have to trace to factory).

This should not happen. Again a save would help.



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/25/2008 11:04:19 PM)

ok. This one was easy to reproduce. I am sending two files. The first is the precursor to the attack. You will note that the only transport link between the mainland and Japan has had its transport ability maxxed-out. The second file shows the immediate aftermath of the attack. An infantry and artillery unit were damaged; for each, a message appeared to the effect that they were destroyed because they could not trace to factory.



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/26/2008 7:28:14 AM)

Wandering do u think something can be done to this tracing back to factory being too abstract? It should allow opfiring imo. 



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/26/2008 8:46:59 AM)

I am not sure I understand. What would op-fire? Are you talking failed amphib assaults? If so, all retreating units are damaged in any event....

Keeping in mind the level of abstraction we are dealing with, I personally don't mind units going back to factories so long it is possible to trace a path (ignoring transport capacity).



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/26/2008 8:48:03 AM)

Here we go with the things we should look for in the Pacific.

[image]http://img26.picoodle.com/data/img26/3/8/26/f_movesm_b38b4b6.jpg[/image]

While the move of the transport from the harbor of Honshu is not an essential problem, especially due to the lenght of this trip, you can imagine what it means when infantry uses the same path. EXTRA transports will be using their transport capacity when it's absolutely unneeded.

In this example, the red path is correct but the game uses the green one. Which means transports 2 3 4 will be charged with the transport load/unload costs unnecessarily.

Now i am just moving a transport and it's already evidently bugged, but when the infantry has to move, *if* it uses the same path, this is a devastating problem for Japan. (will document more in this thread about these arrows as soon as i spot them but at present time i don't see why the infantry shouldn't use this very same bugged pathway shown for the transport).



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/26/2008 9:22:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
ok. This one was easy to reproduce. I am sending two files. The first is the precursor to the attack. You will note that the only transport link between the mainland and Japan has had its transport ability maxxed-out. The second file shows the immediate aftermath of the attack. An infantry and artillery unit were damaged; for each, a message appeared to the effect that they were destroyed because they could not trace to factory.


Trace to factory issue: thanks for the save. Looks like you found another subtle bug introduced in v1.020. Should be fixed in my local copy, but will need more thought and verification to see if I have the best fix.

You're on a roll!

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock
Wandering do u think something can be done to this tracing back to factory being too abstract? It should allow opfiring imo.


IMO any reasonable changes to the trace mechanism would be too drastic to be considered now. Opfire can block the trace.



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/26/2008 9:28:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock
Now i am just moving a transport and it's already evidently bugged, but when the infantry has to move, *if* it uses the same path, this is a devastating problem for Japan.


I agree that if cargo uses that path it can be a problem. But I don't see a bug demonstrated here. The transport move is free because it is "sliding" on unused and unmoved transports, so there is no detriment to the displayed transport path, it is just counterintuitive.

If you can demonstrate something like this with cargo then it might be an issue, and then I'd really like a save file. But please be aware that sometimes it really is necessary to move things a step at a time if you want to force specific intermediate points.



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/26/2008 12:02:00 PM)

quote:


IMO any reasonable changes to the trace mechanism would be too drastic to be considered now. Opfire can block the trace.


It's what i am saying, perhaps it should totally block the trace instead of making the rolls for a loss or escape. Damaged units escape so easily from mediterranean and it's like in the case of damage, there's no limit to the number of move areas available...like distances had no factor...when they really should. A penalty on supplies would do and maybe, just maybe, it's the only easy thing/fix that makes sense since they are as important as combat units themselves. Something like an extra 2 supplies to be paid for damaged unit to trace back to factory would really be interesting.

As of the move shown in jpg, it seems quite evident to me the game is not plotting the shortest route. Believe me i have seen but unfortunately undocumented with jpg, in the post where i asked to check those 2 areas (which i named luckily in that thread but whose # i dont recall right now) that the move from Honshu harbor to the island just south of it passed around philippines islands and back!!!

I think units should take the shortest routes, in any case, i will pay EXTRA attention to the transport numbers because if, as i suspect, the movement of units follows the same guidelines, then it's a big big problem. I will document everything with JPG and, if something is found i ll provide the saves.[;)]



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/26/2008 7:52:17 PM)

No issues to note (yet) on the amphibious movement of troops.

However, i insist in showing the wrong movement arrows because the MP are lost this way. Now if also transport movements (and strategic movement) follow the same pattern then it's a heck of a problem. Anyway there u go. In red the count for "normal" MP and in purple the longer path in use by the game.

[image]http://img28.picoodle.com/data/img28/3/8/26/f_1m_babbed3.jpg[/image]

The second one is really funny because it seems that transports with 7 MP can move much farther...

[image]http://img26.picoodle.com/data/img26/3/8/26/f_2m_9400324.jpg[/image]

Next turn i will place a transport in the zone where there isnt one and see if the troopers going to aussieland take the red or the pink path (if they take the pink path it's a hell of a problem but still...pink shows transport makes 8 MP...i repeat i'd like it to be checked or...at least...explained) [8D]





WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/27/2008 1:51:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock
showing the wrong movement arrows because the MP are lost this way. Now if also transport movements (and strategic movement) follow the same pattern then it's a heck of a problem.


MP are not lost this way. Please be aware of the rule than a transport can move into a region with another unused&unmoved transport with no movement cost. It is a free move, the "slide" I referred to before.

The autoselected routes you show are actually the unintuitive but arbitrary selection out of 2 or more equal choices.

That is why sometimes transports can move much further than 7MPs suggests, when they can exploit preexisting transport chains.

Check the manual on transport movement.

In my view, it would be nice if this were improved to work more intuitively, but it is not worth the effort/risk to make the code change. I know that I am now so used to it that I don't think about it anymore.



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/27/2008 8:14:25 AM)

It makes sense of course.
As long as they only move as far as they can, any path is good...what matters is whether a transport can or cannot reach the destination and eventually so fight. The most important thing to check here is the movement of the troops aboard these transports because if a trooper goes for invasion all the chain will be zeroed. That means the other transports who could still work the movement of supplies, could not do it despite not having to be used. Essentially that's what i am looking for.

As of the damaged units tracing back, i honestly think an extra cost in resources would do in case they had to be traced back more than 3 zones (land or sea). Let's not forget they aren't using transport capability and they are often exceeding the possible movement points (without paying any supply for it).



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/28/2008 2:48:41 PM)

I wanted to push the attention again on the trace back to factory issue to show that perhaps this concept has to be revised.

[image]http://img32.picoodle.com/data/img32/3/8/28/f_gggm_ae1382b.jpg[/image]


Neutral units escaped from the port of Greece when the axis conquered the region. However, they were pushed into the Aegean sea where my tac bombers subsequently attacked them. Unfortunately the attack only caused a damage on the single light fleet present in the Aegean (red X). The unit was deemed damaged and not destroyed though evidently being unable to trace back any path to a friendly factory because:

1) The whole mediterranean is controlled by Axis
2) The only Allied (and not neutral!) factory available would still be in Sirya (Blue X) but there's no port so the ship couldn't go there.
3) There's an extra german sub in the waters of Sardinia
4) Access to the Black sea and to Russian ports in Crimea is inhibited by Turkey.

So...where do the damaged ships go? Ok they are neutral Greek ships so they are ininfluential? No. Because the ship has become ALLIED and changed its ownership from white circle to green circle with white star.

As you can see, the trace to factory issue is a real one. Units are passing right through enemy sectors, ignoring any sort of movement limitation and opfire. Please, tell me we can do something about this.



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/28/2008 11:04:35 PM)

Check your WA production queues for new destroyers.... Then you will be able to find out where it has gone (if anywhere). I am guessing that it was simply destroyed and that you did not get a message to the effect that it could not trace a path. (Do all players get this message when it occurs?) You do raise a question that I have wondered about. For example, if I were to 'surround' Hawaii  with carriers in my Japanese opener and invade amphbiously rather than attack the fleet, what happens to the US ships in port if I am successful? I always presumed they were destroyed.... Am I wrong in this?

As for the CAG error I noticed, I have not had time to try to reproduce it. No game playing for me until finals are done....



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/29/2008 3:24:44 AM)

Lucky, im Axis and can't see their production queue. We guess it was destroyed but the question unfortunately remains for both enemy and friendly units. The trace back to factory routines need to take into account the enemy in the zones separating them from the factory and, in any case, they should pay an appropriate number of supplies to get back to port after suffering any opfire. Then, it makes sense.

The same is relevant in the Japanese warfare. In philippines there's a light allied fleet. I bomb it and 90% times i destroy it, but some other times i just damage it. Well...there's my subs in the sea of Philippines by the port and there's countless sea units everywhere on the map. If the light fleet is damaged how in the hell can it arrive to be repaired (presumably in Australia or New Zealand or Hawaii) passing my blockade?



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/29/2008 6:10:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock
I wanted to push the attention again on the trace back to factory issue to show that perhaps this concept has to be revised.


I think that this discussion has nothing to do with v1.030 per-se and belongs in the main forum. You are talking about concepts that have been in the game *forever* and I see them as very unlikely to change.



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (8/29/2008 10:32:05 AM)

That would not be so hard to change, if the trace back is more than 2 regions, the unit should not be able to trace back...it will fall prey to some enemy unit, or damage will not allow it to proceed (abstracted). A penalty on supply seems not reasonable, because the repairing will still cost an appropriate number of supplies, but don't forget the traceback is not accounted for in supplies (movement) cost so, i think it's time to do something about it.

I suppose this implies an algorythm and perhaps in 1.04 this could be done. But that's all on my part...i think the 1.03 is good and those i mentioned (this issue excluded) are just very minor things.



Lucky1 -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (9/12/2008 3:19:33 AM)

WH, I have sent you the mentioned files by email. Please advise if these are not received. Anyhow, I have found the following CAG issues:



Saves 2 and 3  and saves 4 and 5 demonstrate the same thing: a single CAG can attack a sea zone and then patrol over it. Then another CAG gets sent in to attack. Both CAGs attack again (effectively two attacks for the first CAG).

Save 7 (save six is the precursor save) shows the aftermath of Japanese air strike on Hawai naval base. After attacking the base, I sent the CAGs to patrol adjacent sea zones with allied transports. They were able to attack a second time etc.

Is this functioning as intended?



GShock -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (9/12/2008 8:50:02 AM)

Working as intended that all sea units can, after attacking, still move back to safety?



WanderingHead -> RE: Beta Path v1.030 (9/17/2008 5:37:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
Saves 2 and 3  and saves 4 and 5 demonstrate the same thing: a single CAG can attack a sea zone and then patrol over it. Then another CAG gets sent in to attack. Both CAGs attack again (effectively two attacks for the first CAG).

Save 7 (save six is the precursor save) shows the aftermath of Japanese air strike on Hawai naval base. After attacking the base, I sent the CAGs to patrol adjacent sea zones with allied transports. They were able to attack a second time etc.

Is this functioning as intended?


If the air units actually meaningfully participate in the second combat (i.e. they fire and/or are fired upon) then it is not working as intended.

However, I am aware that they can *appear* to be in a second combat, while not actually contributing (i.e. they neither fire nor are fired upon). This phenomena, which is not a real issue, is all that I was able to reproduce in the saves.

I was aware of this issue, but it seemed minor since it didn't actually give an advantage (the unit doesn't actually fire a second time) and it actually does give a disadvantage (the unit loses a movement point for no benefit to the player). So the player may do it once or twice by accident, but should self-train away from the behavior.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875