Missing weapon systems

Missing weapon systems (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support

Message

Behemoth -> Missing weapon systems (8/22/2002 10:44:18 PM)
TO whom it may concern, I read over the 1.30 readme and saw the changes to armament on certain ships, and I believe this is a bug, but if it was intended, then disregard. ok, here goes, after installing 1.3 I started up scenario 17 as the allies and to my surprise most if not all my starting capital ships were missing aa and small calibur naval guns. If that was part of the change in 1.3 no biggie but the odd part was the systems were still listed as there, just set to 0 as if destroyed w\o the sys damage. Well right away I sent them back to pearl for repairs... a little later on(month or so) I get a couple replacement cruisers also missing aa(20mm) and naval guns(5in). Perhaps my update got corrupted in the DL, a few of the ships(sorry no names) I believe were on the patch readme. So for what it's worth... It was bit painful having a surfTF cut to shreds by 10 kates without a short fired in return. I'm kinda hoping this a mistake, I'd really like those weapon systems back. :) Thanks for any replies, -B

Ron Saueracker -> AA Alterations (8/23/2002 12:49:25 AM)
I was talking with Rich and he is going to try to alleviate this. I think he believes the hard code refit routine is wreaking havoc with many changes to the devices list in the database.

Behemoth -> thx (8/23/2002 1:31:03 AM)
thanx for the reply Ron, I was thinking it was a download issue. Will my saves be fixed as well or should I just be prepared to start over? I'm only a month in on that scen. so it would'nt be a big deal, I just want to be prepared. thx again. -b

Oleg Mastruko -> ?!? (8/23/2002 3:47:54 AM)
Is this issue as serious as it looks? Does it affect old games (ie. games started under 1.20)? I'm still on 1.20, have few PBEMs going and several scheduled to be started with "new patch". Now I'd like to know as to whether to use the 1.30 at all? Or should I (and others in similar position) postpone new games until the next patch and continue current games with 1.20? Having Allied player without AA on his capital ships does not seem fair to me (on the other hand, with Vals attacking with 60 kg firecrackers, hmmm - maybe Allies think they don't need protection from that :o)) O.

Behemoth -> hmmm... (8/23/2002 10:22:06 PM)
Is this a problem others are also having? Is there any poosble workaround? Could someone reading this with 1.3 installed, check out their new scenarios and see if any capital ships are missing armament? I'd be ever so greatful, thx in advance. -Behemoth

DoomedMantis -> Missing AA (8/24/2002 1:28:38 PM)
I have only recently bought the game and have version 1.30 loaded, and yes none of my capital ships have AA

pasternakski -> Ditto here, boys and girls (8/24/2002 1:48:43 PM)
This is a big 'un. Let's get 'er fixed pronto (and this may be a re-fix of something that wasn't broken before). Outside my usual superficial prattle, I have a seriously-intended comment to make here. I have suggested on other threads that some CAUTION is necessary in trying to persuade Matrix and 2 by 3 to make changes in UV because of perceived "bugs." This company is working so hard to please us and is so receptive to what we suggest, I am afraid that what is not really broken may be getting fixed sometimes. Further, fixes in one direction can lead, in the computer coding area, to breakdowns in another. While I think that this is a bug, and that most of the patch changes so far have been positive, I hope that sufficient attention is being paid to the unfortunate tendency I mention here, and that those of us who contribute to these forums are making actual contributions, not creating problems. In the short while I have been playing v. 1.30, both PBEM and against the AI, I sense that the changes since v. 1.20 are not an unmixed blessing. Please. Let's think thoroughly before we criticize, hyper-analyze, and revise. This CAN get out of control and ruin something great, you know.

DoomedMantis -> Correction (8/24/2002 1:50:08 PM)
Upon closer investigation, its not all my ships, CA Chigargo for instance has (0) 40 mm and 20mm, but CA Australia has its 2 pdr AA guns. I have checked my other CA's and most of them seem to be fine as well. By teh way CA Chicargo has no system damage. D

Oleg Mastruko -> Re: Ditto here, boys and girls (8/24/2002 6:25:27 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B] I have suggested on other threads that some CAUTION is necessary in trying to persuade Matrix and 2 by 3 to make changes in UV because of perceived "bugs." This company is working so hard to please us and is so receptive to what we suggest, I am afraid that what is not really broken may be getting fixed sometimes. Please. Let's think thoroughly before we criticize, hyper-analyze, and revise. This CAN get out of control and ruin something great, you know. [/B][/QUOTE] I do agree with you, nitpicking and hyper analyzing can be counterproductive sometimes, but I think beta testers are to blame for glaring omissions such as this AA issue (or similar issue with retreating TFs that was "introduced" in 1.1, necessitating in release of 1.11 only days later). Maybe I am again being tactless as several times before, and maybe another small flame war is brewing, but if beta testers for my product allowed for this to happen, there'll be some harsh words flyin' around. Yeah, I know they are most probably volunteers, and not being payed for beta testing and such, but still... how can THIS go by them without being noticed? Matrix should use more of beta testers then, I am sure many of us, "professional" nitpickers and hyperanalyzers, would gladly volunteer. O.

pasternakski -> Re: Re: Ditto here, boys and girls (8/25/2002 2:40:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko [B] I do agree with you, nitpicking and hyper analyzing can be counterproductive sometimes, but I think beta testers are to blame for glaring omissions such as this AA issue (or similar issue with retreating TFs that was "introduced" in 1.1, necessitating in release of 1.11 only days later). Maybe I am again being tactless as several times before, and maybe another small flame war is brewing, but if beta testers for my product allowed for this to happen, there'll be some harsh words flyin' around. Yeah, I know they are most probably volunteers, and not being payed for beta testing and such, but still... how can THIS go by them without being noticed? Matrix should use more of beta testers then, I am sure many of us, "professional" nitpickers and hyperanalyzers, would gladly volunteer. O. [/B][/QUOTE] No, no, I agree with you completely, Oleg. I just think that I'm beginning to see a little of the "diminishing returns" phenomenon sometimes. Certainly the stuff that's broken or not thought through completely needs to be fixed. I just see a lot of "gee, my planes aren't acting the way I want 'em to, it must be a bug that needs to be fixed" kind of thing. I for one appreciate your insight and commentary. Yes, you can be a little abrasive sometimes, but what the hey? You say what you mean and you are - most often - focused on the point to be made.

Ron Saueracker -> Diminishing returns ref weapons database. (8/25/2002 5:04:57 AM)
I'm not so sure that weapons mods are nitpicky and worthless. By bothering with the weapons databases, certain issues have come to light and made right. Many USN destroyers had no ASW capability in UV. Would that have been acceptable? (No, there were more than a few threads posted on this) Would you be happy with the Lexington in 1943 armed with only 20mm and too few 5" (assuming she survives)? As it is now, neither Lexington or Saratoga have any 1.1" armament, which I believe is mandatory for an upgrade to 40mm. In May 1942, Lexington had between 36 and 48 1.1" AA (I'm trying to get the right data through shipyard photos; very hard to come by so far). The Saratoga does not have the added 4 twin 5" 38 turrets which replaced the 8" turrets, or the 8 improved Mks of 5" 38 singles which replaced the twelve 5" 25s, or a minimum of 20 1.1" AA. Do you not think this would be of some impact? The 1.1" issue goes for the New Orleans class cruisers as well; as it stands now, the best USN Treaty CA class will never receive 40mm guns. US and IJN DDs also had main armament removed to increase their AA capacity, but the refit routine will not do this. Is this acceptable? Radars don't upgrade from what I've seen so far either. Don't quote me on this, but I don't think it's part of the process. People have asked when IJN ships get radar. Well, probably only those which were built with it. Would it not suck that the Shokaku not have radar in late 1942 or in 1943? It's rough enough on the IJN already. People comment on things such as SBDs and TBFs not looking just right, or IJN ASW being TOO accurate, or "UBER B17s" having more effect than IJN BBs vs bases etc. Why then is accurate ship weaponry not important? We are not simply talking about whether or not a ship had 12 20mm or 14 20mm, we are talking about major issues. Cheers:)

pasternakski -> Re: Diminishing returns ref weapons database. (8/25/2002 7:50:35 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker [B]I'm not so sure that weapons mods are nitpicky and worthless.[/B][/QUOTE] Again, I don't disagree with anything you say, Ron. These are, and have been, matters not only worthy of, but needing, attention. My point is that we have gotten to the place where a lot of the "bug" posts are not helpful. They either express a poster's point of view regarding historical performance of weapons, systems, or people that may or may not have some bearing on the matter, or use the term "bug" to express their less-than-perfect understanding of the game, its design, and its mechanics. I only counsel sense, not silence.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5780029