Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (Full Version)

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



Message

RUDOLF -> Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/27/2010 8:16:10 PM)

Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... in my testing it is my conclution, anyone who has another conclution?



bradfordkay -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/27/2010 8:17:29 PM)

I didn't think that they tried to fix it with this patch. 



Smeulders -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/27/2010 8:39:37 PM)

It's nowhere to be seen in the changelog, and I think I saw an earlier comment saying that it would be in the next patch, so it isn't supposed to work yet I think.



USSAmerica -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/27/2010 9:09:17 PM)

Definitely not included in this patch.



witpqs -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/27/2010 9:51:06 PM)

They specifically said only three code changes in this patch, and even went so far as to call them "hot fixes" in a post. Ground radar, attack bombers, and a bug that was causing crashes/freezes. The search arc fix is not included.



cantona2 -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/28/2010 10:58:49 AM)

Still cannot see the problem with the arcs. In my game vs Ramon they seem to be working just fine. Definitely spotting his wolf packs off Ceylon with no problems.



michaelm75au -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/28/2010 1:54:46 PM)

It all depends on what arc settings are used. Some arcs work fine, some don't. Which originally made me swap the code around. Which made the working one not, and the not working ones work.

I am getting a headache now[:D]



herwin -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/28/2010 4:07:04 PM)

Change the interface to be a principal search direction in tens of degrees and a search arc in tens of degrees. If the search arc is 0 degrees, only the search direction is searched.



crsutton -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/28/2010 4:38:29 PM)

It is fine with me if they don't fix it. Search works fine with out the arcs and having to set search arcs and watch over them proved to be just another marvelous time suck for me. Leave it as it is.



CapAndGown -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/28/2010 4:47:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is fine with me if they don't fix it. Search works fine with out the arcs and having to set search arcs and watch over them proved to be just another marvelous time suck for me. Leave it as it is.


I thought the point of WitP was to be a time suck? [&:][:D]



Pascal_slith -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 7:09:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is fine with me if they don't fix it. Search works fine with out the arcs and having to set search arcs and watch over them proved to be just another marvelous time suck for me. Leave it as it is.


I thought the point of WitP was to be a time suck? [&:][:D]


Not if you use HG Wells' Time Machine [:D]



herwin -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 7:27:26 AM)

P=NP if you have a time machine.



Roger Neilson II -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 10:41:08 AM)

There's time sucks and there's TIME SUCKS.

I'd be happy not to have to set arcs, and a few other little time sucks.

I do so wish that the ship withdrawal was automatic, or asked you to confirm you'd let it happen - have had umpteen ships in totally the wrong places and had to spend weeks getting them to a place to get rid of them!


Roger



Puhis -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 10:55:16 AM)

I never liked search arcs. IMO this kind of 1-3 day turns grand strategy game is just wrong game to have that kind of micromanagement.



CapAndGown -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 11:48:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I never liked search arcs. IMO this kind of 1-3 day turns grand strategy game is just wrong game to have that kind of micromanagement.


But they looks so pretty when you hit the Z key. [:'(]



Puhis -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 12:15:56 PM)

Well I have never tried the Z key. So maybe there is a reason to have search arcs! [:)]



bradfordkay -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 4:16:50 PM)

I like search arcs. When I hit the Z key I could quickly check to see if I had continuous coverage of the important areas (or at least the semblance of continuous coverage). It doesn't really take that much extra time to set them up - when you move a squadron to its new location you adjust the search zone, big deal. The joy is that the game allowed for both styles of play: those who like search zones and those who ignore them. Right now those who like search zones are left out in the cold...



crsutton -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 4:22:55 PM)

It is a marvelous game but the time needed to play it is twice that of WITP due to a thousand more clicks needed. I find that trying to play two campaigns is almost impossible.

It is like going to see a four hour movie. Might be a great movie but for god sakes who want to see a freaking four hour movie? Edit, edit, edit. Some time spent on the next patch should be devoted to streamlining the game. I know I speak like a heritic but it just has to be done. My wife just gets tired of calling me down for dinner over and over........



witpqs -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 4:32:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I'd be happy not to have to set arcs, and a few other little time sucks.

Roger


But you don't have to set search/ASW arcs and never did. Even after they release the fix you won't have to... [;)]



sprior -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 5:13:13 PM)

Which is a bit like saying the Japanese economy can run itself. You know it CAN but do you WANT it to?



witpqs -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/29/2010 5:26:52 PM)

Well, search arcs will give better results because they concentrate the assigned planes in a smaller area. But the old code is still there - and being used now - so when you have a group set with no arc (000 to 000) you get coverage.



crsutton -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/30/2010 5:08:54 AM)

Yes, I know but I got a hot game going against a good opponent. As said above, if it is there and it will give me a slight edge, I won't be able to not use it. Another half hour of clicking.....[>:]



bradfordkay -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/30/2010 7:26:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, I know but I got a hot game going against a good opponent. As said above, if it is there and it will give me a slight edge, I won't be able to not use it. Another half hour of clicking.....[>:]



You know that you are exaggerating, right? It will add a hour or more to the first turn, but after that I would wager that it adds no more than a few minutes per turn - only needing to be done when a unit is moved or newly arrived.



Kaletsch2007 -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/30/2010 10:28:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is a marvelous game but the time needed to play it is twice that of WITP due to a thousand more clicks needed. I find that trying to play two campaigns is almost impossible.

It is like going to see a four hour movie. Might be a great movie but for god sakes who want to see a freaking four hour movie? Edit, edit, edit. Some time spent on the next patch should be devoted to streamlining the game. I know I speak like a heritic but it just has to be done. My wife just gets tired of calling me down for dinner over and over........


You still have time for dinner with your wife ?
I need to improve my time management[:D]



Smeulders -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/30/2010 10:46:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well, search arcs will give better results because they concentrate the assigned planes in a smaller area. But the old code is still there - and being used now - so when you have a group set with no arc (000 to 000) you get coverage.


I actually think not setting search arcs sometimes has it's advantages. If you have a limited number of planes that need to search a large area (let's say enough planes to search 100° but you need to cover 300°), then setting search arcs will give you excellent coverage for a small part of the area, but no coverage at all for the rest. Not setting any search arcs you will lose some planes to the useless 60°, but at least due to the randomness you will have a chance of spotting enemies in every part of the 300° you do want to search. At the very least you will not leave a large, guaranteed open sector for your opponent to exploit.

If the search routine allows for spotting in neighbouring sectors, or allows ships to be spotted by planes in every sector that it transited, then non-continuous random sectors are certainly the way to go if there is a lack of planes to give dedicated search everywhere.



crsutton -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (11/30/2010 7:27:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, I know but I got a hot game going against a good opponent. As said above, if it is there and it will give me a slight edge, I won't be able to not use it. Another half hour of clicking.....[>:]



You know that you are exaggerating, right? It will add a hour or more to the first turn, but after that I would wager that it adds no more than a few minutes per turn - only needing to be done when a unit is moved or newly arrived.



Yes, I know that I am exaggerating......

But I won't back off here. There are too many details to attend to as it is.



Alpha77 -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (12/1/2010 8:50:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is a marvelous game but the time needed to play it is twice that of WITP due to a thousand more clicks needed. I find that trying to play two campaigns is almost impossible.

It is like going to see a four hour movie. Might be a great movie but for god sakes who want to see a freaking four hour movie? Edit, edit, edit. Some time spent on the next patch should be devoted to streamlining the game. I know I speak like a heritic but it just has to be done. My wife just gets tired of calling me down for dinner over and over........


Ditoed.


I made a posting some weeks ago with some streamline/improvement ideas, but no one answered so I figured that I am a big minority here who wants less micromanagement.. [8|] Seems there is at least one more. Meanwhile I even have more ideas, but probably most rather want more clicks....[:D]

Btw/Edit: I donīt have the newest game version (guess mine is some months old) and I use only normal search, now that the allies have more search assets it seems they even detect something without arcs. It also seems that I am NOT affected by the Radar bug - when was this introduced ?? My fighters mostly scramble early enough for interception and also there is a message "detected by radar" or simmilar



bradfordkay -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (12/2/2010 1:14:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, I know but I got a hot game going against a good opponent. As said above, if it is there and it will give me a slight edge, I won't be able to not use it. Another half hour of clicking.....[>:]



You know that you are exaggerating, right? It will add a hour or more to the first turn, but after that I would wager that it adds no more than a few minutes per turn - only needing to be done when a unit is moved or newly arrived.



Yes, I know that I am exaggerating......

But I won't back off here. There are too many details to attend to as it is.




So your argument is that since you don't want to take advantage of hte extra detail, no one else should be allowed to do so?

That's what it boils down to if the search arcs are implemented as originally intended.



crsutton -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (12/2/2010 4:17:44 AM)

Well, you reach a point of diminshing return. How many good gamers have passed up on AE-many after buying it, due to the massive complexity? The problem with the members of the forum (myself included) is that we are a pretty hard core group of players and tend to love all the detail. But is it really a good thing if the game is just too complex? Is there ever a game that is too complex? I think so. I have seen may in 45 years of wargaming. In fact, I owned many boardgames for years that I never got around to trying out. The greatest movies generally are great because they have great editing. The same hold true for any simulation. Yes, this game can be trimmed a bit and might be a better game for it.




bradfordkay -> RE: Search Arcs problem seems to still be flawd (bugg) ... (12/2/2010 7:48:26 AM)

I can understand your point. It's just that search arcs was one of the extra details added to AE that I really enjoy. It's much more fun to setup search arcs (and verify that you have the right coverage by hitting the "z" key) than it is to train pilots. Both of these are an aspect of a level of detail that the theatre commander would not be bothering with, and so are extra work that really didn't need to be in there. However, the consequences of having search arcs in the game and not using them are far less devastating than having pilot training in the game and not using it.

To each his own... my hopes are that they will be fixed.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.265625