RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (Full Version)

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

Message

treespider -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/16/2011 1:54:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dbmsts Michealm this was written in the change log for the 1108k8 patch quote: Tweaked Group stacking on base with AF 6+ gains a 1/3 lowering of the "Aircraft Stack Level" for 4E planes[MEM] Could you please exlpain this in detail? Will AFs of size 9 and 10 also have overstacking now or is this about something else? See the immediately preceding post (#359) by Michael. quote: MichaelM wrote: On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes. My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall. I like it.

viberpol -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/16/2011 2:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: MichaelM wrote: On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes. My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall. I like it. On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it. [:(] This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.[8\|] And more results like this one: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45 Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 43 minutes Allied aircraft Liberator II x 16 Liberator B.III x 13 Wellington B.X x 12 B-24D Liberator x 22 B-24D1 Liberator x 34 B-24J Liberator x 12 Allied aircraft losses Liberator II: 1 damaged B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged Airbase hits 75 Airbase supply hits 29 Runway hits 669 How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted or making them less fighter-proof? [&o]

Theages -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/16/2011 4:04:28 PM)
Using version k8 und alternate font. There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers.

mjk428 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/16/2011 7:30:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I like it. I like it too. I LOVE the ability to stockpile where I choose. Thanks Michael.

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/16/2011 8:16:12 PM)
Michael, Thanks for the great ongoing support! [&o][&o][&o]

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 12:05:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dbmsts Michealm this was written in the change log for the 1108k8 patch quote: Tweaked Group stacking on base with AF 6+ gains a 1/3 lowering of the "Aircraft Stack Level" for 4E planes[MEM] Could you please exlpain this in detail? Will AFs of size 9 and 10 also have overstacking now or is this about something else? From memory, AF 9+ never have had any restrictions.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 12:09:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Theages Using version k8 und alternate font. There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers. Thought I had checked alt font. Ah welll. So hard to find space nowadays.

Mac Linehan -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 5:33:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I like it. I like it too. I LOVE the ability to stockpile where I choose. Thanks Michael. +2! Count me in - outstanding work, Michael! Mac

Mac Linehan -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 5:38:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm The next build will expand the stockpiling option to bases. The code had hooks for this (added in last patch) but I hadn't activated it. You will be able to stockpile supply, fuel, resource and oil at bases. This means that bases will retain these and not allow other bases to access them. Note that this applies only to supply&resource movement between bases, normal LCU and industry access is not affected. OMG! [&o] Can I now stuckpile fuel for ships for example in Brisbane and not have it being sucked to industry in other parts of Australia? That's the theory. No matter how smart the distribution method gets, there is always going to be some case where the PLAYER wants to keep huge stockpiles in one place determined by the player rather than the AI's ditribution net. michaelm - This is absolutely First Class - a very useful feature. Please keep up the good work! AE Loyalist Mac

dbmsts -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 8:15:32 AM)
thanks

Halsey -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 10:10:06 AM)
Viberpol may be on to something. Maybe 7+ level airfields should be considered more sophisticated, and shouldn't the repair rates be across the board? Not just 4E aircraft, say 20-25% reduction for all types. Just my 2 cents from an AFB...[:D]

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 10:21:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey Viberpol may be on to something. Maybe 7+ level airfields should be considered more sophisticated, and shouldn't the repair rates be across the board? Not just 4E aircraft, say 20-25% reduction for all types. Just my 2 cents from an AFB...[:D] This is only stacking level - how many planes can fit at airfield without impact to ops. Does not affect repair/support.

Halsey -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/17/2011 12:35:33 PM)
Gotcha!

Bradley7735 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 12:33:49 AM)
I'm trying to figure out how to do a print screen to show you these two, but I'll write about them until I can get a picture. 1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics. 2: I have a ship docked and loading an LCU at Manila. When I click the "all task forces" button, it says 'Manila, headed to'. It should say "At Manila." All the task forces that are docked, or just sitting in base hexes say "xyz location, headed to" They should say, 'at xyz location' or 'at sea at xyz location' See my picture below. task force 122 is the example, but I could find others. This is with the most recent patch (I downloaded it today.) I'll try to get some graphics loaded so you can see what I mean. Thanks, Brad [image]local://upfiles/12939/38E42AEE6A03472FA1D9F44F81F39951.jpg[/image]

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 12:43:34 AM)
Is it correct that after this message: Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Loyang the enemy unit disappears?

Bradley7735 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 1:44:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics. Thanks, Brad [image]local://upfiles/12939/F58D117E8AC246F7A6BE13FA2C1A4889.jpg[/image]

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 4:12:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Is it correct that after this message: Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Loyang the enemy unit disappears? I beleive that is correct, at least that is what happens for me.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 4:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics. Thanks, Brad [image]local://upfiles/12939/F58D117E8AC246F7A6BE13FA2C1A4889.jpg[/image] Flak is shown only if there are flak values present. Pls attach the pre-turn (save #2) where you see this, thanks PS if the save also has the "docked" issue, it would also be helpful.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 7:04:46 AM)
Hi Michael, Here is the Dec 7th turn. When you run it, you'll see several examples of the flak at empty bases (PI and Maylay peninsula). Look at the transport task forces loading supplies at SF, Soerbaja, Singers, Manila. They all say "xyz location, moving to" I have noticed that once a task force has stopped loading stuff, it says the normal, correct response. But, if it's in the process of loading something, it says it's moving there. FYI, this is heavily moded from stock. I apologize if it's my changes that are causing the problems and you spend time that isn't necessary. Thanks, Brad

m10bob -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 8:01:25 AM)
I like what michaelm has done for the "parking space" at bases..Tinian should be a good example..

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 8:27:10 AM)
The location in the Taskforce list didn't account for the possibility that the destination was the base docked at. Re-arranged the order of tests to account for docked TFs. The flak indicator is on but I can't see exactly where it is being turned on, but I'll try to track it back. Yep, found it. The flak indicator is being updated even if there wasn't any flak in hex. Oversight around since start.

asdicus -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 2:27:50 PM)
Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 4:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping. Sorry. I did take a look and it appears that the enemy fields are active, but generally will active new TFs entering the hex. Once a TF sits in the hex, the chance of encountering the mines lessen each turn. I suppose this would represent ships anchoring in fairly safe waters after awhile. Nothing has changed in this regard in the last set of patches, if anything the length of the "un-safe" turns in the hex has been slightly increased.

asdicus -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 4:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: asdicus Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping. Sorry. I did take a look and it appears that the enemy fields are active, but generally will active new TFs entering the hex. Once a TF sits in the hex, the chance of encountering the mines lessen each turn. I suppose this would represent ships anchoring in fairly safe waters after awhile. Nothing has changed in this regard in the last set of patches, if anything the length of the "un-safe" turns in the hex has been slightly increased. Thank-you for your prompt and detailed reply. If it ok with you I would like to keep an eye on this. In my pbm the japs are soon going to invade some heavily mined dutch bases and I am hoping to see at least some minesweeping required and also perhaps a few hits. I must be very unlucky with my minefields because I cannot recall seeing a jap ship hit a defensively laid mine for ages but in very old patches I am sure I got hits.

crsutton -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 6:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: MichaelM wrote: On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes. My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall. I like it. On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it. [:(] This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.[8\|] And more results like this one: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45 Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 43 minutes Allied aircraft Liberator II x 16 Liberator B.III x 13 Wellington B.X x 12 B-24D Liberator x 22 B-24D1 Liberator x 34 B-24J Liberator x 12 Allied aircraft losses Liberator II: 1 damaged B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged Airbase hits 75 Airbase supply hits 29 Runway hits 669 How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted or making them less fighter-proof? [&o] Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D]

witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 6:32:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: MichaelM wrote: On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes. My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall. I like it. On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it. [:(] This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.[8\|] And more results like this one: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45 Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 43 minutes Allied aircraft Liberator II x 16 Liberator B.III x 13 Wellington B.X x 12 B-24D Liberator x 22 B-24D1 Liberator x 34 B-24J Liberator x 12 Allied aircraft losses Liberator II: 1 damaged B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged Airbase hits 75 Airbase supply hits 29 Runway hits 669 How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted or making them less fighter-proof? [&o] Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D] Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

Nomad -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/18/2011 7:07:57 PM)
I'm sorry.

viberpol -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/19/2011 2:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 43 minutes Allied aircraft Liberator II x 16 Liberator B.III x 13 Wellington B.X x 12 B-24D Liberator x 22 B-24D1 Liberator x 34 B-24J Liberator x 12 Allied aircraft losses Liberator II: 1 damaged B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged Airbase hits 75 Airbase supply hits 29 Runway hits 669 How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted or making them less fighter-proof? [&o] Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D] Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits. Exactly. And here's another example from today's PBEM turn. Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58 Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft no flights Allied aircraft B-24D1 Liberator x 23 Japanese aircraft losses No Japanese losses No Allied losses Japanese ground losses: 6 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Airbase hits 19 Airbase supply hits 5 Runway hits 228 252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped? [&:] I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one... And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy. Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more... [;)]

treespider -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/19/2011 2:42:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 43 minutes Allied aircraft Liberator II x 16 Liberator B.III x 13 Wellington B.X x 12 B-24D Liberator x 22 B-24D1 Liberator x 34 B-24J Liberator x 12 Allied aircraft losses Liberator II: 1 damaged B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged Airbase hits 75 Airbase supply hits 29 Runway hits 669 How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted or making them less fighter-proof? [&o] Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D] Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits. Exactly. And here's another example from today's PBEM turn. Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58 Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft no flights Allied aircraft B-24D1 Liberator x 23 Japanese aircraft losses No Japanese losses No Allied losses Japanese ground losses: 6 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Airbase hits 19 Airbase supply hits 5 Runway hits 228 252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped? [&:] I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one... And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy. Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more... [;)] Not to hi-jack this thread ...so perhaps this discussion should be taken elsewhere...I'll start a new thread...

Theages -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement (4/19/2011 3:21:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: Theages Using version k8 und alternate font. There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers. Thought I had checked alt font. Ah welll. So hard to find space nowadays. Would it be possible to add the max draw value as a permanent info on the base screen? I found another minor issue present since mouse over information of the fulfullment of garrison requirements has been introduced. The mouse-over of a base shows if the garrison requirements are met. This does not seem consistent with the results shown eg. on the base screen. It seems that if the AV at the base is more than about 90% of the garrison requirement, the mouse-over shows the requirement is met, whereas the base or LCU screen shows red numbers indicating that eg. 91 is indeed a smaller number than 100 and therefore the requirements are not met.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8613281