RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (Full Version)

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



Message

berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 12:58:08 AM)

A tooltip bug, in the 1108k9 beta build.

For the 7th JAAF Base Force

[image]http://pikt.org/matrix/witpae/ToolTipVBug1b_beta1108k9.jpg[/image]

its Aviation Support is 46 (verified also in the Pisanuloke base screen), but in the tooltip for that unit

[image]http://pikt.org/matrix/witpae/ToolTipVBug1a_beta1108k9.jpg[/image]

there is no "V46" for either the unit itself or in the Total line at the bottom.

I am seeing V numbers and totals for Aviation-Support-capable units elsewhere on the map.

save

edit> This problem went away after a while.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 5:52:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


Can that ship transit a river? I bet it's too big and it's stuck in Portland. It should have it's port of entry set to SF, but that's an oob change, not a code change.

Thanks for the explanation.

Cheers,
CC



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 6:09:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Added Hotkey '5' will show the supply path from the selected base where the number shows the lessening effect of supply [MEM]

Another fantastic feature, but ... in some hexes by the absence of supply numbers, it seems I can infer the presence of enemy units, something that reconnaissance is otherwise not revealing to me. In other words, this feature is helping to dispel the Fog of War. WAD, or an unintended side effect?


Unintended.
Ignoring presence of enemy units would make showing the path useless as path would change.
Absence of supply numbers could be due to other factors apart from enemy.
The strength of enemy units is still unknown.

If the use of '5' is detrimental, I'll just drop it or limit it to just AI games.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 6:12:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Michaelm: Great work with all of these updates. I had the second ARD (AFDB-2) come in at Portland and when I form a Support TF out of it and try to select any new home port (for instance, Pearl Harbor) it comes up: "HOME BASE MUST BE ACCESSIBLE BY THIS TF!!" I noticed this in K8 and it's the same issue in K9.

Interestingly enough, I tested AFDB-1, which I have parked at Rabaul, and I had no problem forming a Support TF out of it and selecting any home port.

Cheers,
CC


Do you have the save where it is in Portland?
I thought that if a 'too big' ship arrived in a smaller port, the ship got moved to the national home base on arrival.
[edit]
Do worry I just found a save.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 6:54:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Michaelm: Great work with all of these updates. I had the second ARD (AFDB-2) come in at Portland and when I form a Support TF out of it and try to select any new home port (for instance, Pearl Harbor) it comes up: "HOME BASE MUST BE ACCESSIBLE BY THIS TF!!" I noticed this in K8 and it's the same issue in K9.

Interestingly enough, I tested AFDB-1, which I have parked at Rabaul, and I had no problem forming a Support TF out of it and selecting any home port.

Cheers,
CC



I thought that this had been corrected in a previous patch by changing the arrival base to Seattle in the scenarios.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 8:06:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

A tooltip bug, in the 1108k9 beta build.

For the 7th JAAF Base Force

[image]http://pikt.org/matrix/witpae/ToolTipVBug1b_beta1108k9.jpg[/image]

its Aviation Support is 46 (verified also in the Pisanuloke base screen), but in the tooltip for that unit

[image]http://pikt.org/matrix/witpae/ToolTipVBug1a_beta1108k9.jpg[/image]

there is no "V46" for either the unit itself or in the Total line at the bottom.

I am seeing V numbers and totals for Aviation-Support-capable units elsewhere on the map.

save

edit> This problem went away after a while.


Loaded the save and the AV total for that unit in save was '0'. It would have happened in the previous turn as this total is generated as part of the supply check at end of each turn. [I can't see how it would not have been set if the other support totals were set as they happen at the same time]
It was correct when I ran the save for the next turn.

[edit]
I noticed in another thread, you mentioned that the 7th JAAF BF had recently arrived.
This seems to be it - the support totals are not being updated for newly arriving units until the supply phase of the next turn.(WAD)



Sardaukar -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 10:56:50 AM)

I wonder if it would be possible to get a hotkey for "Patrol around target" for TF waypoints selection..that would save several clicks for my sub TF assignations...



USSAmerica -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 12:22:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Added Hotkey '5' will show the supply path from the selected base where the number shows the lessening effect of supply [MEM]

Another fantastic feature, but ... in some hexes by the absence of supply numbers, it seems I can infer the presence of enemy units, something that reconnaissance is otherwise not revealing to me. In other words, this feature is helping to dispel the Fog of War. WAD, or an unintended side effect?


Unintended.
Ignoring presence of enemy units would make showing the path useless as path would change.
Absence of supply numbers could be due to other factors apart from enemy.
The strength of enemy units is still unknown.

If the use of '5' is detrimental, I'll just drop it or limit it to just AI games.


Love the added feature, Michael, but if there's no way to avoid this unintended side effect then I would vote for dropping it. To me, even the knowledge of otherwise unspotted LCU's in a hex is "spoiling the surprise." [:D]



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 12:42:32 PM)

I will drop it back to AI games.
Didn't think about the effect on PBEM.[&:]



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 2:01:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Added Hotkey '5' will show the supply path from the selected base where the number shows the lessening effect of supply [MEM]

Another fantastic feature, but ... in some hexes by the absence of supply numbers, it seems I can infer the presence of enemy units, something that reconnaissance is otherwise not revealing to me. In other words, this feature is helping to dispel the Fog of War. WAD, or an unintended side effect?

Unintended.
Ignoring presence of enemy units would make showing the path useless as path would change.
Absence of supply numbers could be due to other factors apart from enemy.
The strength of enemy units is still unknown.

If the use of '5' is detrimental, I'll just drop it or limit it to just AI games.

Supply paths are vital information. On balance, I would say keep them. The pros outweigh the cons.

edit> At least make it an optional rule. I'd hate to lose this wonderful feature.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 2:23:55 PM)

I may compromise (as usual) by just showing the 'green dots' of the hexes within the supply range.
You wont know if the path ended due to running out of supply points or presence of enemy unit.



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 2:42:38 PM)

The numbers are good to know. But too much bean counting is bad. So, yes, maybe half a loaf is better than none.

Maybe wait to see what others have to say about this.



KHawk -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 2:54:21 PM)

Michael

Thanks for all your work on the Betas.

After updating my diagram for bombing altitudes, I was wonder if you see anything out of place with the changes made over the last few betas.

KHawk

[image]local://upfiles/12665/0689640BDDEB444995DA158F58BC00D7.jpg[/image]



foliveti -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 3:03:22 PM)

I thought dive bombing worked at 10K?  Does it need to go up to 11k?



KHawk -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 3:12:40 PM)

That is kind of why I am asking. I go in at 12000 just to be safe.

There has been changes with the attack bombers and torpedo bombers.

Recently I tried using fighters at 12000 and they seamed to Level Bomb.

Was hoping to get the facts.

KHawk



Buck Beach -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 3:21:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I may compromise (as usual) by just showing the 'green dots' of the hexes within the supply range.
You wont know if the path ended due to running out of supply points or presence of enemy unit.



The problem with green dots is that for us color blind people (and there are a lot of us)it provides no information. This is just not for this issue but for all such color items in the game.

That would be red/green color blind.



USSAmerica -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 3:22:04 PM)

Don't know about fighters, but DB's do dive attack from 10,000'.  



USSAmerica -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 3:22:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I may compromise (as usual) by just showing the 'green dots' of the hexes within the supply range.
You wont know if the path ended due to running out of supply points or presence of enemy unit.



Seems a very good compromise to me. [:)]



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 4:06:26 PM)

Still not happy with resource/oil movement.
Seems that bases are holding onto too much and not letting it flow to ports. The fuel/supply seems to flow okay.



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 4:06:48 PM)

A move tick bug, in the 1108k9 beta build.

For the LCU icon in hex 57,53 (just west of Chiang Mai)

[image]http://pikt.org/matrix/witpae/MoveTickBug1a_beta1108k9.jpg[/image]

[image]http://pikt.org/matrix/witpae/MoveTickBug1b_beta1108k9.jpg[/image]

the move tick is pointing east, but all LCUs in that hex are moving west, to Paingkyon hex 56,53.

save

This was a concern for me in an earlier turn. Elements of this stack were then at Chiang Mai. My orders were for them to march west, but the move tick was pointing southeast. Concerned that somehow the game really would have them move down the rail line southeast despite my orders for them to move west along the secondary road, I cancelled the move.

So, just a cosmetic issue? But maybe has a real effect on game play.



Sardaukar -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 4:12:38 PM)

But it says on unit screen that march direction is: E....which is how the tick shows. Seems they are taking a detour.



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 4:45:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

But it says on unit screen that march direction is: E....which is how the tick shows. Seems they are taking a detour.

Good point. The move tick does indeed match the displayed March Direction: E.

Nevertheless, the 21st Medium FA Bn and all other LCUs in that group did in fact move west, directly down the secondary road to Paingkyon, with no detour at all.

save

By and by, see this thread for a corroborative screenshot.

Seems like there is a bug: a mismatch between the march orders and actual movement on the one hand, and the move tick and displayed March Direction on the other.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 4:55:43 PM)

The 'tick' is based on the march direction. Which is calculated when you order the unit to march and then gets updated when the unit moves hex.



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 5:25:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The 'tick' is based on the march direction. Which is calculated when you order the unit to march and then gets updated when the unit moves hex.

I can assure you that, after gathering at Chiang Mai, all units were ordered to march west, never east. For day after day lasting over a week and more.

In other words, the sequence was:

--units at Chiang Mai
--ordered them to march west, directly down the secondary road, to Paingkyon
--after several days, they moved one hex west, as intended
--the move tick, and the March Direction, displayed east
--the units continued their westward march, several days later arriving at Paingkyon one hex to the west, with no detour or delay evident

And referring back to my earlier example, in no way did I order any LCUs at Chiang Mai to move southeast (instead, directly to Paingkyon, to the west). But here is what the map showed:

[image]http://pikt.org/matrix/witpae/Burma_v7_Game2_420203.jpg[/image]

???



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 5:37:23 PM)

Not doubting you, just saying how it works.
I will look at the save when I get the chance.[:)]



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 5:45:23 PM)

Thanks for the promised look.

Grand campaign PBEMers may be reluctant to risk trying betas.

Since for now I only play short-duration scenarios, hence I have less to lose, you can count on me to play test all beta releases going forward. And to calls 'em as I sees 'em. [;)]



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 6:15:12 PM)

The units are moving as directed despite the march direction indicating the opposite. The initial direction may be picking the direction of least resistance, which would be the trail not across the river.
I'll cancel the movement of the units and try to set it myself to track the path.

Question: Did these units start in the current hex (of save) or from further away?
When I canceled move and then set it again, they directly moved West as expected. This is the way I expect a single move to work.
Okay I went back re-read last post.

Reloaded your save from 31 Jan and played forward. The march direction remained correct 'W' on the units, so not sure when/why it changed to 'E'.
Do you have the save from 12 Feb, the one before the one you posted above? Want to try to track down when it changed to 'E'.



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 6:49:56 PM)

Pardon me if, after rereading the above, you've figured it out, but ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The units are moving as directed despite the march direction indicating the opposite. The initial direction may be picking the direction of least resistance, which would be the trail not across the river.

But the "direction of least resistance" would have them moving away from the Salween River. One way or the other (one route or the other), they will eventually have to cross the Salween to get to Paingkyon. As you can see from the map, the Salween extends from the Bay of Bengal north through Burma and on into southern China.

quote:

Question: Did these units start in the current hex (of save) or from further away?

All units in the vicinity of Chiang Mai originally strategic moved via rail up from Bangkok. After staggered arrivals at Chiang Mai (because I moved them, not as a single group, but in subgroups days apart), in all cases units were ordered to move westward, either to hex 57,53 (midway between Chiang Mai & Paingkyon), or to hex 56,53, Paingkyon. (Always in Move Op Mode, never Combat.) When I observed the late arrivals apparently moving southeast (as described above), I cancelled move orders for the earlier arrivals. They stayed put in 57,53 awaiting the arrival of the laggards. When all units had assembled in 57,53 I ordered them to march west to Paingkyon. That's when I observed the east-pointing move tick. As reported, subsequent to that, they moved west (despite what the move tick and March Direction showed).

I should add that throughout, I have been doublechecking all march orders, Op Modes, etc. Cycling through every unit, checking to make sure one by one.

I've been play testing this one scenario for the last couple of months. Before the current beta build, I tried the 1108k7 build, and before that the latest official release. I've never observed these quirks before. Could be a recent glitch.



berto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 6:53:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Reloaded your save from 31 Jan and played forward. The march direction remained correct 'W' on the units, so not sure when/why it changed to 'E'.
Do you have the save from 12 Feb, the one before the one you posted above? Want to try to track down when it changed to 'E'.

The only saves I have are in this thread or in the Burma scenario thread.

Or you could just visit this site.

The last post provided a more detailed account of how I got from there to here.



hunchback77 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k9 updated 24 April (4/25/2011 7:12:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I may compromise (as usual) by just showing the 'green dots' of the hexes within the supply range.
You wont know if the path ended due to running out of supply points or presence of enemy unit.


I like the numbers instead of the green dots Michael, it helps in understanding the flow of supply. Please keep it as is for AI games and add the option to turn it off in PBEM games. Thank you.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875