RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (Full Version)

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

Message

Chris21wen -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (7/4/2011 9:02:07 PM)
Just load the latest beta, most changes I've found or worked out but not search arcs. Could someone explain it please. e.g.clockwise, colours, arcs etc.

USSAmerica -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/4/2011 10:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Hello..Dunno if this is possible, but I have a major irk since day one. When building a combat naval TF, I pay extra to be able to acquire my own TF commanders. (Willis Lee is my favorite BB CO), but once that TF comes back to port, I lose the commander of that TF and am left to re-purchasing my CO's all over again. Is there a way to make this "loss" or swap optional? Thank you. This is also an issue in that whenever I form a new carrier TF and select "auto select" commander the AI almost aways will choose an unsuitable surface fleet commander for the TF rather than any number of skilled carrier commanders available-forcing me to spend valuable PPs on replacing the commander. This does not seem to be a problem when setting up a SCTF. The easiest way I've found to work around this is to not actually disband the TF. If it's an Air Combat TF and I need to repair or refit ships in it, I'll bring it into port and then transfer the ships I want from the TF to the port. You can leave just a single DD for instance, in the TF and keep the Admiral in command. Then, later, transfer ships into the TF and go to war. I do this for several key AC and SC Tf's regularly to keep their expensive TF commanders in place.

CV 2 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/5/2011 2:51:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Hello..Dunno if this is possible, but I have a major irk since day one. When building a combat naval TF, I pay extra to be able to acquire my own TF commanders. (Willis Lee is my favorite BB CO), but once that TF comes back to port, I lose the commander of that TF and am left to re-purchasing my CO's all over again. Is there a way to make this "loss" or swap optional? Thank you. This is also an issue in that whenever I form a new carrier TF and select "auto select" commander the AI almost aways will choose an unsuitable surface fleet commander for the TF rather than any number of skilled carrier commanders available-forcing me to spend valuable PPs on replacing the commander. This does not seem to be a problem when setting up a SCTF. What I do (sometimes) is select a ship plus a DD. If I dont get a suitable commander for what I want, I make another. For example, if I want a decent CV commander and dont have a lot of PPs to play with, I will: 1) Select a carrier and 1 DD (say the Lex for example). If the commander isnt up to task, then 2) Select the Lex and a different DD (thus leaving the first DD in the other TF). If that commander isnt up to it, I repeat this procedure until I get one I want, then disband all the 1 DD TFs I made to get him. -( waits for the chorus of "gamey" from the same old people )- I dont see it as any more "gamey" than leaving a 1 DD TF with Halsey aboard. Like Halsey would set foot on a DD [:D]

Chris21wen -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/5/2011 9:19:29 AM)
Could I make a suggestion regarding LCU lists and 'Show hard/soft'. One of the thing I've found arkward to do is check fat, dis, mor in the game so that I can set them to rest or move them off the front line. Your soft toggle fixes this partially. The problem now is when you sort by say sort 'fat' and switch back to 'show hard' to view those set to rest the list resorts. Is it possible to retain the previous sort for the LCU list when you switch between 'Show hard/soft'?

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/5/2011 10:04:14 AM)
Not sure. I think it sorts on the column # of the displayed list. So if Fat was col#10, then when it gos to the 'hard' columns, it still sorts on col#10 (which is now something else). Anyway, I'll have a look at it. It would be handy to sort a list up which had a column toggle, and still see where things were on flipping the toggle again.

Kull -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/5/2011 10:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV 2 Like Halsey would set foot on a DD [:D] Halsey commanded USS Shaw, Wickes, and Dale. So I rather think he had a soft spot for the ol' tin cans. [:D] And my voice is added to the chorus of praises for michaelm - the kind of support we're seeing in this thread is nothing short of extraordinary!

jmalter -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/6/2011 5:01:39 AM)
hi michaelm, i've run 1108p2 beta (Downfall 14v2 scen, mid-March '46) for 2 turns, i think there's a prob w/ Repl TFs. I've got a coupla Repl TFs (DEs, AOs & AEs), my CV & Surf TFs can re-arm from them, but they won't refuel, i get a "No fuel transferred!" msg. also (this applies to all the betas, not just 1108p2), when i re-arm TFs from AEs in a Repl TF, the AEs are used 'one-at-a-time', that is, one AE's transfer capacity is used until it reaches 1000 ops points before a 2nd AE is used. This has a bad effect on the Repl TFs ability to move in the next phase, i'd much rather that all available AEs contribute to the re-arm, so that they share the accrued ops points. when refuel-at-sea was working, all the AOs in a Repl TF would share the burden of refueling TFs, IMO AEs should work the same way. also under 1108p2, i can't refuel small TFs (7-ship Surf & 4-ship ASW TFs) from larger same-hex CV TFs w/ good fuel, previously these small TFs could suck fuel from any other in-hex TF, even when no Repl TF was present. i'm sayin', Severe Constraint to Ongoing Operations, & will try to back out to 1108m9 beta for my next turn-execute, it won't be groovy if my escorts run dry in the Sea of Japan... btw, your betas rule, i enjoy the new features. i'm v. willing to continue playing vs. the AI under your new tweaks, this is the 1st time i've wanted to back-track from your latest effort. my suggestion wrt the new airgroup buttons that xfer 1/5/10 'worst experienced' pilots to the pools, that there should be companion buttons that xfer the 'best experienced' pilots to the pools, also when i've clicked the 'Request Veteran' button for an airgroup, it'd be great to have 1/5/10 buttons in the following screen. where, once i've filtered the veterans screen for pilot type, it'd be nift' to have 'Add 1/5/10 best-experienced' buttons.

CV 2 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/6/2011 5:11:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull quote: ORIGINAL: CV 2 Like Halsey would set foot on a DD [:D] Halsey commanded USS Shaw, Wickes, and Dale. So I rather think he had a soft spot for the ol' tin cans. [:D] And my voice is added to the chorus of praises for michaelm - the kind of support we're seeing in this thread is nothing short of extraordinary! Not as a 3 star he didnt. Although I found it interesting that Nimitz had the change of command ceremony when he turned the Pacific fleet over to Spruance on a sub.

jmalter -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/6/2011 5:58:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV 2 Although I found it interesting that Nimitz had the change of command ceremony when he turned the Pacific fleet over to Spruance on a sub. well, Nimitz grew up on subs, he was a sub techno nerd. He accepted the command of Pacflt at Pearl aboard USS Grayling (SS-209) on 31 Dec 41 from Adm. Pye (who had replaced Kimmel by order of SecNav Frank Knox). Spruance was Nimitz' subordinate, he served as Nimitz' chief of staff, then as commander 5th Fleet (alternating w/ Adm. Halsey in charge of the same assets as commander 3rd Fleet). postwar, Spruance replaced Nimitz as CINCPAC on 8 Nov 45, he held the post until 1 Feb 46. Nimitz reminds me of Adm. Sandy Woodward, RN - Woodward grew up in subs, became 'Teacher' (training officer in charge of testing sub-captain wannabees), then advanced to FOFI (Flag Officer Flotila One) in time to take charge of the Falklands bidness. Makes me wonder, should there be a rule that sub-mariners might get first dibs on command of any fleet operations that might be on the operational horizon? Is there something special about a proven sub guy that prepares him for fleet command?

Chris21wen -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/6/2011 8:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter Nimitz reminds me of Adm. Sandy Woodward, RN - Woodward grew up in subs, became 'Teacher' (training officer in charge of testing sub-captain wannabees), then advanced to FOFI (Fleet Officer Flotila One) in time to take charge of the Falklands bidness. Makes me wonder, should there be a rule that sub-mariners might get first dibs on command of any fleet operations that might be on the operational horizon? Is there something special about a proven sub guy that prepares him for fleet command? Using the term Teacher reminds me that there's a great doumentary series on Channel 5 in Britain at the moment all called Submariner School. All about the 'Perisher' course. Even has a US submariner in training. Never in subs but was on surface ships exercising with Perisher subs never realising how close ship and sub could get to hitting each other. Watch ing this potential sub skippers work out speed and course through the tactical scope all in there head is pretty impressive.

Chris21wen -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/6/2011 8:12:54 AM)
Just loaded the latest beta, most changes I've found or worked out but not search arcs. Could someone explain it please. e.g.clockwise, colours, arcs etc. Anybody know?

Lecivius -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/6/2011 4:19:45 PM)
I'm noticing night actions with a very long delay. For example, as the turn progresses I'll get a typical pop up in the center of the map screen that there is an amphibious operation attacking Wake. It will sit there for 15-20 seconds, then I will get the message text in the lower left message screen. After a 5-8 second pause you will get the combat animation window, which plays normally. However, if you deliberatly attempt to close the animation window it hangs again for a few seconds. This is only during the night pulse. The 2 day pulses work just fine. And only when running Beta. A fresh, unpatched game works ok. And as I type this I thought about turning animations off, I'll do that & post later.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/7/2011 2:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chris H Could I make a suggestion regarding LCU lists and 'Show hard/soft'. One of the thing I've found arkward to do is check fat, dis, mor in the game so that I can set them to rest or move them off the front line. Your soft toggle fixes this partially. The problem now is when you sort by say sort 'fat' and switch back to 'show hard' to view those set to rest the list resorts. Is it possible to retain the previous sort for the LCU list when you switch between 'Show hard/soft'? The way the list sort works is as I suspected. It sorts the column number. So when you change hard/soft, the list is redrawn and the corresponding column number sorted again. It would need the ability to record an 'invisible' column to sort on, and that is not possible with the current engine 'sort' functionality. Would have been handy though.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/7/2011 2:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter hi michaelm, i've run 1108p2 beta (Downfall 14v2 scen, mid-March '46) for 2 turns, i think there's a prob w/ Repl TFs. I've got a coupla Repl TFs (DEs, AOs & AEs), my CV & Surf TFs can re-arm from them, but they won't refuel, i get a "No fuel transferred!" msg. also (this applies to all the betas, not just 1108p2), when i re-arm TFs from AEs in a Repl TF, the AEs are used 'one-at-a-time', that is, one AE's transfer capacity is used until it reaches 1000 ops points before a 2nd AE is used. This has a bad effect on the Repl TFs ability to move in the next phase, i'd much rather that all available AEs contribute to the re-arm, so that they share the accrued ops points. when refuel-at-sea was working, all the AOs in a Repl TF would share the burden of refueling TFs, IMO AEs should work the same way. also under 1108p2, i can't refuel small TFs (7-ship Surf & 4-ship ASW TFs) from larger same-hex CV TFs w/ good fuel, previously these small TFs could suck fuel from any other in-hex TF, even when no Repl TF was present. i'm sayin', Severe Constraint to Ongoing Operations, & will try to back out to 1108m9 beta for my next turn-execute, it won't be groovy if my escorts run dry in the Sea of Japan... The only change made to refueling recently has been to curtail the number of fueling and fueler ships in a hex with more than 200+ ships present. This was causing a CTD or some corruption. This issue arose in another player's Downfall game. Could this be a case of too many ships in the hex?? Plus situation where a ship in a TF has less than 70% fuel would cause ALL ships in the TF to start refueling each other, rather than just the one ship below 70%. Thus it slowing down the TF by using up ship ops and affecting its move speed.

jmalter -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/8/2011 2:43:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm The only change made to refueling recently has been to curtail the number of fueling and fueler ships in a hex with more than 200+ ships present. This was causing a CTD or some corruption. This issue arose in another player's Downfall game. Could this be a case of too many ships in the hex?? Plus situation where a ship in a TF has less than 70% fuel would cause ALL ships in the TF to start refueling each other, rather than just the one ship below 70%. Thus it slowing down the TF by using up ship ops and affecting its move speed. in the 2 hexes in question, there's at most ~50 ships in 6 TFs, nowhere near 200. i don't believe any were close to 70% fuel, most of the TFs've been moving only 2-3 hexes per day and have been refueling every 3rd day. my TFs could re-arm from the Repl TFs (4 DD, 6 AO, 4 AE), but would not re-fuel. i've since rolled back to 1108m9, and the re-fueling is working again. my moan about using up ship-ops is wrt re-arming from AEs - although >1 AE is present in the Repl TF, replenishing TFs will use only one at a time until its ops reach 1000, before they use a 2nd AE. imo AEs should function similarly to AOs, re-arm req'ments should be sucked evenly from all available AEs in the Repl TF. When 1 ship in the Repl TF uses 1000 ops points, that TF is immobilized for the next movement phase, i'd greatly prefer that this didn't happen!

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/8/2011 6:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Not sure. I think it sorts on the column # of the displayed list. So if Fat was col#10, then when it gos to the 'hard' columns, it still sorts on col#10 (which is now something else). Anyway, I'll have a look at it. It would be handy to sort a list up which had a column toggle, and still see where things were on flipping the toggle again. Taking Chris' suggestion ... he has a good point. One thing you frequently like to do is to find the units eligible for upgrade (or ones that are badly disrupted) and then set them to "rest". Since the sort is what it is, then maybe if we make the status viewable in either hard or soft, you would be able to easily change the unit status. Just a thought ...

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/8/2011 10:47:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm The only change made to refueling recently has been to curtail the number of fueling and fueler ships in a hex with more than 200+ ships present. This was causing a CTD or some corruption. This issue arose in another player's Downfall game. Could this be a case of too many ships in the hex?? Plus situation where a ship in a TF has less than 70% fuel would cause ALL ships in the TF to start refueling each other, rather than just the one ship below 70%. Thus it slowing down the TF by using up ship ops and affecting its move speed. in the 2 hexes in question, there's at most ~50 ships in 6 TFs, nowhere near 200. i don't believe any were close to 70% fuel, most of the TFs've been moving only 2-3 hexes per day and have been refueling every 3rd day. my TFs could re-arm from the Repl TFs (4 DD, 6 AO, 4 AE), but would not re-fuel. i've since rolled back to 1108m9, and the re-fueling is working again. Using the attached save, I could refuel all the ships in the non-repl TFs (5 of them) in hex 117,52 (which seems to be the hex you referring to). All ships now show 100% fuel. If I try to replenish them anymore, it comes up "No Fuel Transferred!!!" as the ships are all fueled. Do you mean that the message showed and the fuel level was still under 100%?

littleike -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/8/2011 5:21:45 PM)
Last patch, Coral sea scenario. Could you please verify the F7 badweather toggle ? I don't see any map modification. Thanks

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 1:56:20 AM)
The F7 toggle applies regardless of scenario. Clouds are not drawn on the map during the orders phase. This was a decision made in 2008 as the clouds tended to cover up the unit under it. The toggle does work in that it shows/hides the clouds during the turn resloution. One more reason (probably main one) is that cloud drawing use to cause graphic errors and CTDs. These issues have been corrected in several of the patches. So I may re-enable cloud drawing again for the next beta. The cloud image varies in 'intensity' so that not all units get 'hidden'.

jmalter -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 5:49:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Do you mean that the message showed and the fuel level was still under 100%? i've re-installed 110892 & yes, units are not being re-fueled. in some instances, a few ships in a TF will re-fuel from a Repl TF, but not all. in most instances, no fuel is transferred, although Gun & AAA ammo is topped off. similarly, Repl at Sea is not working for attempts to refuel from non-Repl TFs, such as an ASW TF trying to refuel from a Transport TF.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 6:03:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Do you mean that the message showed and the fuel level was still under 100%? i've re-installed 110892 & yes, units are not being re-fueled. in some instances, a few ships in a TF will re-fuel from a Repl TF, but not all. in most instances, no fuel is transferred, although Gun & AAA ammo is topped off. similarly, Repl at Sea is not working for attempts to refuel from non-Repl TFs, such as an ASW TF trying to refuel from a Transport TF. Can you give me a save? And tell me example TFs that don't work? The ones I spot checked in the other save seem to work okay. (Granted I am using latest beta, I want to make sure that it is working in cases where you are not getting to work)

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 6:59:43 AM)
I pulled up p2 and I can see where it does show "No fuel". But the same save under p3 is fine. But there is no real code changes between the two. Odd. I'll do some more tracking to determine why it fails in p2 and not p3. It is the 70% setting that is doing it. Ships with more than 70% are not getting fueled in p2. The p2 check was mofified in p3 to only perform it IF the TF check showed below 70% (which the forced refuleing would not set).

inqistor -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 7:01:55 AM)
I like this new hard/soft setting. Is this possible to add similar switch on ships transfer screen? To show remaining ammo in ships? Currently I have to click every ship separately, and check what is current ammo level, and I am frequently sending ships with spent torpedoes to rearming, but want to keep rest of ships at front. A small glitch: As I understand "Aircraft stack level" should show current number of engines on airfield, however it seems, that something weird is happening, when some of the groups are set to training. Almost as such setting actually decreased number of engines for non-training groups. Check those pictures. No way there are only 19 active planes on lower picture. Not even mentioning, that most of them are 4Es. When all groups are set to combat mission, number seems to be OK. [image]local://upfiles/35065/503A0F56B1B145CE8BEE5198F04DA0BC.jpg[/image]

littleike -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 7:08:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm The F7 toggle applies regardless of scenario. Clouds are not drawn on the map during the orders phase. This was a decision made in 2008 as the clouds tended to cover up the unit under it. The toggle does work in that it shows/hides the clouds during the turn resloution. One more reason (probably main one) is that cloud drawing use to cause graphic errors and CTDs. These issues have been corrected in several of the patches. So I may re-enable cloud drawing again for the next beta. The cloud image varies in 'intensity' so that not all units get 'hidden'. Thanks Michaelm , these are good news; as always your support is outstanding. [:)]

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 7:37:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor I like this new hard/soft setting. Is this possible to add similar switch on ships transfer screen? To show remaining ammo in ships? Currently I have to click every ship separately, and check what is current ammo level, and I am frequently sending ships with spent torpedoes to rearming, but want to keep rest of ships at front. A small glitch: As I understand "Aircraft stack level" should show current number of engines on airfield, however it seems, that something weird is happening, when some of the groups are set to training. Almost as such setting actually decreased number of engines for non-training groups. Check those pictures. No way there are only 19 active planes on lower picture. Not even mentioning, that most of them are 4Es. When all groups are set to combat mission, number seems to be OK. [image]local://upfiles/35065/503A0F56B1B145CE8BEE5198F04DA0BC.jpg[/image] What version?

inqistor -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 7:38:56 AM)
1108p2

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 7:48:06 AM)
Can you attach the save showing this?

inqistor -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 7:52:58 AM)
Yeah, later, when I get home, but it seems to also works this way for new Scenarios.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 9:44:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor A small glitch: As I understand "Aircraft stack level" should show current number of engines on airfield, however it seems, that something weird is happening, when some of the groups are set to training. Almost as such setting actually decreased number of engines for non-training groups. Check those pictures. No way there are only 19 active planes on lower picture. Not even mentioning, that most of them are 4Es. When all groups are set to combat mission, number seems to be OK. [image]local://upfiles/35065/503A0F56B1B145CE8BEE5198F04DA0BC.jpg[/image] What version? Found a problem with groups in training. If mission is non-training, but a patrol level for training is set to 100, then it isn't counted as training. Is a silly case, but it could easily happen.

inqistor -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (7/9/2011 10:40:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Found a problem with groups in training. If mission is non-training, but a patrol level for training is set to 100, then it isn't counted as training. Is a silly case, but it could easily happen. So, you no longer need my save? Actually I am pretty sure all those groups at screen were set to pure training 100%, so it can be actually caused by ANY 100% setting.

Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.21875