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

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/4/2011 6:53:21 PM)
Nothing big but could the positioning of the screen in case of a surface combat be changed? When I have sub combat the screen is on the right edge and the hex with the action is shown on the left side, in a surface action the screen is still on the right edge but the hex with the action seems to be in the middle now and so you can't see where the action takes place because of the big surface combat screen, any chance you could change that? I also wonder if the centering on a base when clicking thru air units could also be changed, when I go thru TFs, LCUs or industry the screen isn't centering would be nice if that would work for air units too.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 1:13:11 AM)
A bug affecting scenario where scenario production for a player is OFF. When land devices are to be returned for the Japanese player, the device is converted to MP,ARM,etc points and added to the resource pool. However, if production is OFF, then these resources are not used to build new devices. This could lead to a leakage of devices especially if the device build rate is low. Next change will address that by adding directly to the pool if the scenario production is off for the player.

viberpol -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 1:55:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Has anyone noticed anything strange with LCU device upgrades or replacements with latest beta? I have a LCU with a funny list of devices that match their TOE but have about 6 more types of devices which aren't any part of the TOE. Don't even appear anywhere on the unit's TOE path as far as I can tell. I think the sub-units were mixed up before they recombined to make the parent LCU as I have not really noticed any issues elsewhere. Something weird like here? This is the 51st Div. An example of several similar divisions in my PBEM. AFAIK it has never been formed from groups/subunits & never divided and even though it partially upgraded (notice the + along the first INF section and none next to the second one below). quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level. What do you actually mean by "suppressing"? [&:]Simply removing the additional lines without "paying up" with the standard equipment will result in great imbalance as those units will loose bulk of their AVs... SAVE:

witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 6:18:34 AM)
Michael, In a PBM I am running 1106i - the current 'official' patch (not the Beta), and I've run into a problem so I checked the list in the first post in this thread to see if a fix is already in the Beta. I didn't see it, so I thought I should ask if it is new and you need saves. It's February 1944 and the '44 squads are available for USMC and USA units. Rather than wait several months until enough squads are available to upgrade an entire division at a time I divided the divisions, resulting in the /A/B/C units being created. These smaller units upgraded fine, and as they did so I rebuilt them back to full divisions. The problem is that now all of the divisions are commanded by wimpy LTC instead of good generals. I do not know if the generals just disappeared or if they are in the leader pool. Is this a known bug? Is it already fixed in the Beta? Do you need saves?

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 7:39:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Michael, In a PBM I am running 1106i - the current 'official' patch (not the Beta), and I've run into a problem so I checked the list in the first post in this thread to see if a fix is already in the Beta. I didn't see it, so I thought I should ask if it is new and you need saves. It's February 1944 and the '44 squads are available for USMC and USA units. Rather than wait several months until enough squads are available to upgrade an entire division at a time I divided the divisions, resulting in the /A/B/C units being created. These smaller units upgraded fine, and as they did so I rebuilt them back to full divisions. The problem is that now all of the divisions are commanded by wimpy LTC instead of good generals. I do not know if the generals just disappeared or if they are in the leader pool. Is this a known bug? Is it already fixed in the Beta? Do you need saves? Send me a save. I have noticed similar things while testing device upgrade themselves. Have done some changes to preserve the highest ranked leader to take over the recombined LCU.

mikkey -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 12:33:20 PM)
michaelm, if I looking window "Task Force in this hex" and click on the specific TF than in the TF window button "Back", do not return me to the previous window "Task Force in this hex" but works similar as button "Exit" and close all windows. It could be adjusted so that they can be press "Esc" return to the previous window? Thanks michaelm

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 1:30:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikkey michaelm, if I looking window "Task Force in this hex" and click on the specific TF than in the TF window button "Back", do not return me to the previous window "Task Force in this hex" but works similar as button "Exit" and close all windows. It could be adjusted so that they can be press "Esc" return to the previous window? Thanks michaelm Funny. it does work properly if you click on a 'Task Force in hex' icon in the bottom left of screen. I'll compare the two.

viberpol -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 1:39:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Has anyone noticed anything strange with LCU device upgrades or replacements with latest beta? I have a LCU with a funny list of devices that match their TOE but have about 6 more types of devices which aren't any part of the TOE. Don't even appear anywhere on the unit's TOE path as far as I can tell. I think the sub-units were mixed up before they recombined to make the parent LCU as I have not really noticed any issues elsewhere. Something weird like here? This is the 51st Div. An example of several similar divisions in my PBEM. AFAIK it has never been formed from groups/subunits & never divided and even though it partially upgraded (notice the + along the first INF section and none next to the second one below). Hard to say which is which but Tracker shows the first one is 710 ('43 squad) and second 707 (old one). quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level. What do you actually mean by "suppressing"? [&:] Simply removing the additional lines without "paying up" with the standard equipment will result in great imbalance as those units will loose bulk of their AVs... Only if empty? Maybe transfer the extra squads in form of standard equipment (based on TOE) in which case it would reset itself to default after some attrition? EDIT: Here's the printscreen I was unable to upload last time. As mentioned, I never (according to Tracker and my memory) split this division nor created from subunits. It seems that some divisions upgraded only partially. Some grew in stregth, but some lost the part of it's AV (see the 16th division that magically lost 300 APs couple of turns ago; save attached in the previous post). [image]local://upfiles/18529/B048E1E65C3A483A90F63EB680B116B0.jpg[/image]

mikkey -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/5/2011 8:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: mikkey michaelm, if I looking window "Task Force in this hex" and click on the specific TF than in the TF window button "Back", do not return me to the previous window "Task Force in this hex" but works similar as button "Exit" and close all windows. It could be adjusted so that they can be press "Esc" return to the previous window? Thanks michaelm Funny. it does work properly if you click on a 'Task Force in hex' icon in the bottom left of screen. I'll compare the two. thank you michaelm!

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/6/2011 3:16:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level. Not sure if this is relevant, but I remember a note from Andy Mac that he added 0 (zero) AV Support to help the AI move air groups around. They were not in the TOE ...

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/6/2011 4:54:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level. Not sure if this is relevant, but I remember a note from Andy Mac that he added 0 (zero) AV Support to help the AI move air groups around. They were not in the TOE ... The suppression is only from the point of view of showing on the screen.

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/6/2011 7:13:58 AM)
Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships? Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/6/2011 9:28:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: viberpol quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm Has anyone noticed anything strange with LCU device upgrades or replacements with latest beta? I have a LCU with a funny list of devices that match their TOE but have about 6 more types of devices which aren't any part of the TOE. Don't even appear anywhere on the unit's TOE path as far as I can tell. I think the sub-units were mixed up before they recombined to make the parent LCU as I have not really noticed any issues elsewhere. Something weird like here? This is the 51st Div. An example of several similar divisions in my PBEM. AFAIK it has never been formed from groups/subunits & never divided and even though it partially upgraded (notice the + along the first INF section and none next to the second one below). Hard to say which is which but Tracker shows the first one is 710 ('43 squad) and second 707 (old one). quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level. What do you actually mean by "suppressing"? [&:] Simply removing the additional lines without "paying up" with the standard equipment will result in great imbalance as those units will loose bulk of their AVs... Only if empty? Maybe transfer the extra squads in form of standard equipment (based on TOE) in which case it would reset itself to default after some attrition? EDIT: Here's the printscreen I was unable to upload last time. As mentioned, I never (according to Tracker and my memory) split this division nor created from subunits. It seems that some divisions upgraded only partially. Some grew in stregth, but some lost the part of it's AV (see the 16th division that magically lost 300 APs couple of turns ago; save attached in the previous post). [image]local://upfiles/18529/B048E1E65C3A483A90F63EB680B116B0.jpg[/image] Yes. There are actually two different IJ Squads in that unit. Can't see where the 707 device (with no upgrade specified) came from as the unit starts with 709 (upgrading to 710).

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/6/2011 1:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm I think I will suppress these '0' lines where there are no current devices and no TOE level. Not sure if this is relevant, but I remember a note from Andy Mac that he added 0 (zero) AV Support to help the AI move air groups around. They were not in the TOE ... The suppression is only from the point of view of showing on the screen. Ach, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying! Have a good one ...

Halsey -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/6/2011 2:38:11 PM)
Your doing a great job of enhancing this system Michael. Any way to do something about ships gaining some actual base level experience without combat? Anything has to be better than it is now.[:D]

witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/6/2011 4:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships? Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer. I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW.

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/7/2011 1:48:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships? Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer. I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW. I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ...

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/7/2011 4:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships? Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer. I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW. I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ... Thanks, didn't know that. But what about the enemy ships listed as sunk, their names are correct aren't they?

oldman45 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/7/2011 9:01:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey Your doing a great job of enhancing this system Michael. Any way to do something about ships gaining some actual base level experience without combat? Anything has to be better than it is now.[:D] +1, I have ships on patrol (ASW) and it would be nice if they picked up expierence from drills or something.

CaptDave -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/7/2011 9:07:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships? Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer. I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW. I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ... It's actually pretty realistic to know at least the class of a ship, or something close. IRL the sub commanders needed this information to determine the ship's mast height so they could judge distances and speeds correctly (or let the TDC do it).

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/8/2011 1:42:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Question regarding fog of war, any chance we don't always see the names of ships be torpedoed by the player or the names of the subs attacking the players ships? Would be nice if it somehow works like the surface combat works, seems that there the some names come up after some time when the fight took a while and the distance got closer. I agree it would be better FOW if many times there were no names, but just FYI quite often the names are wrong=FOW. I always just look at the names as being an instance of a class ... due to FOW ... the current system works pretty good for me ... Thanks, didn't know that. But what about the enemy ships listed as sunk, their names are correct aren't they? No, FOW defintely prevails there. I get messages all the time about "CA Houston incorrectly declared sunk", particularly when you sink it the second time. [;)] Even then, FOW is in play and it still might not be the Houston, but another in her class.

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/8/2011 4:10:24 AM)
Nice to hear, but how far goes this FoW? I just had a lucky incident were a sub hit the Akagi with one torpedo some hexes off the coast of Japan and later it's listed as sunk near Osaka, so on what can I depend: -A CV sunk -Only a sunk ship of whatever type -Or even nothing sunk at all Sorry for hijacking the thread for my question, maybe the moderator should move this to a new thread.

Don Bowen -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/8/2011 4:34:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Nice to hear, but how far goes this FoW? I just had a lucky incident were a sub hit the Akagi with one torpedo some hexes off the coast of Japan and later it's listed as sunk near Osaka, so on what can I depend: -A CV sunk -Only a sunk ship of whatever type -Or even nothing sunk at all Sorry for hijacking the thread for my question, maybe the moderator should move this to a new thread. All are possible. A ship may or may not be sunk and it may or may not be a carrier and it may or may not be a specific ship. You can depend on the data as much as a World War II commander could.

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/8/2011 5:12:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 Nice to hear, but how far goes this FoW? I just had a lucky incident were a sub hit the Akagi with one torpedo some hexes off the coast of Japan and later it's listed as sunk near Osaka, so on what can I depend: -A CV sunk -Only a sunk ship of whatever type -Or even nothing sunk at all Sorry for hijacking the thread for my question, maybe the moderator should move this to a new thread. In addition to what Dan said: you can be pretty sure it wasn't the Big E that you hit. [:D] Other than that, take it with a grain of salt. Particularly any mentioning of sinkings ...

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/8/2011 7:06:25 AM)
And I was so happy to revenge the loss of the Enterprise. [:(] Well well I just can't stop asking: Sunken ships have an impact on the score so when I may or may not have sunk something how trustful is score especially regarding the automatic victory calculation?

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/9/2011 11:07:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 I also wonder if the centering on a base when clicking thru air units could also be changed, when I go thru TFs, LCUs or industry the screen isn't centering would be nice if that would work for air units too. Which menu are you referring to? Can't seem to see any difference, but most likely haven't chosen your key sequence.[:D]

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/9/2011 1:21:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 And I was so happy to revenge the loss of the Enterprise. [:(] Well well I just can't stop asking: Sunken ships have an impact on the score so when I may or may not have sunk something how trustful is score especially regarding the automatic victory calculation? In a current AI test game I have going looking at Allied Ships sunk on the Info screen: From the IJ side: 152 ships / 2885 VP's From the Allied side: 230 ships / 3781 VP's That's loading up the same save, just switching sides. So, the IJ has sunk a lot more ships (smaller ones) than they know about... almost 80 ships and 900 VP's. I can tell you that in the IJ op notes, that each turn one or two more allied ships are reported sunk from previous turns. So, this gap is closing .... So, what you see on your info screen still has FOW ... I think the FOW is more pronounced for IJ as their intel power is lower. But this is just my perception ...

BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/9/2011 8:34:17 PM)
@PaxMondo Thanks, really nice to see that FoW runs so deep. @michaelm Well simply mark a hex with a base and click thru the things lined up at the bottom, when I click on a TF, LCU or industry the screen isn't centering but when clicking on an air group the screen centers on the hex the unit is in.

invernomuto -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/9/2011 10:08:55 PM)
Any ETA for the official patch? There will be some new beta or this version will become the official patch? Thanks in advance, bye.

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (3/13/2011 6:43:19 AM)
Beta updated - there are changes in this to better handle devices on LCUs. This will combine multiples in the list under one entry if below TOE, and/or add the excess back into the pool. Thus making them available to other units during the next turn.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.171875