RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (Full Version)

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



Message

zuluhour -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 12:25:35 PM)

this will be my first try. yes



zuluhour -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 12:27:48 PM)

ive got the save on my desktop. geez im not very savy, how can I get it on here? when i attach file from desktop it says fake path
ill look around for the how to post a save. the upload more files button was what i tried



zuluhour -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 12:59:59 PM)

here it is! hey im learning[;)]



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 1:09:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Pax, i just got my first pbem turn from hinz2. it shows in slot 10 after coping to save file. error game did not load. i loaded p7 yesterday. its my first pbem and im sure hinz was up all night doing the jap thing. any ideas?

ZH,

HI!

So, first, you and your partner need to agree on which save slot you will be using. Looks like slot 10 will be the slot for this game. Remember to keep this slot available going forward.

If it isn't loading, here's a couple of things to look at. Others may have some more suggestions:
1. Be sure you are both using the exact same patch. Double check that.
2. Have him re-send the save. If he is zipping the file, have him re-zip and send it.

Let's see what the result is after these two things. Hopefully others will chime in here.

Just noticed that Michael is going to check the save file. He'll be able to tell you what's up pretty quick.



zuluhour -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 1:20:42 PM)

I would ent be so needy about it, but seeing how gracious he was to take me on as a greenhorn and work on the first turn so late last night i feel compelled to get him a turn back and get underway.[:)]
as an afterthought, the patch loaded so easily, how do i verify its running it? i dont see anything in properties.
file sent is unzipped

more info: I did ent notice i had two desktop shortcuts: 1=1106i 2=beta starting the beta (i removed shortcut 1106i) i got a dialogue box y/n about "did not appear to be end turn save" if i hit yes it asked me for a player 1 password. (im player 2?)



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 1:38:21 PM)

when you get to the main menu screen, version number is upper right side. should read: 1.0.6.1108p7



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 1:43:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

I would ent be so needy about it, but seeing how gracious he was to take me on as a greenhorn and work on the first turn so late last night i feel compelled to get him a turn back and get underway.[:)]
as an afterthought, the patch loaded so easily, how do i verify its running it? i dont see anything in properties.
file sent is unzipped


This save is NOT an end-of-turn one, but a mid-turn one.
[It is asking you for player 1's (Japan) password.]
The 'End Orders' button was not pressed and the save done at this stage is the one that needs to be sent to you.



zuluhour -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 1:53:20 PM)

big thanks from a big greenhorn!



zuluhour -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 31 July (2nd part) (8/14/2011 2:23:58 PM)

everything seems to be working fine. Your help is greatly appreciated.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/14/2011 2:40:15 PM)

[1108p8]
Fixed CTD due to too many groups in base being displayed in bottom panel [MEM]
Tweaked Color-coded R&D devices on the Industry screen [MEM]
Tweaked Allow R&D factory change before starting production if R&D option ON [MEM]
Tweaked Production can be turned off but R&D will still happen [MEM]



m10bob -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/14/2011 4:51:04 PM)

When delegating a sub to be a minelayer, is it possible(feasible) to set the default to lay mines at the target hex? I embarrass myself at the number of subs I find returning with all their mines still aboard..(Yes, of course I know I can set it manually, individually, every single time, and that is the problem. Just seems if I tell a skipper to go lay mines, he would know to actually do it!)..LOL



FatR -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/14/2011 5:08:49 PM)

I possibly have a problem here, not sure if it was reported before. When the attached turn was resolves, a number of my night-attacking torpedo planes seemed to be dropping bombs in the combat replay (despite having enough torps at hope bases). According to combat report, they all attacked with torps. No hits was achieved either way. Is this a bug?

Also, my SCTF in Georgetown refuses to move from there for several days now, despite orders. This seems to be a bug.



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/14/2011 8:36:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

[1108p8]
Fixed CTD due to too many groups in base being displayed in bottom panel [MEM]
Tweaked Color-coded R&D devices on the Industry screen [MEM]
Tweaked Allow R&D factory change before starting production if R&D option ON [MEM]
Tweaked Production can be turned off but R&D will still happen [MEM]

THANKS!!!!




michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 12:22:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

When delegating a sub to be a minelayer, is it possible(feasible) to set the default to lay mines at the target hex? I embarrass myself at the number of subs I find returning with all their mines still aboard..(Yes, of course I know I can set it manually, individually, every single time, and that is the problem. Just seems if I tell a skipper to go lay mines, he would know to actually do it!)..LOL


There was a reason long lost in time why the default is NOT to lay mines. It might be have something to do with not setting the destination - the TF would lay the mines in the base hex.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 7 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 12:24:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Save attached.
Also please check BB Mutsu at Kobe.
She has been in dock for two months with the same 15 engine and still shows 115 days to repair. Not seeing any progress.

Could please reattach as a ZIP, thanks.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 1:07:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

I possibly have a problem here, not sure if it was reported before. When the attached turn was resolves, a number of my night-attacking torpedo planes seemed to be dropping bombs in the combat replay (despite having enough torps at hope bases). According to combat report, they all attacked with torps. No hits was achieved either way. Is this a bug?


The animations are splashes - just the way it draws them. Still torpedos.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 1:13:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Also, my SCTF in Georgetown refuses to move from there for several days now, despite orders. This seems to be a bug.


Weird. The TF says it is loading supplies.


[image]local://upfiles/3086/7698EE5D83284658A41B35E8BE7D8D10.jpg[/image]

[Workaround]
Change TF to a Transport.
Transfer a AK from port to it.
Press 'Cancel load supplies'.
Transfer AK back to port.
Change back to Surface.
Should be okay then



Keldun -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 3:24:46 AM)

Hello, this may not look like a big issue but if possible could you save the side that we last chose when we start the game please?
At the moment I m playing japanese and often forget to choose allied computer again when i start the game then end up loading as allied.
Thank you



m10bob -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 4:08:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

When delegating a sub to be a minelayer, is it possible(feasible) to set the default to lay mines at the target hex? I embarrass myself at the number of subs I find returning with all their mines still aboard..(Yes, of course I know I can set it manually, individually, every single time, and that is the problem. Just seems if I tell a skipper to go lay mines, he would know to actually do it!)..LOL


There was a reason long lost in time why the default is NOT to lay mines. It might be have something to do with not setting the destination - the TF would lay the mines in the base hex.


Thank you for the response michaelm..Now, I gotta wonder...WHO would form a TF and forget to tell it where to go??...LOL



fushun -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (8/15/2011 5:20:07 AM)

Some changes are definitely shifting game balance in favor of human player in a game vs AI. Stockpiling base feature and purchasing destroyed units, to name a couple. Unless AI scripts were tweaked accordingly.



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (8/15/2011 5:36:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fushun

Some changes are definitely shifting game balance in favor of human player in a game vs AI. Stockpiling base feature and purchasing destroyed units, to name a couple. Unless AI scripts were tweaked accordingly.

I would disagree.

Stockpiling is to help the economics of the game work as intended. The AI ignores these limitations anyway.

Destroyed units being bought back by PP's just removed some silly mechanics (pulling a small portion of a unit). Everyone was doing it as a matter of course. This just acknowledges that and provides a game mechanism to accomplish the same thing. As it was being done before, no impact to an AI game.

PS: If you think they do hurt the AI, just increase the difficulty level. If that isn't enough, load up an Ironman scenario. [;)]




witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 5:52:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Thank you for the response michaelm..Now, I gotta wonder...WHO would form a TF and forget to tell it where to go??...LOL


I have nothing to say. Nothing! (slides quietly out of room)



fushun -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (8/15/2011 6:44:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: fushun

Some changes are definitely shifting game balance in favor of human player in a game vs AI. Stockpiling base feature and purchasing destroyed units, to name a couple. Unless AI scripts were tweaked accordingly.

I would disagree.

Stockpiling is to help the economics of the game work as intended. The AI ignores these limitations anyway.

Destroyed units being bought back by PP's just removed some silly mechanics (pulling a small portion of a unit). Everyone was doing it as a matter of course. This just acknowledges that and provides a game mechanism to accomplish the same thing. As it was being done before, no impact to an AI game.

PS: If you think they do hurt the AI, just increase the difficulty level. If that isn't enough, load up an Ironman scenario. [;)]




AI as it is don't drains bases dry before abandoning, it is not capable of stockpiling in preparation for a siege. Stockpiling made these tricks easily done by human player.

PP purchasing is not an equivalent of saving fragments, because latter is not always possible. Take surrendered units, or sunk carrier destroyed airgroups. More often it was a lucky survived xAK, then a plan. Now, for example, you can purchase back destroyed CA FP air groups for training, and AI don't. You can revive, prepare to 100% and train Indian brigades, surrendered in Singers. AI can't purchese back no surrendered island garrisones. Game breaking feature, really.

Difficulty level defined only by the quantity of forces/resources available for AI is a joke, even if it is a gaming industry standard. Nobody wants to play against an idiot opponent no matter how much more units he has.[:D]



m10bob -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 11:13:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Thank you for the response michaelm..Now, I gotta wonder...WHO would form a TF and forget to tell it where to go??...LOL


I have nothing to say. Nothing! (slides quietly out of room)

[&o][:D]



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 1:13:43 PM)

Michaelm: Once again, great work with these patches. With the latest two patches I've been getting bombardment results like this:


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 16, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Palembang at 48,91

Japanese aircraft
     no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
     F1M2 Pete: 11 damaged
     G4M3a Betty: 115 damaged
     G4M3a Betty: 2 destroyed on ground
     Ki-67-Ib Peggy: 126 damaged
     Ki-67-Ib Peggy: 2 destroyed on ground
     Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 52 damaged
     Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 3 destroyed on ground
     A6M8 Zero: 115 damaged
     A6M8 Zero: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
     CA Cumberland
     CA Suffolk
     CA London
     CA Shropshire
     CL Newfoundland
     CL Kenya
     DD Pathfinder
     DD Quickmatch
     DD Quiberon
     DD Edsall
     DD Haraden

Japanese ground losses:
     146 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
        Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled



Airbase hits 69
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 96

CA Cumberland firing at Palembang
CA Suffolk firing at Palembang
CA London firing at Palembang
CA Shropshire firing at Palembang
CL Newfoundland firing at Palembang
CL Kenya firing at Palembang
DD Pathfinder firing at Palembang
DD Quickmatch firing at Palembang
DD Quiberon firing at Palembang
DD Edsall firing at Palembang
DD Haraden firing at Palembang 

To me that seems a lot of damaged aircraft. I don't recall seeing so many (or any?) aircraft damaged in previous bombardments of the same location, so either bombardments are more effective or they are just being reported better. Is this a feature or a bug? Oh, and I haven't been updating with each patch, so I'm not sure which one this started with.

Cheers,
CC



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 1:25:10 PM)

Nothing changed in last several betas - mainly bug fix or interface tweaks.
Unless this, which would just make them show up in the report. No change to actual combat, just reporting:
Changed Enabled reporting of non-air attack aircraft losses [MEM]



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/15/2011 1:52:11 PM)

Wow, thanks for the quick response. OK, looks like we are getting better information.

Cheers,
CC



khyberbill -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/16/2011 5:37:53 AM)

I have noticed that a new number is now appearing in some of my TF's. I understand the first two numbers, but what does the third number, in parenthesis, imply? And why is it only seen in some Task Forces?

[image]local://upfiles/26465/FF972E24AC054F94BE5AE3398FAB27AF.jpg[/image]



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p7 updated 7 August (2nd part) (8/16/2011 6:44:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Save attached.
Also please check BB Mutsu at Kobe.
She has been in dock for two months with the same 15 engine and still shows 115 days to repair. Not seeing any progress.


Hi
I couldn't download this.
Could you please attach as a zip extension?



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p8 updated 14 August (2nd part) (8/16/2011 6:48:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

I have noticed that a new number is now appearing in some of my TF's. I understand the first two numbers, but what does the third number, in parenthesis, imply? And why is it only seen in some Task Forces?

[image]local://upfiles/26465/FF972E24AC054F94BE5AE3398FAB27AF.jpg[/image]


If I understand correctly, it is the distance to the destination only. The second number is the distance there and back. If they are the same number, then it does not show the third one.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625