RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (Full Version)

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



Message

Shark7 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/21/2011 4:38:14 PM)

michaelm,

Sort of a request RE: extreme altitude air missions (both high and low).

1. Pilot Fatigue should go up sharply at extremes of altitude. Especially above 30k or below 1k. It is stressful and physically demanding to fly at those levels for extended periods of time. At 100' it requires extreme concentration, and at 30k you are dealing with thin atmosphere and oxygen deprivation if you do not have supplemental O2.

2. A sharp increase in Ops losses both at high and low extremes, but particularly at the 100' missions (for both sides and all plane types). There is little margin for error at such low altitudes, and at high altitudes the possibility of a black out is present as well.

What this boils down to is currently I can fly missions day in and day out at extreme altitudes with very few negative effects. Something like this would help to make the extreme level missions something that you do once in a while, not every day. All indications I've seen lend to missions being flown between 5k and 15k most of the time.

Just my thoughts anyway.



witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/21/2011 6:29:46 PM)

Shark7,

Just remember that some plane types automatically do some strafing runs at 100' when set to 1,000' or 2,000' or 3,000' or maybe even a little higher. They should not get penalized the same as a plane doing a mission set at 100'.



Shark7 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 3:03:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Shark7,

Just remember that some plane types automatically do some strafing runs at 100' when set to 1,000' or 2,000' or 3,000' or maybe even a little higher. They should not get penalized the same as a plane doing a mission set at 100'.


Good point. And I agree.

1. Strafing should be exempt, for strafing you go down low just long enough to shoot, then go back to a more acceptable altitude.
2. Any aircraft checked as an 'Attack Bomber' in the DB should be exempt as well, these planes were designed for that particular mission (low level attack).



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 4:10:11 AM)

It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.





PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 4:55:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.




Thanks Michael. My appreciate the details here, which would be in line with historical results.

I think we need to gather some more data. There is some evidence in the AAR's that suggests the effect isn't strong enough yet to deter people from doing it. Meaning, the fatigue gain isn't causing enough Op's losses, so players are able to use 4E's on <1000 ft runs effectively. The intent (obviously from your description) and the historical facts are that using B-29's (or other 4E's) at 1000 ft altitudes should cause losses such that this would only be used in dire circumstances. Pretty sure we aren't there yet, but haven't pulled together hard numbers yet.




newoldposter -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 5:54:33 AM)

How do you full screen the beta?



inqistor -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 8:24:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: newoldposter

How do you full screen the beta?


Just delete -w switch from shortcut



Reg -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 9:21:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.


Thanks Michael. My appreciate the details here, which would be in line with historical results.

I think we need to gather some more data. There is some evidence in the AAR's that suggests the effect isn't strong enough yet to deter people from doing it. Meaning, the fatigue gain isn't causing enough Op's losses, so players are able to use 4E's on <1000 ft runs effectively. The intent (obviously from your description) and the historical facts are that using B-29's (or other 4E's) at 1000 ft altitudes should cause losses such that this would only be used in dire circumstances. Pretty sure we aren't there yet, but haven't pulled together hard numbers yet.


You probably don't need to cause Ops losses if the increased fatigue is enough to cripple availability....





michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 9:49:28 AM)

One thing I have noticed during my 100' LB attacks is that the skill most often increased is Strafe. Because it is at 100'.

Thus low bombing skill wont necessarily be improved in this case.

[edit]
Re-worded as seems strafe or low ground can be increased depending on circumstances.



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 2:34:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.


Thanks Michael. My appreciate the details here, which would be in line with historical results.

I think we need to gather some more data. There is some evidence in the AAR's that suggests the effect isn't strong enough yet to deter people from doing it. Meaning, the fatigue gain isn't causing enough Op's losses, so players are able to use 4E's on <1000 ft runs effectively. The intent (obviously from your description) and the historical facts are that using B-29's (or other 4E's) at 1000 ft altitudes should cause losses such that this would only be used in dire circumstances. Pretty sure we aren't there yet, but haven't pulled together hard numbers yet.


You probably don't need to cause Ops losses if the increased fatigue is enough to cripple availability....




That's not a deterence and is the current result. Rotate your groups and you can bomb at low altitude non-stop.

This wasn't the result in 1944, you lost crews and aircraft at that altitude. Lots of them. That's why it wasn't done very often. The cost needs to be very high. I think the effect is there (meaning the bomb results are very good, 40x4E will completely demolish anything in the hex), but the cost isn't (should be +30% losses).

The real proof is that every AAR playing now (at least that I am following) has a house rule in it: no 4E bombing below 10,000 ft (except those bombers which historically did like the naval 4E's on naval attack).



Mijast727 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 7:15:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Here is a beta of the beta for you to try out. [:D]

I haven't fully test the 'no upgrades' yet so it might need some tweaking.

Changed Location of Show TOE button on LCU screen [MEM]
Added Option to stop upgrades in LCU [MEM]
Tweak Made new stacking levels from pwhex override the default island stack size if present [MEM]
Tweak Enabled lcu on ship to be seen on prev/next from army list [MEM]
Tweak Allow prev/next on lcus on ships in a tf hex [MEM]



michaelm,

I think the upgrade on/off toggle isn't working entirely as advertised. It looks like it is upgrading the devices even if there are not enough of them in the pool. Check the US base force units at San Francisco in the attached saves. All AA devices were upgraded to 40mm/20mm and the radars were all upgraded to SCR-270s even though there were not enough devices in the pools (and no devices were removed from the pools, either).

Thanks for all your hard work!

Mike

(I changed the .PWS extension to .TXT for posting. 'Before' save attached to this message.)



Mijast727 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 7:23:42 PM)

And here is the 'After' save.

Thanks again!

Mike



Shark7 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 8:41:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.


Thanks Michael. My appreciate the details here, which would be in line with historical results.

I think we need to gather some more data. There is some evidence in the AAR's that suggests the effect isn't strong enough yet to deter people from doing it. Meaning, the fatigue gain isn't causing enough Op's losses, so players are able to use 4E's on <1000 ft runs effectively. The intent (obviously from your description) and the historical facts are that using B-29's (or other 4E's) at 1000 ft altitudes should cause losses such that this would only be used in dire circumstances. Pretty sure we aren't there yet, but haven't pulled together hard numbers yet.


You probably don't need to cause Ops losses if the increased fatigue is enough to cripple availability....




That's not a deterence and is the current result. Rotate your groups and you can bomb at low altitude non-stop.

This wasn't the result in 1944, you lost crews and aircraft at that altitude. Lots of them. That's why it wasn't done very often. The cost needs to be very high. I think the effect is there (meaning the bomb results are very good, 40x4E will completely demolish anything in the hex), but the cost isn't (should be +30% losses).

The real proof is that every AAR playing now (at least that I am following) has a house rule in it: no 4E bombing below 10,000 ft (except those bombers which historically did like the naval 4E's on naval attack).


The fatigue issue is not a deterrent. I've had the same group of Nates on ground attack at 100' for the last 2 game months in my last game. The pilots get fatigue, but the problem is that with being able to overload the squad with pilots and put 20% on rest, it completely negates the fatigue factor.

In fact, I thought I'd post a screenshot of it, this group is actually at 10% rest and has been flying ground attack at 100' every day for at least 10 weeks.

[image]local://upfiles/25927/A23874DD23B941ABB3FE1DD59BF275D4.jpg[/image]



Crackaces -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 9:12:00 PM)

Regarding Hotkey '5'.

In the picture below I activated the Hotkey 5 the base is Chattadong. All I see is little diamonds I do not see any numbers. But .. the change log states:

quote:

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



Where have I gone wrong?

[image]local://upfiles/38979/32F61059C5384BEE80D565F8FD30A953.jpg[/image]



witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 9:20:14 PM)

In a PBM game you do not get numbers because they can give you free Intel. In an AI game you will see the numbers.



Crackaces -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 9:50:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In a PBM game you do not get numbers because they can give you free Intel. In an AI game you will see the numbers.


Ahhhh Ok .. well I sure would like to know how much supply I can get through you are right .. so in a PBEM game I just know that some amount of supply will get through ... OK .well thanks for the rapid reply!



Alfred -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/22/2011 9:59:41 PM)

Have a look at my Logistics 101 thread of 3 months back.

Alfred



Crackaces -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/23/2011 12:07:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Have a look at my Logistics 101 thread of 3 months back.

Alfred

quote:

Logistics 101


Excellent! For those of you that did not know .. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2878790&mpage=1&key=�



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) (10/23/2011 1:07:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mijast727

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Here is a beta of the beta for you to try out. [:D]

I haven't fully test the 'no upgrades' yet so it might need some tweaking.

Changed Location of Show TOE button on LCU screen [MEM]
Added Option to stop upgrades in LCU [MEM]
Tweak Made new stacking levels from pwhex override the default island stack size if present [MEM]
Tweak Enabled lcu on ship to be seen on prev/next from army list [MEM]
Tweak Allow prev/next on lcus on ships in a tf hex [MEM]



michaelm,

I think the upgrade on/off toggle isn't working entirely as advertised. It looks like it is upgrading the devices even if there are not enough of them in the pool. Check the US base force units at San Francisco in the attached saves. All AA devices were upgraded to 40mm/20mm and the radars were all upgraded to SCR-270s even though there were not enough devices in the pools (and no devices were removed from the pools, either).

Thanks for all your hard work!

Mike

(I changed the .PWS extension to .TXT for posting. 'Before' save attached to this message.)


I traced the code and the BFs are upgrading to Sound Detector(A). But by the time of the display, they are showing SCR-270s. Will investigate as there seems to be something else apart from the device upgrade switch being affected here.

Bug exists in adding replacements thinking that it needed to drop the existing weapon and move to the TOE weapon.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 10:24:22 AM)

[1108q9]
Changed Location of Show TOE button on LCU screen [MEM]
Added Option to stop upgrades in LCU [MEM]
Tweak Made new stacking levels from pwhex override the default island stack size if present [MEM]
Tweak Enabled lcu on ship to be seen on prev/next from army list [MEM]
Tweak Allow prev/next on lcus on ships in a tf hex [MEM]
Fixed Repair of Air Hq devices with Replacements denied [MEM]
Fixed LCU replacements could cause 'free' upgrade sometimes [MEM]
Tweak Added monsoon effect to aircraft support affecting AF (0-4) service level [MEM]
Fixed Low level altitude penalty using wrong altitude [MEM]
Fixed Defender pilot not always getting fatigue from high altitude penalty [MEM]
Tweak Independent group co-ordination failing [MEM]




fcam1387 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 1:19:16 PM)

Are these updates cumulative or do I have to install every one?



Quixote -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 1:21:48 PM)

You just need the latest - they're cumulative.



fcam1387 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 1:30:41 PM)

Ok thanks. also, not quite clear on the second shortcut thing... can I only play the patched up version with the other shortcut? what happens to saved games - are they only accessible via the shortcut?



DmitryZ -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 2:12:59 PM)

In a PBEM(version 1108q3 and then 1108q8a) we've got such a problem during last three turns: combat-save and combat reports(that ones, which are files at the SAVE-directory) are different for Japanese and Allies side; so different, that the base, taken by assault for one side, may consider as hold for other, some air-rides, which were for the first player, are cancelled for the second and so on. At the Orders Phase situation on the map is corresponding to Japanese version of combat-save and combat reports(that ones, which may see from the game-menu) are such, as they were for Japan side, but combat reports at he SAVE-directory does not change. Sorry for my English, I'm afraid, I have not conversation practice enough for some last years. At this post I should attache Japanese combat report and Allies report for the same turn will be at the next.



DmitryZ -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 2:14:14 PM)

Allies combat report:



Nemo121 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 2:26:16 PM)

Michaelm,

I've checked over the last few turns whether the pilots are automatically activating when they reach a delay of 1. It isn't happening automatically in my game.

Are there additional conditions required? I'm guessing there might be a check vs the number of planes in the airgroup and the pilots won't activate until the number of pilots available in the group is less than the number of planes. Would it be possible if this is the case to change it so that ALL pilots assigned to the group automatically active when they reach delay 1? The reason is that otherwise to get some "spare" pilots into the group to help keep fatigue down you have to go in and activate them manually.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I have a lot of delay 1 pilots who aren't automatically activating in my airgroups.



witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 3:07:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Michaelm,

I've checked over the last few turns whether the pilots are automatically activating when they reach a delay of 1. It isn't happening automatically in my game.

Are there additional conditions required? I'm guessing there might be a check vs the number of planes in the airgroup and the pilots won't activate until the number of pilots available in the group is less than the number of planes. Would it be possible if this is the case to change it so that ALL pilots assigned to the group automatically active when they reach delay 1? The reason is that otherwise to get some "spare" pilots into the group to help keep fatigue down you have to go in and activate them manually.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I have a lot of delay 1 pilots who aren't automatically activating in my airgroups.


I'm sure that it does happen overall. What it sounds like you are seeing is that the code will activate delay=1 pilots when the squadron is a) short on pilots or b) available pilots are over some fatigue threshold. When one of those things are true you should see them (or enough of them) activate.



Nemo121 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 3:50:37 PM)

Aye, the problem is that, for me at least, in the meantime when I go to the Reserve Pilots pool and use the "Draw 10" pilots button to draw pilots to another group it is drawing the pilots which are waiting to be activated in the first group ( which may have too few planes or unfatigued pilots ) into the 2nd group.

Essentially I'm juggling the top 20 or so pilots from squadron to squadron instead of sending 20 to replace my losses in one squadron then another batch of 20 to replace losses in a 2nd squadron and so on and so forth.

Right now the "draw 10 pilots" button isn't that useful to me as it ends up re-assigning pilots I've already assigned to airgroups and thus the first group ends up with too few pilots while the 2nd has 10 pilots. If I then work on a 3rd group the 3rd group will probably pull 4 or 5 new pilots plus 5 to 6 of the pilots which had been, initially, sent to the 2nd airgroup. And so on and so forth.



Mike Solli -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 3:55:19 PM)

If there is room on the screen, I propose an alternative to the "draw 5" or "draw 10" buttons. I propose a button next to each pilot. If it is checked, it is drawn into or out of the reserve. That way, you can pick and choose each pilot with one click per pilot and then a final execute click. Not as efficient as one click for 5 or 10 pilots but you don't have to worry about the wrong pilot(s) being taken.



GI Jive -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9 updated 24 October (2nd part) (10/24/2011 5:47:53 PM)

I just installed the latest Beta. I'm playing against the AI with a mod of my own. I had "Unit Withdrawals" turned off. In the saved game I was playing, ground units and ships did not withdraw, however certain air groups still needed to withdraw. Now there is no longer a withdraw requirement for the air groups. I think some air groups have to withdraw in order for their upgraded versions to appear later. Is this a "fix" or a mistake?



Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625