Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (Full Version)

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



Message

viberpol -> Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (9/21/2011 11:18:24 AM)

Michael,

I noticed some difference between TOE and device upgrade.
Many Japanese AA units upgrade their 75 mm AA flak into 88 mm flak.
But if you take a look at the sprintscreen placed below, there are some direpancies.
TOE says it should upgrade the device (730 --> 1486), but under the devices itself the 88 mm gun has no production date (0/0) and the device 730 says it upgrades to... no upgrade.

I think I've seem some other cases of such a difference but now only this AA comes to mind.
Which info (TEO or devices) is correct?


[image]local://upfiles/18529/7DB124FE3DFF47C39312D51071CA7676.jpg[/image]



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (9/21/2011 11:46:02 AM)

I mean I think I understand the difference between the TOE upgrade and (every) device upgrade.
I think it means that not every 75 mm is to be upgraded into 88 mm but then still, if the 88 mm has no production date, in 145 days there'll be still none in the pool?



[image]local://upfiles/18529/9F80E519AFC74FFD9D6D76DE82B6F93E.jpg[/image]



michaelm75au -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (9/21/2011 1:26:16 PM)

But don't Japanese devices get built as required???

Anyway, a TOE upgrade will dump the old devices back into the pool, and build/pull from pool the new device for the upgrade.

A device will follow the device upgrade separately to the TOE upgrade. So a device could go thru several device specified upgrades, before a TOE one kicks in.



Numdydar -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (9/21/2011 4:21:39 PM)

Armment production just produces points. These points are then used to automatically produce devices that the various units need. Unlike plane production, where you can see when new planes will start being produced, devices only start producing when a ship/LCU/etc needs it. So when the time comes and a LUC needs a new device, armment points will be allocated to start producing it. So the LCU will need an 88mm AA in 145 days, they will start being produced in 145 days, regardless of the availability date.

If after a week or so after the point when the LCU needs them, your pool is still zero, then we have an issue [:(]



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (9/22/2011 2:06:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

But don't Japanese devices get built as required???
Anyway, a TOE upgrade will dump the old devices back into the pool, and build/pull from pool the new device for the upgrade.
A device will follow the device upgrade separately to the TOE upgrade. So a device could go thru several device specified upgrades, before a TOE one kicks in.


Ok, but those 88mm guns are not currently produced. Maybe because of the error in the database.

Let's follow the 22nd Air Defence Regiment from the example above.
Current equipment: 75 mm
Current TOE line is now: 88 mm (those guns are (should be?) available, but pool says = 0 produced)
Next TOE available: 12 cm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
So the LCU will need an 88mm AA in 145 days, they will start being produced in 145 days, regardless of the availability date.


That's my point. They're not be needed in 145 days, they're needed now.
In 145 days LCUs will upgrade with 12 cm guns.

Conclusion: they're required because they're in many current TOEs, they're not being built (probably because of wrong start production date of 0/0).


[image]local://upfiles/18529/3D0DF62BE99344B8BC70659ABACB990D.jpg[/image]



michaelm75au -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (9/23/2011 11:02:50 AM)

My scen #2 shows the 88mm available date is 41/12, but a date of 00/00 is also treated as 'available now'.



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/7/2011 3:40:50 PM)


Well, my scen says 0/0. Please take a look at the save.
It's possibly because that's a 3 years old PBEM and the error has been corrected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
My scen #2 shows the 88mm available date is 41/12, but a date of 00/00 is also treated as 'available now'.


I am not sure, but it seems it's not produced.
See the 21st Air Defence Regiment or 7th ADR at Nagasaki or Sendai -- those are sitting there with full supply and none has changed it's TOE to get 88 mm for 3 years now... [:D]

This save can be of interest for you as well because of "aircraft upgrade" issue.
Japanese 938 Ku T-2/A received... Avengers III [:D]



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/7/2011 4:39:30 PM)

Another issue of this kind is the sound detector upgrade (device number 1467).
There is 5 (sic!) devices called as "sound detector".

Some of them are described in the database as ugrading into some kind of radar (Ta-Chi or Type 3 radar). Unfortunately the device no. 1467 has no upgrade defined.

This issue is kind of serious because it affects many standard base forces (see 95 detectors active even in '44). [:(]

Is it an error in the database or WAD?
If error, is there any chance you can edit the save posted?

[image]local://upfiles/18529/A1F9C6ED8C8C40BC97ABA2F35E271A8C.jpg[/image]



michaelm75au -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/7/2011 5:18:25 PM)

This is not a code bug.
Could be a mistake in the data, though.

If so, it is out of my hands.



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/7/2011 5:47:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

This is not a code bug.
Could be a mistake in the data, though.

If so, it is out of my hands.



Maybe I am getting paranoid, but there are many more such problems with data in long played older scenarios (vide my light tank upgrade path I posted). :(

As I understand your (or latest) official scenario differs from my save, right?

My memory is kind of foggy, but I believe there were database changes introduced in some previous patch(es).
So, is there really no way the database changes apply to the long played PBEM?



michaelm75au -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/7/2011 6:37:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol


Well, my scen says 0/0. Please take a look at the save.
It's possibly because that's a 3 years old PBEM and the error has been corrected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
My scen #2 shows the 88mm available date is 41/12, but a date of 00/00 is also treated as 'available now'.


I am not sure, but it seems it's not produced.
See the 21st Air Defence Regiment or 7th ADR at Nagasaki or Sendai -- those are sitting there with full supply and none has changed it's TOE to get 88 mm for 3 years now... [:D]




I have split a IF statement during the TOE device checking process to (a) determine that there is a change in the TOE device, AND then (b) determine how many new devices are needed.

The combined test could have failed if you already had the correct NUMBER of devices for the TOE (as in your case, it knew that it changed but it failed as the number needed was already the number of devices (but it was for the old, not the new)).

Now it will determine if it needs to change to the TOE device. And then decide on how many are needed to replace the old devices. And it will thus build them as needed.

Fixed in Q7



michaelm75au -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/7/2011 6:40:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

This is not a code bug.
Could be a mistake in the data, though.

If so, it is out of my hands.



Maybe I am getting paranoid, but there are many more such problems with data in long played older scenarios (vide my light tank upgrade path I posted). :(

As I understand your (or latest) official scenario differs from my save, right?

My memory is kind of foggy, but I believe there were database changes introduced in some previous patch(es).
So, is there really no way the database changes apply to the long played PBEM?

The game does have the ability to take device changes from the editor and put them into the current save.
However, someone needs to update the editor files and have them stamped as official. And then get them into production.



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/7/2011 9:17:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I have split a IF statement during the TOE device checking process to (a) determine that there is a change in the TOE device, AND then (b) determine how many new devices are needed.

The combined test could have failed if you already had the correct NUMBER of devices for the TOE (as in your case, it knew that it changed but it failed as the number needed was already the number of devices (but it was for the old, not the new)).

Now it will determine if it needs to change to the TOE device. And then decide on how many are needed to replace the old devices. And it will thus build them as needed.

Fixed in Q7


[&o] OK. Great! I'll see if it works during next turns. [&o]

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
The game does have the ability to take device changes from the editor and put them into the current save.
However, someone needs to update the editor files and have them stamped as official. And then get them into production.


OK. Got it.
Whom should we contact as fas as the database changes are concerned?
I'd really hear he officialcomment on it,
as this sound detector upgrade seems (to me) like a simple error/omission & I see this is still present in current scenarios.
The same with Type 95 light tank and a typo in Type 2 light tank.
Imho Type 95 should upgrade into Type 98.
If not, maybe a new Type 4 Ke-Nu should be introduced?




Numdydar -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 4:45:07 AM)

As far as I know there are no plans for any future database changes given the outcry on the one made in the last official patch which fixed the sub split tube issue. There have been other remaining DB issues, Japanese Escorts as an example (some models being too powerful) that have been commented in other threads. It has been stated that these will never be fixed due to requiring changes to the DB.

The issue with any DB changes, is that to get them into an ongoing game, the game would need to be restarted in order to do this. Once a game begins (again based on my limited understanding) there is a new DB that is created that tracks all the changes to the items in the game, ships sunk, etc. which cannot be altered in any way. When the game begins, the original DB (with any new changes, like yours) is copied and the original is no longer used, until the next game that is started from the beginning.

So the only option would be for you to go into the original copy that you have and edit the items that you think are incorrect using the editor that comes with the game and then start a new game using those mods. That is the only way that you will be able to get the changes you want included. Of course, if playing a PBEM game, the Japanese player would need to either make the changes or have you email them a copy of your modified DB in order for them to be included.

Hope this helps.



PaxMondo -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 6:10:06 AM)

What numdydar stated above is true for official scenarios.  UD scenarios can have db updates ocurr during a game.  I don't think we players can make changes to the official scenarios ...



Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 7:06:12 AM)

The 88mm issue is not applicable to every game as the device was added after the data patch and our game started before that so it is fixed in post patch 3 games bt there were always some weird issues with upgrading save games in mid game.

It is not a direct upgrade for the 75mm gun as only selected AA regiments get them so it is not a device that goes into most units - there are only about a dozen Japanese Regts and Bns due to get them that is a deliberate OOB decision made by the Japanese ORBAT guys - this device was also added in patch 3 to correct an omission.

Kereguelen is the real expert.

The Radar is an error you would need to check how many of your aviation Bns are still using sound detectors it may be possible to fix that one via a database update in game if you want to try but as the team has disbanded it wont be official.



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 10:03:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
As far as I know there are no plans for any future database changes given the outcry on the one made in the last official patch which fixed the sub split tube issue.

Outcry? I thought all Allied players were happy for the fix? [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
There have been other remaining DB issues, Japanese Escorts as an example (some models being too powerful) that have been commented in other threads. It has been stated that these will never be fixed due to requiring changes to the DB.

Japanese ENos have data right. Any change would be a tweak not a fix.

In those cases mentioned here (no upgrade for one type of sound detector, type 95 light tank lack of upgrade, type 2 wrong antisoft value) we have clear errors in a database.
Changes can be and have been introduced even in ongoing games (as Michael noted).
What we need is an official stamp from somebody who's responsible for that field.
The game is still being sold, so there must be somebody... [;)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
The Radar is an error you would need to check how many of your aviation Bns are still using sound detectors it may be possible to fix that one via a database update in game if you want to try but as the team has disbanded it wont be official.


As the march '44 it's 95 units using the detector instead of radar.
I'd say it's a lot... [:(] and some more still in reinforcement queue.



Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 2:06:35 PM)

Type 95 is the same data as orig stock WITP ie the soft attack issue has been there for 10 years...




Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 2:15:32 PM)

OK been investigating the Tuype 95 not upgrading looks deliberate OOB decison as almost no Type 98's or type 2's were actually built and if the upgrade path was left in all tanks would upgrade on day 1 of the game as there is no way to stop the Industry expending all the Japanese Vehicle points for the upgrade.

So this is NOT an error but looks deliberate only K can confirm.

p.s. You dont need to agree witht he logic but having looked into it I am convinced its deliberate

The typo on the Type 2 may or may not be correct again K would need to confirm.

Only the SD issue is IMO a bug



Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 2:22:35 PM)

ps about 134 tanks of the type 2 and 98 were produced total and the type 95 was the standard tank used across the war so I am more convinced than ever its deliberate with only a few selected TOE's set to uise the 98/2 to avoid it suckign int eh entire japanese Vehicle pool for an ahistoric upgrade



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 2:26:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK been investigating the Tuype 95 not upgrading looks deliberate OOB decison as almost no Type 98's or type 2's were actually built and if the upgrade path was left in all tanks would upgrade on day 1 of the game as there is no way to stop the Industry expending all the Japanese Vehicle points for the upgrade.

So this is NOT an error but looks deliberate only K can confirm.

p.s. You dont need to agree witht he logic but having looked into it I am convinced its deliberate

The typo on the Type 2 may or may not be correct again K would need to confirm.

Only the SD issue is IMO a bug


OK, Andy thank you for comments. [:)]
But think about it this way... how many Type 3 heavy (EDIT: so called "medium" [;)]) tank has been built IRL? (never used in combat btw...)
About 150... Wiki says 166.
How many Type 98 light tanks has been built given the tank has really been produced since '42/or '43? Again wiki says 104.


So why are we stuck with mediocre Type 95 if we have full contingents of equally rare Type 3?
Maybe the availability day of Type 98 should be changed for... say 01.43 (not 12.41 as it is now)?
Or, as suggested, maybe a new real Type 4 Ke-Nu should be introduced (also about 100 built and foreseen as a real successor, maybe even instead of Type 98, which, as it is now in real PBEM in '44 doesn't seem to be even used ingame?) as an upgrade for Type 95 in '44?

The typo in Type 2 light tanks seems clear (but again, I am not a specialist).
The Type 2 used the same secondary armament as Type 98 (1 machine gun) and a better version of 37 mm gun (this is reflected by increase of anti-armor value from 50 to 60).



Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 2:29:50 PM)

I am NOT an expert in Japanese munitions but could it be a better AT gun is a worse Anti Personell weapon ??

No idea why K made the choice but it may have been a balancing act within Industry/Vehicle Points/Utility all I am saying is it looks deliberate.



Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 2:34:41 PM)

I am speculating but the Type 3 was in production from its inception it WAS intended to replace the previous heavy tanks but industry could produce enough its a wafer thin distinction I agree but it was intended to replace them and high command had they had the induisrty would have and it was still in production at the end of the war

Whereas the 98/2 were both stopped 98 stopped production in 43 and Type 2 was never mass produced.

So in essence I think the decision not to allow the 95 to upgrade is correct



PaxMondo -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/8/2011 9:28:51 PM)

Andy,

Greatly appreciate your looking into this.


Thanks!!!



viberpol -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/9/2011 3:34:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am speculating but the Type 3 was in production from its inception it WAS intended to replace the previous heavy tanks but industry could produce enough its a wafer thin distinction I agree but it was intended to replace them and high command had they had the induisrty would have and it was still in production at the end of the war

Whereas the 98/2 were both stopped 98 stopped production in 43 and Type 2 was never mass produced.

So in essence I think the decision not to allow the 95 to upgrade is correct


Erm... is there a way to check what units use or will use a given device?
I am asking because I don't have old saves from my game and currently Tracker says that none Type 98 tank has been produced, used or destroyed and none will be in future reinforcements...

Trying to find logic in it...
If there was no intention of 778 --> 779 --> 780 upgrade path
why introduce the data of a tank that's not used in any units, nor there's a path leading towards it?



Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/9/2011 4:35:59 AM)

OK guys as I said up front this is not my area of expertise need to talk to kereguelen.

IMO based on what my own research in last 24 hours I can see a logical reason for Type 95  not to upgrade and for the heavies to be allowed to upgrade

Based on fact that successors to 95 were basically abandoned IRL after minimal production runs - which are represented by a couple of units that get this device.

The heavies were being replaced and produced at end of war with the intention of replacing all of the other heavies so if I was doing OOB I would have done exactly what team has done based on my own research over last 24 hours.

But if you dont like it crank out the editor and change it (or ask Kereguelen as this is his area not mine he has the source books)

Only way to check who gets what device is to crank uo editor or game and look through them unless tracker can do it ?




Andy Mac -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/9/2011 7:26:48 PM)

Re the radar point please be aware we cannot limit Japanese production its all or nothign if a device is available and their is enough industry it will be produced.

Therefore some compromiese were made

I need to check if this was one of them.

ALl JNAF Aviation units get radar as do the JAAF base forces so there is not a shortage of radar sets this may have been a late compromise (I am checking so bear with me - I agree it looks like an error but it may have been a late productio capability balancing issue)

Andy



PaxMondo -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/9/2011 7:30:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I agree it looks like an error but it may have been a late productio capability balancing issue)

Andy


Which would be completely understandable. Look forward to your results.



PaxMondo -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/9/2011 7:38:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

... please be aware we cannot limit Japanese production its all or nothign if a device is available and their is enough industry it will be produced.

So, if in the editor you set "Can Build" to "Yes" and the "Build Rate" to 10, that doesn't necessarily mean that you will be limited to 10/month per the editor manual?


P13 of the wtipae-editor manual states:
"Build Rate is the average monthly reinforcement rate for the device. Once the device reaches its
Availability Date, a number equal to the Build Rate/30 will be placed in the device pool (fractional
values have a chance of being rounded up)."

Just want to be sure I understand correctly, as this is pretty important when creating a mod.

Thanks!!



inqistor -> RE: Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2 (10/9/2011 8:27:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

So why are we stuck with mediocre Type 95 if we have full contingents of equally rare Type 3?
Maybe the availability day of Type 98 should be changed for... say 01.43 (not 12.41 as it is now)?
Or, as suggested, maybe a new real Type 4 Ke-Nu should be introduced (also about 100 built and foreseen as a real successor, maybe even instead of Type 98, which, as it is now in real PBEM in '44 doesn't seem to be even used ingame?) as an upgrade for Type 95 in '44?

Japan have shortages of Vehicle Points production, at the beginning, and serious surplus in late-war, so actually introducing new model later seems right thing to do, to suck all this surplus, and force player to keep points production.
Also, I actually thought, that the fifth Sound Detector not upgrading was WAD, but from Armament Points side, it could be beneficial to burn lots of them for radar upgrades. How much does radar weights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The typo on the Type 2 may or may not be correct again K would need to confirm.

If tank have used MG the current value is surely too low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

So, if in the editor you set "Can Build" to "Yes" and the "Build Rate" to 10, that doesn't necessarily mean that you will be limited to 10/month per the editor manual?

I have tested it, and "Build Rate" have no any influence on Japanese production. However, maybe it will work, when "Can Build" will be set to "No", as Michaelm mentioned, that it is only used for Japanese side.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.96875