RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (Full Version)

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



Message

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 3:36:24 AM)

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 5:05:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.

I beleive that a lot of the units with static devices (IJ side) are to prevent players from shifting them from their historical location (like Yokohama). So, if the unit retreats, that would be kinda funny. How would Yokohama base retreat? I would agree with you, if there are static devices present, the unit should not retreat. It is tethered to that location by physical location.



Quixote -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 5:13:58 AM)

quote:

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??


In the spirit of democracy (which I know this isn't, but humor me) I completely agree. I'd vote for static units to remain, well...static. Being able to run into a previously battered CD unit in the middle of the Gobi desert just doesn't sound quite right.[:)]

Kidding aside, I know it's been a bug (or feature) since WitP, but I can't imagine too many people having concerns about changing the code to keep units that were always intended to be static in place.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q test (8/11/2013 5:18:18 AM)

The only impact would be that the units will usually fight to the last man, surrender or be destroyed in combat. Which it would if it still had one static device present.

Here is a test version of the code that can be un-zipped into the beta directory
Updated to only stand and fight if a static squad device present.



cohimbra -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 5:36:38 AM)

Hi all, I regulary use CS (Continuous Supply) routine for my Resource Cargo. I noticed that you can
set 'Minimal Refuel', 'Tactical Refuel' or 'Full Refuel', but every time a convoy returns to the assigned
base it occurs Full Refuel (Ex: CS convoy Sapporo-Hirosaki where Sapporo is the assigned base; the CS convoy
load resources, go to Hirosaki for the unload, and every time ruturn to Sapporo he made the Full Refuel).
This have an heavy impact in the area like Hokkaido or Shakalin (less in China/Korea or in the hex that
produce fuel). And another one: Combat TF also made Full Refuel when approach to port even if 'No Refuel'
is set. I'm playing with 1123k. Has someone else noticed the same problems?
Regards

edit: I set all my CS cargo with 'Tactical Refuel'



Chris21wen -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 7:40:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 8:48:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.


Are the 'garrison' static devices squads? If so, compromise could be that any static squad device must cause the unit to NOT retreat.



Chris21wen -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 2:18:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.


Are the 'garrison' static devices squads? If so, compromise could be that any static squad device must cause the unit to NOT retreat.


In a situation where it's retreat or die then retreat is what should happen excluding any national traits. If the equipment is not classified as static then they should be able to take it with them but there might be a case for only taking stuff than does not need towing or carrying as the unit is also likely to have few vehicles.



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/11/2013 5:33:12 PM)

I disagree ... I can't see Sasebo Base retreating. I understand about the squads being able to retreat, but that would mean Sasebo Base being somewhere else which is nonsense. If Nagasaki is over-run, those units should be lost. Same with the unit at Hanoi ... makes no sense to see that unit retreat. It is a fixed gun emplacement. Yes, you lose a few more units than you might in reality, but the disturbance to the overall game is larger.

Just my thoughts.



Symon -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/14/2013 2:59:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.

That's exactly the purpose of the 'static unit' device. It was added to the database specifically as a means to ensure that particular LCUs could not ever move; and that includes retreating.

Some LCUs have several 'static units', but that's just because it was found that only having one or two would allow the unit to 'free up' if they were destroyed; an undesirable thing. So don't think option 2 is an acceptable one. Want to "ensure" that the LCU never moves, ever, under any circumstances.

So please, if you fiddle with this, do it so that LCUs with static unit devices in them are NOT allowed to retreat. That was, and is, the design purpose and intent.

[ed] just think of it in terms of the troops in those LCUs swore an oath to the Emperor that they would defend their base to the last breath of the last man; duty is heavier than a mountain, death is lighter than a feather, and all that. [8D]

Ciao. JWE



cantona2 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/15/2013 3:27:24 PM)

Havent done this for a while and Im getting unable to find PW data error message. Trying to run game off exe in Beta2 folder. Im sure im missing something but i cant remember what.



witpqs -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/15/2013 3:58:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Havent done this for a while and Im getting unable to find PW data error message. Trying to run game off exe in Beta2 folder. Im sure im missing something but i cant remember what.

I'm going to guess that the problem is how you made the shortcut. The shortcut must point to the Beta exe, of course. But the other line in the shortcut, the one that says "run in" or something like that, must point to the regular AE folder.



cantona2 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/15/2013 4:34:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Havent done this for a while and Im getting unable to find PW data error message. Trying to run game off exe in Beta2 folder. Im sure im missing something but i cant remember what.

I'm going to guess that the problem is how you made the shortcut. The shortcut must point to the Beta exe, of course. But the other line in the shortcut, the one that says "run in" or something like that, must point to the regular AE folder.


And indeed that was the fix
Thanks[&o]



inqistor -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/17/2013 8:36:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.


Are the 'garrison' static devices squads? If so, compromise could be that any static squad device must cause the unit to NOT retreat.

I am pretty sure that was original intent. I remember it was exactly how Chinese units in War Plan Orange were build (fake static Devices to keep them in place). Are all those "static garrison Devices" in TOE, or are they extra? If extra, I think they will never get replacements anyway.
Just remember, that there are such weird Devices as 918 Frontier Scouts, which will upgrade with time to their mobile version.



bruin -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/18/2013 9:06:06 PM)

Auto sub-ops seem to have broken (and likely for at least the last two patches). Running the latest 1123p beta, as the allies I have auto sub-ops turned on, total 109 active subs - 31 are out at sea patrolling and 78 are sitting in port doing nothing. Recent sub arrivals, such as those at Balboa, are sitting in port (11 of them) - typically these automatically re-assign somewhere.



DOCUP -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/19/2013 3:52:38 AM)

Anyone got beta 23k that I can have.



koniu -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/19/2013 6:58:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Anyone got beta 23k that I can have.

Sadly i delete "k" installer from my HDD
We can also upgrade to "p".
You will have to only watch replay under p instead of k but turn was quiet so sync bug should not be problem.




ny59giants -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/19/2013 12:44:19 PM)

quote:

Anyone got beta 23k that I can have.


I have the last 20 or so saved. [:)]



DOCUP -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 (8/19/2013 8:57:22 PM)

Thanks NYgiants.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/25/2013 7:19:23 AM)

New build added



ny59giants -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/25/2013 8:15:48 AM)

OK Jocke, Michael addressed the issue. Go try it out!![;)]



seille -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/25/2013 8:22:38 AM)

I bet he is doing it RIGHT NOW [:D]



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/25/2013 5:50:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

New build added

[&o][&o][&o]

THANKS!

[&o][&o][&o]



sandman455 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/25/2013 6:29:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

New build added

[&o][&o][&o]

THANKS!

[&o][&o][&o]


Understated IMHO

THANK YOU VERY MUCH MOST WISE AND POWERFUL MICHAELM.

I am unworthy!![&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]



chemkid -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/28/2013 4:31:23 AM)

.



blueatoll -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/28/2013 7:23:03 PM)

I think there may be an issue with Task Force Loading/Unloading. I had a couple of Task Forces unload what seemed to be a massive amount of troops and equipment into a Level 1 port after applying this patch including some heavy equipment that I knew couldn't be unloaded in one turn (2 days). There was no detail that the units were unloading during the Load/Unload Transports phase and I actually thought that they were not doing anything until I checked the ground units in the hex and voila! there they were, heavy equipment and all.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (8/31/2013 4:53:39 AM)

I haven't been in the forums for over a year and good old michaelm is still plugging away at new updates.

Absolutely incredible! This is real dedication!

Words of thanks to you, michaelm, are insufficient....but please accept my HEARTY THANKS in any case.

Best,

Pascal



BigDuke66 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (9/1/2013 12:00:20 AM)

I guess he needs a real monument, still room at Mount Rushmore?



Treetop64 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 25 August 2013 (9/7/2013 6:40:16 AM)

Again, many thanks. [&o]

Appreciate the adjustment back to the default space-bar function. I can't tell you how helpful that is!



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123r update (9/9/2013 12:37:37 PM)

New build



Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125