RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (Full Version)

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



Message

btd64 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (3/4/2016 2:49:34 PM)

Hey Michael, In a test game of Focus Pacific I have S-35 at Suva which is stuck in repair mode and won't respond to mouse clicks to move out of pier side repair to active.

Also BB Gascoigne, located at Arorae(138,137), is anchored and setting to repair only shows "0" for the number of days for pier repair. In the last turn or so, 2 system damage has repaired. But the number "0" is still there.

A save is attached below. If you need more info, let me know....GP

The units involved have unlocked themselves....GP



RichardAckermann -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (3/20/2016 10:58:05 AM)

I am IJN vs AI and got a message "TF 116 slows down to allow TF 106 to catch up". TF 116 is my IJN sub patrol, TF 106 is an US surface TF.
Checked it and they really follow my (unspotted) sub TF.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (3/20/2016 11:21:37 AM)

Sounds like some data wasn't cleared from one of the TFs - probable one was in use at the time.
What version are you using as I thought I had cleared these issues?



RichardAckermann -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (3/20/2016 12:39:25 PM)

Just checked my shortcut and I inadvertently used the "G" type beta, not the current one.



miv792 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (3/31/2016 1:40:21 AM)

Why not add AV tenders to enter the tanker convoys?



btd64 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/3/2016 7:26:53 PM)

Thanks again Michael....GP



mikkey -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/3/2016 8:50:31 PM)

Thanks Michael!



BBfanboy -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/4/2016 5:13:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Hey Michael, In a test game of Focus Pacific I have S-35 at Suva which is stuck in repair mode and won't respond to mouse clicks to move out of pier side repair to active.

Also BB Gascoigne, located at Arorae(138,137), is anchored and setting to repair only shows "0" for the number of days for pier repair. In the last turn or so, 2 system damage has repaired. But the number "0" is still there.

A save is attached below. If you need more info, let me know....GP

The units involved have unlocked themselves....GP

A repair time of "0" usually means there is a destroyed device on the ship that cannot be replaced at the current port. All the usual damage is handled normally but destroyed devices need the right size port/naval support/shipyard.



Yaab -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/4/2016 5:34:58 AM)

Thanks, Michaelm.

The automatic 50 exp at Pearl Harbor is gone. Shakedown cruises for merchant ships make sense again.




witpqs -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 updated 3 April 2016 (4/4/2016 5:30:46 PM)

Thanks, Michael!

PS: The download file name is AEupdate112k.zip, I assume it should be AEupdate1125k.zip (added the '5')?



riflebrigade -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 updated 3 April 2016 (4/5/2016 2:43:43 AM)

Apart from the multiple fixes and upgrades to the program the Unofficial Public Beta Patch also fixed a problem I have with no visible text in the Scenario selection screen when using program without the Public Beta Patch.

Keep up the good work and thank you.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 updated 3 April 2016 (4/5/2016 10:33:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Thanks, Michael!

PS: The download file name is AEupdate112k.zip, I assume it should be AEupdate1125k.zip (added the '5')?

I did this late. Must have too much from end of name [:o]



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 updated 3 April 2016 (4/5/2016 1:42:21 PM)

Thanks Michael!



Kitakami -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 updated 3 April 2016 (4/7/2016 7:19:24 PM)

Thank you very much, Michael. Really appreciated!



Lowpe -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/7/2016 7:23:59 PM)

I just updated and want to say sincerely,

Thankyou![&o]



Korvar -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/10/2016 9:26:15 PM)

I also want to chime in - thank you very much, Michael!!



miv792 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/12/2016 7:48:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: miv79

Why not add AV tenders to enter the tanker convoys?

UP, answer please.



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 7:59:53 PM)

Mine Laying TFs and Sub Mine Laying TFs when created default to "Do Not Lay Mines". Can this be changed to default of "Lay Mines"?



witpqs -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 8:01:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Mine Laying TFs and Sub Mine Laying TFs when created default to "Do Not Lay Mines". Can this be changed to default of "Lay Mines"?

No, please don't! The default of 'Do Not' is better.



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 8:04:43 PM)

+1 "Do Not" is better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Mine Laying TFs and Sub Mine Laying TFs when created default to "Do Not Lay Mines". Can this be changed to default of "Lay Mines"?

No, please don't! The default of 'Do Not' is better.




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 8:37:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

+1 "Do Not" is better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Mine Laying TFs and Sub Mine Laying TFs when created default to "Do Not Lay Mines". Can this be changed to default of "Lay Mines"?

No, please don't! The default of 'Do Not' is better.



Really? The number of times I've forgotten to set it have resulted in a "dry run" and no mines delivered prompted me to ask.

Help me understand why is "do not" better?



BillBrown -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 8:38:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

+1 "Do Not" is better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Mine Laying TFs and Sub Mine Laying TFs when created default to "Do Not Lay Mines". Can this be changed to default of "Lay Mines"?

No, please don't! The default of 'Do Not' is better.



Agree, leave it at 'Do Not'.



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 8:47:13 PM)


quote:


Really? The number of times I've forgotten to set it have resulted in a "dry run" and no mines delivered prompted me to ask.

Help me understand why is "do not" better?


For me, it is because I rarely send the ML TF straight to target. So if it is set to Lay mines, they end up dropping mines in the wrong place. Plus, sometimes I'm just rebasing MLs and in that situation they will end up also laying mines at the new base when I probably didn't want them to.




witpqs -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 9:26:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg


quote:


Really? The number of times I've forgotten to set it have resulted in a "dry run" and no mines delivered prompted me to ask.

Help me understand why is "do not" better?


For me, it is because I rarely send the ML TF straight to target. So if it is set to Lay mines, they end up dropping mines in the wrong place. Plus, sometimes I'm just rebasing MLs and in that situation they will end up also laying mines at the new base when I probably didn't want them to.

Right! And mine pools are not infinite, they are quite restricted now. It is far more practical to require 'flipping the safety off' when you do intend to 'shoot' mines.



Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/13/2016 9:41:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg


quote:


Really? The number of times I've forgotten to set it have resulted in a "dry run" and no mines delivered prompted me to ask.

Help me understand why is "do not" better?


For me, it is because I rarely send the ML TF straight to target. So if it is set to Lay mines, they end up dropping mines in the wrong place. Plus, sometimes I'm just rebasing MLs and in that situation they will end up also laying mines at the new base when I probably didn't want them to.

Right! And mine pools are not infinite, they are quite restricted now. It is far more practical to require 'flipping the safety off' when you do intend to 'shoot' mines.


I agree. I've accidentally laid mines before.



Korvar -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/14/2016 3:16:02 AM)

I don't have a problem with the 'do not' option being default as I've trained myself to look for the confirmation message when ordering a TF to lay mines.

That said, I don't 100% understand why a 'do not' default is a 'must' (new player here)...

Will Minelaying TFs incorrectly lay the mines if their route happens to pass by a suitable location along the way, similar to how it's advisable to have 'do not unload' set for Amphib TFs?

Why do you rarely send Minelaying TFs directly to their target? Is it due to accidental 'along the way' misfires, or are you deliberately routing the TFs to protect them, refuel, etc.?

As for the availability of mines, I've been setting up AEs/AKEs at regional 'hub' ports where possible and dispatching Minelaying TFs from there. I reload the minelayers using the 'replenish at sea' option. Seems to work just fine as long as supplies are available, whereas if I were to use port replenishment it may only load one or two mines...



BBfanboy -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/14/2016 3:30:36 AM)

My frustration with minelayers has been when I set them to lay mines and gave them an enemy target base, but when they run into a harmless enemy convoy of xAKs they RTB and lay the mines at their home base! The big issue of course, is the shortage of mines in the pools. Smart thing to avoid this is to send the minelayers in "Do not lay mines" mode until they are within a few hexes of the target and then turn on the lay mines order.



Yaab -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/14/2016 5:11:26 AM)

It gets worse.

If you create an Evac TF consisting solely of minelaying ships, the TF reverts to Minelaying mission once you leave the TF screen and loads mines! I once emptied my Dutch mine pool this way while evacuating surplus minelaying ships from Java to Cocos Island.



Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/14/2016 7:13:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

It gets worse.

If you create an Evac TF consisting solely of minelaying ships, the TF reverts to Minelaying mission once you leave the TF screen and loads mines! I once emptied my Dutch mine pool this way while evacuating surplus minelaying ships from Java to Cocos Island.


Set to "Do not refuel" and that setting should remain, which should stop them from loading mines.



jcjordan -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1125 14 November 2015 (4/16/2016 12:19:45 AM)

Noticed this w/ new beta vs the Jan beta I was running - on land units the larger fragment doesn't become the parent like it used to. I've got 4th Marine invading Wotje & the larger fragment is on Wotje commanded by a generic Major while the parent is back at Suva under the command of the General



Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875