RE: 6.3.2.3 (Full Version)

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



Message


LoBaron -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 7:38:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote


quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

I think there may be some bug with loading troops. I was still trying to figure it out before posting about it, but sometimes parts of your troops are left behind who shouldn't.
As an example, an amphibious TF (~300% of the needed troop and cargo space) left 112 mot. support and one gun of the division at the harbour.

Happend twice already in my current game (latest beta), but i never noticed early enough, so i had no savegame for michaelm to check. Looking (and saving) now everytime i build an amphibious to see if i can repeat it.


Yep I noticed the same thing but sometimes, I tried an all the units load even with the troop loading screen showing one won't be fully load.

I noticed small units take the biggest ships sometimes so the biggest units have to take the smaller and can't load fully. I know I load all my transports one by one to avoid those bugs.




I am pretty sure this is not a bug.

I have experienced the same behaviour occasionally (troops not fully loaded although troop/cargo space provided was easily enough). Everytime I triplechecked the reason I found that the unit affected had replacements and/or upgrades set to on. The replacements arriving are not part of the troop load routine and so are left in port. This was the explanation for every single time I had this issue.




LoBaron -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 7:40:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny3013

Aaaaah and the moose couldn't resist a dig while he tells me in the same breath how friendly a place this is.[:)]


Its a friendly place for those who donīt behave like idiots. [;)]




pws1225 -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 8:13:16 PM)

To Gunny: Chances are the stuff that's not loading is either support or arty. That's where the trucks, large guns, etc are located in the TOE. The section in the manual that discusses load costs for different devices implies this apparent "bug" is actually WAD. To compensate, I create TFs with an extra 20% or so to take up the slack. Seems to work.




obvert -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 8:22:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny3013

Symon, I think you took my comments personally. They were not directed at anyone specific. Yours were. aaaah such a friendly place indeed![:)]


As he should have in this case.

This is a friendly place. Look at your own OP and the increasingly hostile responses to people trying on their own time to help you out. You add very little usable detail, lots of complaint and not much info for people to help you figure something out that obviously has you frustrated. Yet they still gave you multiple answers with EVERYTHING you need to know.

You have to come with a friendly attitude to get one in return.




zuluhour -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 10:06:06 PM)

Man, I'm glad I didn't try and help.[:D] 




zuluhour -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 10:30:04 PM)

Most frustrating moment in War in The Pacific -AE, logistics wise, trying to unload a radar in an atoll without a pier. Ended up packing it up and sending it back to Pearl for storage.




crsutton -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 10:32:20 PM)

I don't get it. You are the Allied player and are worried about wedging troops into your ships? The "Allied player?" What are we having this discussion for?




pws1225 -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 10:33:04 PM)

You coulda sold it to M&M Enterprises instead.




zuluhour -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/22/2014 10:35:44 PM)

I para dropped Milo over Tulagi.




erstad -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 1:21:29 AM)

For the initial load screen assessment of fit to give a thumbs up, 10% margin may not be enough. Screenie shows the loading of the unrestricted regt at SF into one of the 2505 troop APs and a big AK. 2505 is just barely over 10% troop space, cargo margin is higher.

However, the verify load screen (which I believe uses a more accurate algorithm) says it deoes fit.

Ran two days (1 to pack, one to load) and it did all load.

By the way, I don't consider any of this a problem, I'm just curious as to what nuggets of truth might underlie the OPs problem. And I have no turns in the inbox [:D]





[image]local://upfiles/13407/54331387B22144238D42C5B4A9D90122.jpg[/image]




JocMeister -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 6:31:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I don't get it. You are the Allied player and are worried about wedging troops into your ships? The "Allied player?" What are we having this discussion for?


+1




zuluhour -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 12:59:40 PM)

Back in the 40's we might have used the term "shoehorn".[:D]




John 3rd -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 1:29:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Why do you keep on making reference to terms which are not necessary to master (but good for those players who do master them) and disregard what I say.

Assuming the regt has a troop load cost of 2277 and a cargo load cost of 5819, and it is in strategic mode and not restricted:

1.  Create a Transport Task Force.
2.  At the ship selection screen, filter to only show AP
3.  The screen will list the troop (and cargo capacity if any) of the available ships.
4.  Select sufficient AP ships until you have approximately 2500 troop carrying capacity.  If you don't want any "freeboard", just stop at 2277 troop capacity.
5.  Then change filter to show only AK whose cargo carrying capacity will be listed.
6.  Select sufficient AK until you have approximately 6500 cargo carrying capacity.  Again if stingy, just stop at 5819 cargo carrying capacity.

Alfred


Alfred: You are a FINE teacher. Your directions are outstanding. Well done.




John 3rd -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 1:34:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny3013

Yea we get it Symon, blah, blah, blah, guess and then throw in a few AK's for good measure. As far as rules 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.3 & 6.3.2.4 they are absolutelly worthless overstating the obvious, "troops can be loaded on ships..." and failing completely to instruct on how exactly to do that. All I can conclude is what I have always maintained, that programmers and game designers need to stay out of the rule writting business as they are brilliant at one thing and miserable at the other and the yes men around them rarely tell them the truth. This rule book does very well at overstating the obvious, falls short of disclosing things like guessing load capacities and gives little helpful information. As a result most of what is being learned I'm forced to figure out on my own through trial and error. Stop asking for pictures of the 34th IR as I posted the relevent info on that unit and had't formed a TF because I did not know about the "toss in a few extra vessels for good measure," bit. Don't even get me started on the Japanese production rules shortfalls and please stop stating that because you get it everyone should.[:)]



Just read this thread and totally agree with the above Posts. John DID NOT deserve this comment. He simply requested, as several others did, a screenshot to find out if you were genuinely having an issue here. You've had several of the best players and personalities on this Forum try to help and all you've done is be rude to them.

Doesn't make any sense to me...




crsutton -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 2:15:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Back in the 40's we might have used the term "shoehorn".[:D]



I thought I was an "old" AE player, but now that it is confirmed that we have a forum member who is in his nineties, I will step aside..[:D]




zuluhour -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 3:02:55 PM)

The shame is, I have a shoe horn in my golf bag.[:D]




gunny3013 -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 3:28:31 PM)

[:)]




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 5:38:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

The shame is, I have a shoe horn in my golf bag.[:D]


I have one on top of my dresser, but haven't used it in years. The shoe horn may be a prime case of a tool which reached the apex of its design centuries ago and never has or will need to change.




KenchiSulla -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 6:14:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny3013
I would be remiss if I didn't keep in mind that soft civilians cannot be addressed in the same manner as I was formerly accustomed. I need to remember to be soft spoken or at least less direct, and throw in some political savvy while I'm at it. I will endevor to do just that but its a learning process so bear with me.


So the Corps does not teach social skills does it?




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 6:18:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny3013
I would be remiss if I didn't keep in mind that soft civilians cannot be addressed in the same manner as I was formerly accustomed. I need to remember to be soft spoken or at least less direct, and throw in some political savvy while I'm at it. I will endevor to do just that but its a learning process so bear with me.


So the Corps does not teach social skills does it?



Or logic or research skills. Apparently he thinks he's the only veteran around here. Particularly amusing given Symon's resume.




gunny3013 -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 8:37:19 PM)

[:)]




pompack -> RE: 6.3.2.3 (3/23/2014 9:04:03 PM)

Trying to burn the evidence? [&:]

A really strange ending to a strange thread




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5