RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (Full Version)

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



Message

Ambassador -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 9:25:36 AM)

Using stock map, and AFAIK an unmodified PWHEXE file, and AndyMac’s updated Scen 1 & 2. Last beta patch.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Have a look on 24 December 1941 and see if it (or Norfolk Is) has changed type.

Ambassador is saying he has never had the problem, so it's all very mysterious at the moment.

I don’t remember ever having had the problem, but playing as the Allies I usually do not worry about Baker, neither defending nor invading it (only bomb it occasionally, later in the campaign). There are plenty of better bases.

I’ve checked December 7th start in several scenarios though, and they all allow Port construction.

I’ve just run a H2H test, fast forwarding to Dec 26th on a Scen 1 (well, modified to slot 54 to more easily calling back all invasion fleets - no other modifications). Both Baker and Norfolk have the option to start Port building.

By the way, both are still « bases » and have not changed to « primary airfield ».

The pwhexe.dat file still has a last modified date of 09-09-10.



dwesolick -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 1:00:04 PM)

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 1:16:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.


The mystery deepens.

@dwesolick - I am using the game to test/change things in my mod. Have you ever had occasion to implement a scenario data base amendment in your ongoing game?



Nomad -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 2:13:00 PM)

I think there is a bug in the program. I am playing a PBEM of BTS-H. I have every turn we played. Starbuck Island started
as a Base. Sometime around April 15, 1942 it changed to an airfield. This was not a data error, or a map error, the program
changed it and I have no idea why.



dwesolick -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 2:27:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.


The mystery deepens.

@dwesolick - I am using the game to test/change things in my mod. Have you ever had occasion to implement a scenario data base amendment in your ongoing game?


Lord no. I wouldn't even know how to. I think we have a "ghost" in the system! [X(]



Ambassador -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 3:56:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Not someone, something under the hood.

Here is the scenario location data in the editor of my game in progress - it is a type 01 port.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/wiX3eAr.jpg[/image]



Some thought just occurred to my mind. Your Scen 31 (which is it by the way ? BTS ?) apparently has a Baker Eng Bn scheduled to appear 411225. I suppose it’s a Japanese unit, given the ID number ? Due to the proximity of the date to the change of status, could it have an influence ? Could you post a screenshot of that unit’s database entry in the Editor ?



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 7:59:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Using stock map, and AFAIK an unmodified PWHEXE file, and AndyMac’s updated Scen 1 & 2. Last beta patch.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Have a look on 24 December 1941 and see if it (or Norfolk Is) has changed type.

Ambassador is saying he has never had the problem, so it's all very mysterious at the moment.

I don’t remember ever having had the problem, but playing as the Allies I usually do not worry about Baker, neither defending nor invading it (only bomb it occasionally, later in the campaign). There are plenty of better bases.

I’ve checked December 7th start in several scenarios though, and they all allow Port construction.

I’ve just run a H2H test, fast forwarding to Dec 26th on a Scen 1 (well, modified to slot 54 to more easily calling back all invasion fleets - no other modifications). Both Baker and Norfolk have the option to start Port building.

By the way, both are still « bases » and have not changed to « primary airfield ».

The pwhexe.dat file still has a last modified date of 09-09-10.


You just made me realize that I have probably modified the PWHEXE.DAT file over the years trying different scenarios and maps and now that I am starting AndyMacs new updated scenario 1... I need to make sure it is back to stock version. Looks like I updated mine last in 2013 when I believe I was using DaBabes Lite Extended Map. Oops forgot about this.

I'm assuming it is ok to swap out the PWHEXE.DAT files while you are in the middle of setting up turn one? It now says PWHEXE.DAT file differs when I load my first turn set up...



Kull -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 9:44:33 PM)

I haven't seen this bug either, but it's interesting. From a mod perspective, it would be a great way to ensure that certain locations aren't built up as ports. Not every island or coastal hex should be capable of developing a size 3 port (or more).

Out of curiosity I ran a few tests with a variety of Baker Island settings, and it turns out you can also limit the ability to build airfields, but it's a bit tricky. Using the editor, go to the Baker Island location record and set the "Type" to "06-Secondary Airfield" and the "Port" to "1" (keeping the "Airfield" also at 1). Save it as a new scenario and when you start the new campaign, Baker Island has now become a "US Navy Port" and the ability to build airfields is now greyed out:

[image]local://upfiles/25668/9456787D9F5D4E91B732F2FB5A6AB7D7.jpg[/image]



RangerJoe -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 10:22:24 PM)

There is one advantage to not building any airfield at all, it can't be bombed plus the float planes and flying boats won't be hit on the port strikes.



Kull -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 11:05:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is one advantage to not building any airfield at all, it can't be bombed plus the float planes and flying boats won't be hit on the port strikes.


Good point - in fact if you make the same change posted above, except setting "Airfield" to "0", that makes it impossible to build an airfield there. It's zero forever.



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 2:06:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I think there is a bug in the program. I am playing a PBEM of BTS-H. I have every turn we played. Starbuck Island started
as a Base. Sometime around April 15, 1942 it changed to an airfield. This was not a data error, or a map error, the program
changed it and I have no idea why.


It is still a base in 4307 in my current game (unlike Baker & Norfolk).



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 2:21:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


Some thought just occurred to my mind. Your Scen 31 (which is it by the way ? BTS ?) apparently has a Baker Eng Bn scheduled to appear 411225. I suppose it’s a Japanese unit, given the ID number ? Due to the proximity of the date to the change of status, could it have an influence ? Could you post a screenshot of that unit’s database entry in the Editor ?


For a moment that looked promising, but new units arrive at the end of the turn, so it's two days out (and I am playing fixed arrival).

Scenario 31 is Bill Brown's (RIP) version of my 'The Long Road to Tokyo' mod. Which I have adopted because it loaded more reliably. The Baker Eng battalion is indeed a Japanese (ironman) type unit, which did not appear in place because Mr Sneaky sent the US carriers southwest of Johnston and sank both the Johnston and Baker invasion forces. The IJ did grab it later, after the engineer unit was meant to appear there.



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 2:22:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.


The mystery deepens.

@dwesolick - I am using the game to test/change things in my mod. Have you ever had occasion to implement a scenario data base amendment in your ongoing game?


Lord no. I wouldn't even know how to. I think we have a "ghost" in the system! [X(]


I'm wondering if updating the scenario database in game has some unintended consequences.



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 2:32:18 AM)

Baker Engineers:

[image]https://i.imgur.com/R61JLgA.jpg[/image]



BBfanboy -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 2:32:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.


The mystery deepens.

@dwesolick - I am using the game to test/change things in my mod. Have you ever had occasion to implement a scenario data base amendment in your ongoing game?


Lord no. I wouldn't even know how to. I think we have a "ghost" in the system! [X(]


I'm wondering if updating the scenario database in game has some unintended consequences.

I have done this with a scenario I was working on. I made changes after the first few turns and opened that scenario again before selecting the saved game from the previous version. The game asked if I wanted to load the changes, and then it loaded just the changes it was programed to accept - not all the ones I made (I forget which were adopted, except I know I added some industry at a base OK). The game ran fine with the changes it accepted.



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 4:26:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The game ran fine with the changes it accepted.


I'm basically playing with the editor open on my second screen, making corrections/changes to the scenario as I go along. I update it manually during the turn - the click-text is at the bottom of the preferences screen

This may not be an exhaustive list, but what you can change that is taken up in the save game includes:

Device data, including repl. rates and upgrade paths*

Aircraft data, including repl. rates

Ship class data, including modifying upgrade paths, and creating/deleting conversion binds

(You can't alter air groups or ships)

Locations - some things but not others -

Bases can have daily supply/fuel altered (but changing the base type, or most anything else, is not taken up)

You might be able to change a TOE. Unsure of that.

Leaders are like bases (generally) air-groups, ships and ground units - changes are not taken up in the save game.

There maybe some other things I have forgotten.

*This is a bad idea which severely provokes the law of unintended consequences, because the upgrade change you wanted to manipulate one unit will infect the TOES of other units using the upgrading device, so after you effect the change in the target unit, you have to carefully reverse the upgrade path to get things back where they were meant to be globally, and after that 'restore factory settings'.

Edit - adding industry - I think you can only do that a 'device slot' that had something in it when the game was started.



BBfanboy -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 6:51:36 AM)

You can change TOEs that are not yet in effect. Once the TOE is rolled out to the units you can't change it, IIRC.



Ambassador -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 7:26:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


Some thought just occurred to my mind. Your Scen 31 (which is it by the way ? BTS ?) apparently has a Baker Eng Bn scheduled to appear 411225. I suppose it’s a Japanese unit, given the ID number ? Due to the proximity of the date to the change of status, could it have an influence ? Could you post a screenshot of that unit’s database entry in the Editor ?


For a moment that looked promising, but new units arrive at the end of the turn, so it's two days out (and I am playing fixed arrival).

Scenario 31 is Bill Brown's (RIP) version of my 'The Long Road to Tokyo' mod. Which I have adopted because it loaded more reliably. The Baker Eng battalion is indeed a Japanese (ironman) type unit, which did not appear in place because Mr Sneaky sent the US carriers southwest of Johnston and sank both the Johnston and Baker invasion forces. The IJ did grab it later, after the engineer unit was meant to appear there.

I don’t see anything weird in the screenshot of that unit you uploaded a couple of posts later.

Are there any new bases created in this mod ? When I tinkered with a scenario, adding several dot bases here and there, I made a mistake and put two bases in the same hex, and it did weird things in-game.

Otherwise, another thought : as far as I remember, Baker and Norfolk are not the only bases which start as a Port 0(0) but with AF at least size 1. There is also Peleliu. If it’s an AI game, could you load the IJ side and check that base ?



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/12/2021 12:56:42 PM)

Peleliu is fine, still an IJ navy base.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125