RE: Ground Support is Broken

RE: Ground Support is Broken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> War Plan: Tech Support

Message

Harrybanana -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/20/2021 6:04:15 PM)
The last 10 Tests. [image]local://upfiles/14737/028D6A9D8FC240C1B9E961AF4EA36E7C.jpg[/image]

Harrybanana -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/20/2021 6:11:35 PM)
Alvaro, I really do appreciate your looking into this. But I do believe that 40 Test Attacks at what is supposed to be 10:1 Combat Odds with only 6 Retreat Results proves that something is wrong. This cannot possibly be just bad luck. If you don't believe me, then setup a Test similar to mine where Ground Support should be making a big difference in the Combat Odds. Then make 10+ Test Attacks using the GS and 10+ Test Attacks without GS and see if there is any difference in the % of Retreat Results.

Nirosi -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/20/2021 7:52:12 PM)
Hi all, I assume the tests here (by HarryBanana) were done with the latest live patch. Could it be that when Alvaro and NCC1701C are mentioning that it does work, could they mean in the incoming beta (that NCC1701C is testing)? Kind of hard to follows the exact sequence of events about this since it is spread over 2-3 threads. It could explain the misunderstanding?

Nirosi -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/20/2021 7:53:45 PM)
I meant nc1701e (not c). No offense meant![:D]

ncc1701e -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/20/2021 8:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nirosi Hi all, I assume the tests here (by HarryBanana) were done with the latest live patch. Could it be that when Alvaro and NCC1701C are mentioning that it does work, could they mean in the incoming beta (that NCC1701C is testing)? Kind of hard to follows the exact sequence of events about this since it is spread over 2-3 threads. It could explain the misunderstanding? Harrybanana is pointing a problem with the latest official patch. Alvaro has made corrections that I am currently testing in the latest beta patch. I can propose the following. If Harrybanana could pinpoint me a particular scenario with units nearly in place and the problem he is seeing, I may reproduce with the latest beta to see the impacts of the changes.

ncc1701e -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/20/2021 8:56:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nirosi I meant nc1701e (not c). No offense meant![:D] No offense. The Entreprise, ncc1701c, an Ambassador class, actually bolstered peace with the Klingons by defending them against the Romulans. [image]local://upfiles/46661/2A763513F95A414C89319EF1061A6453.jpg[/image]

Harrybanana -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/20/2021 11:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nirosi Hi all, I assume the tests here (by HarryBanana) were done with the latest live patch. Could it be that when Alvaro and NCC1701C are mentioning that it does work, could they mean in the incoming beta (that NCC1701C is testing)? Kind of hard to follows the exact sequence of events about this since it is spread over 2-3 threads. It could explain the misunderstanding? Good point. I am using the most recent official version. So if Alvaro is using a beta where GS had been fixed, well then "Never Mind". I will just wait for the Beta to become official and test again.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/21/2021 3:26:31 PM)
I have no answer for this. I know there was 1 error where the air power was being limited by the attack modifier but it doesn't account for the above. I have to set this situation up, then put in the debugs to show me the #s.

Nikel -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/21/2021 3:30:50 PM)
From an outsider the evident question is, why is Harrybanana not included in the beta team?

ncc1701e -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/21/2021 4:11:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikel From an outsider the evident question is, why is Harrybanana not included in the beta team? Perhaps because he did not ask for?

ncc1701e -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/21/2021 4:47:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana So if Alvaro is using a beta where GS had been fixed, well then "Never Mind". I will just wait for the Beta to become official and test again. I have done few more tests here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5104711

Harrybanana -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/21/2021 5:57:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: Nikel From an outsider the evident question is, why is Harrybanana not included in the beta team? Perhaps because he did not ask for? I have not asked. I have been a game tester a couple times now, but I got too bored too quickly and quit. If I find a problem with a game while playing it I am like a dog with a bone trying to get it fixed. But to actually test play games without an opponent just to look for problems; sorry that is not for me. But I have the greatest admiration for those who do.

Harrybanana -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/21/2021 6:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana So if Alvaro is using a beta where GS had been fixed, well then "Never Mind". I will just wait for the Beta to become official and test again. I have done few more tests here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5104711 Thank you for sharing this ncc1701e. It would appear that whatever Alvaro did to fix it so that an air unit's tactical strength is now included in the displayed Combat Odds of the Combat Report has also fixed it so that this tactical strength is now actually included in the Combat Odds. I suppose where Alvaro and I disagree is he says that tactical strength has always been included in determining the Combat Odds, but it just wasn't showing up in the Combat Report; whereas I say it wasn't being added to determine the Combat Odds. But so long as it has been fixed I don't care who was right.

ncc1701e -> RE: Ground Support is Broken (11/21/2021 6:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana So if Alvaro is using a beta where GS had been fixed, well then "Never Mind". I will just wait for the Beta to become official and test again. I have done few more tests here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5104711 Thank you for sharing this ncc1701e. It would appear that whatever Alvaro did to fix it so that an air unit's tactical strength is now included in the displayed Combat Odds of the Combat Report has also fixed it so that this tactical strength is now actually included in the Combat Odds. I suppose where Alvaro and I disagree is he says that tactical strength has always been included in determining the Combat Odds, but it just wasn't showing up in the Combat Report; whereas I say it wasn't being added to determine the Combat Odds. But so long as it has been fixed I don't care who was right. [sm=00000436.gif]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9667969