Mannargudi and Yanam (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support



Message

PeteG662 -> Mannargudi and Yanam (9/8/2004 5:39:27 PM)

I posted about these before 1.21 but there is still something wrong with these two bases. On the base screeen it shows you can expand the port from the current 0 but it will not expand. Furthermore, you cannot dock to offload anything at port level 0 in these two bases. I know these were made bases to get rid of the disappearing TFs that happened when in the hex. Is there a way to tweak this new wrinkle for these bases?

Also, Dacca, which is inland and has no port has the option of turning on the auto convoy. I guess you could eliminate that option on the base screen in the next patch simply enough.

Thanks.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/8/2004 6:12:19 PM)

Dacca has been set to type Airfield. Mannargudi and Yanam have been set to type Base (Port+Airfield).

Can you check what yours report as in your existing game?



PeteG662 -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/8/2004 6:57:18 PM)

Dacca is an airfield and Yanam and Mannargudi are bases. On Dacca in the lower left it has the toggle for auto convoy! Can't do that if landlocked.

Yanam and Mannargudi have port value of 0 but also have the toggle to build up the port to the plus 3. I have spent over a month with engineers trying to expand the port but no go despite supply etc. Also, when a TF comes in to Yanam or Mannargudi they will not dock (at port level 0) so it is unloading over the beach. Other places on the map allow docking at port level 0. I am unsure if there is a difference in game terms between a port level zero and over the beach unload rates but the concern is more the inability to dock or expand the ports in these two locations. Remember, we originally had the problems with TFs in these base hexes disappearing but that is gone with the 1.21 patch. This other thing came up though so I thought I would put it out here for someone to look at and see if it was a problem.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/8/2004 9:45:55 PM)

Looks like I goofed that one up ... I assumed that correcting the base type would also fix the automatic convoy handling, but it would appear now that they are unrelated problems.

Added to the bug list.

As far as expanding a size 0 SPS anything, the speed is 10x slower a normal overbuild build so it will take virtually forever to get it going.



Twotribes -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/8/2004 11:09:23 PM)

But they can be expanded? right? I mean the engineers in the base have nothing to do anyway )



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/8/2004 11:20:47 PM)

quote:

But they can be expanded? right? I mean the engineers in the base have nothing to do anyway )


How many engineers are we talking about? a base unit with 30? maybe in a couple of years. [:D]



PeteG662 -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/9/2004 12:09:19 AM)

I brought engineers out of Singapore before it fell and out of DEI and it does not move off of 0% so I was just wondering what the deal was there. Again, the issue for me is not really the ability to expand but more the ability to DOCK a TF there to unload. I will figure out how best to utilize the bases but if unable to dock that hinders the usage.



PeteG662 -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/9/2004 12:12:23 AM)

Just to make sure...there are two separate issues here Frag.....(1) Dacca being landlocked and on auto convoy capable. (2) Inability to dock TFs at Yanam and Mannargudi as a 0 port and inability (from what it appears) to expand the port.

Appreciate you taking a look at this minor thing.

Pete



PeteG662 -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/9/2004 3:13:35 PM)

Frag, you might want to add Akyab to the list of non dockable ports at the 0 level. Nothing wants to dock there to unload. They all remain at sea and unload. Akyab is however building up the port. Why do the TFs not dock despite having the button that says they can dock?



michaelm75au -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/18/2004 4:29:04 AM)

Could the Dacca issue be due one of the hexsides being classed as a coastal/sea/ocean. This may make Dacca visible to the auto-convoy system. However, the other hexes between Dacca and the actual "ocean" may be classed as "land", which stops a path from being connected.
I suppose the question really is "Is Dacca suppose to be landlocked?"
Issue with pwhex.dat?
Michael



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/18/2004 6:32:59 AM)

There is a bunch of them ... all fixed now and a separate bug that was adding bases to auto-convoy ports for no reason.



Xargun -> RE: Mannargudi and Yanam (9/18/2004 9:29:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Frag, you might want to add Akyab to the list of non dockable ports at the 0 level. Nothing wants to dock there to unload. They all remain at sea and unload. Akyab is however building up the port. Why do the TFs not dock despite having the button that says they can dock?


Akyab starts as a size 0 port - thus no docking... As soon as you build it to size 1+ TFs will be able to dock. The TFs just checks to see if its at a base and if it is it assumes it can dock - how else would a TF get to a base if it didn't have a port ? I believe Akyab is the only 'real' base that has that problem as the rest all start with a size 1+ port....

Xargun



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.921875