v1.604 Reports and Feedback (Full Version)

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



Message

Erik Rutins -> v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/6/2005 11:29:01 PM)

Please post bug reports and comments on v1.604 Beta in this thread. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik



dereck -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/7/2005 1:40:18 AM)

I upgraded to 1.604 because of the pilot replacement bug and I don't think it's fixed unless there are hoops I need to jump through I don't know about.

I moved a game file from v1.3 to v1.4 and ran and saved a game turn.

V1.3 pilot replacement pool
7/19
Navy - 2
Army - 148
USMC - 1472

After moving game to V1.4 and running a game turn:
7/20
Navy - 2
Army - 7
USMC - 1450

After moving game to V1.605 and running a game turn:
7/21
Navy - 2
Army - 7
USMC - 1448

7/22
Navy - 2
Army - 7
USMC - 1446

Can someone please help? This pilot bug was a game stopper for me as it was and it still seems like it is unless I'm missing something.




michaelm75au -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/7/2005 4:59:12 AM)

Hi
to make comparison clear, load up the save game from 19/7 and run under v1.6
[A save file from v1.3 can be run on later versions, but a save from v1.6 can't run on earlier versions.]

This patch will not recover the replacements already used up.
Michael



dereck -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/7/2005 5:35:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Hi
to make comparison clear, load up the save game from 19/7 and run under v1.6
[A save file from v1.3 can be run on later versions, but a save from v1.6 can't run on earlier versions.]

This patch will not recover the replacements already used up.
Michael


These are the pilot replacement values for the tests I ran:

......................Navy.....Army.....USMC
v1.4....7/19.....2...........148.......1472
v1.4....7/20.....2...........7...........1450
v1.6....7/21.....2...........7...........1448
v1.6....7/22.....2...........7...........1446
v1.6....7/23.....2...........5...........1436
v1.6....7/24.....2...........5...........1425
v1.6....7/25.....2...........5...........1410
v1.6....7/26.....2...........5...........1394
v1.6....7/27.....2...........6...........1393
v1.6....7/28.....2...........7...........1381
v1.6....7/29.....2...........7...........1368
v1.6....7/30.....2...........7...........1361
v1.6....7/31.....2...........7...........1348
v1.6....8/01.....2...........6...........1340
v1.6....8/02.....2...........7...........1310

As can be seen there are no replacement at all almost and, after the begining of the month of August there was no increase at all in any of the values.

I should also state that it doesn't seem like my empty squadrons are filling up either.



dwbradley -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/7/2005 6:17:42 AM)

OK, first turn for Japanese after holding for this fix. Game started under 1.3, continuously updated to 1.604. Now in late 1944. The pilot button was working for me whenever I needed it this turn. I also saw the effect of the the new ASW routines. Seems there is now a good probability of a near miss or a near hit as opposed to full hits. This should reduce sub losses somewhat. Waiting for allied player (Gilligan) to confirm success with pilot replacememts.

Dave Bradley



Slaughtermeyer. -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/7/2005 7:21:48 AM)

I've already reported this in the Support forum but maybe it should have been reported here instead:

August 1942 campaign, Japs vs. AI, historical first turn, 1.60 [also for 1.604]. After the historical first turn is finished, make a surface combat TF in Rabaul with all your CA, CL, and DD except those four with endurance 3000. Destination Lunga, retirement allowed, do not refuel, mission speed. After the first turn, it will move to Shortlands (it docks there but undocking it doesn't seem to make any difference). On the second turn, it will stay there [and continue to stay there]and do absolutely nothing. At first I thought it might have made it to Lunga, found nothing there and returned, but its fuel (and Shortlands fuel) stays at the same level. Its destination still says Lunga too.

Ironically, if instead the TF is ordered to Tulagi from the very beginning instead of Lunga, it goes there (but not via Shortlands), has combat, and retires as expected.




dwbradley -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/8/2005 2:38:32 AM)

Continuing my report on experience with 1.604. All seems stable and working well. I have no problem with getting pilots via the button (and I did have that problem before the fix). Allied player did not say if he was ok with pilot button but no complaints probably means he is ok. A possible concern is new ASW routines. Lots more action is being seen but almost no hits. The concern is if we have strayed over the threshold into the area where subs are too resistant to attacks. It could be the sensitivity of the adjustment makes it difficult to fine tune this but it seems to me so far (admittedly with limited data) that this might be the case. I would like to hear from others before we lock this in for version 1.7.



Tankerace -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/8/2005 2:53:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Slaughtermeyer.

I've already reported this in the Support forum but maybe it should have been reported here instead:

August 1942 campaign, Japs vs. AI, historical first turn, 1.60 [also for 1.604]. After the historical first turn is finished, make a surface combat TF in Rabaul with all your CA, CL, and DD except those four with endurance 3000. Destination Lunga, retirement allowed, do not refuel, mission speed. After the first turn, it will move to Shortlands (it docks there but undocking it doesn't seem to make any difference). On the second turn, it will stay there [and continue to stay there]and do absolutely nothing. At first I thought it might have made it to Lunga, found nothing there and returned, but its fuel (and Shortlands fuel) stays at the same level. Its destination still says Lunga too.

Ironically, if instead the TF is ordered to Tulagi from the very beginning instead of Lunga, it goes there (but not via Shortlands), has combat, and retires as expected.




Are there aircraft (enemy) at Lunga, or enemy aircraft carriers? What is the air bal number over the surrounding bases? Unescorted ships (i.e. no air cover) will sometimes not go near bases with heavy air cover, and will go to the closes safe port with air cover. What, if any, is teh air bal number on Lunga?



dereck -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/8/2005 2:54:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

Continuing my report on experience with 1.604. All seems stable and working well. I have no problem with getting pilots via the button (and I did have that problem before the fix). Allied player did not say if he was ok with pilot button but no complaints probably means he is ok. A possible concern is new ASW routines. Lots more action is being seen but almost no hits. The concern is if we have strayed over the threshold into the area where subs are too resistant to attacks. It could be the sensitivity of the adjustment makes it difficult to fine tune this but it seems to me so far (admittedly with limited data) that this might be the case. I would like to hear from others before we lock this in for version 1.7.



What about your pilot replacement pool? I couldn't get my pool to rebuild and I still received squadrons without pilots.

I'm hoping this 1.605 patch will fix my problems or 8 months for this game (and a total of 13 months for WITP in general) has been for nothing.



dwbradley -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/8/2005 5:08:27 AM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

Continuing my report on experience with 1.604. All seems stable and working well. I have no problem with getting pilots via the button (and I did have that problem before the fix). Allied player did not say if he was ok with pilot button but no complaints probably means he is ok. A possible concern is new ASW routines. Lots more action is being seen but almost no hits. The concern is if we have strayed over the threshold into the area where subs are too resistant to attacks. It could be the sensitivity of the adjustment makes it difficult to fine tune this but it seems to me so far (admittedly with limited data) that this might be the case. I would like to hear from others before we lock this in for version 1.7.



What about your pilot replacement pool? I couldn't get my pool to rebuild and I still received squadrons without pilots.

I'm hoping this 1.605 patch will fix my problems or 8 months for this game (and a total of 13 months for WITP in


As the Japanese player in late 1944 my pilot pools are almost always 0 so I wouldn't necessarily know if anyhting was wrong there. I haven't received any squadrons yet so not able to check that aspect either yet.



Slaughtermayer. -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/8/2005 8:36:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
Are there aircraft (enemy) at Lunga, or enemy aircraft carriers? What is the air bal number over the surrounding bases? Unescorted ships (i.e. no air cover) will sometimes not go near bases with heavy air cover, and will go to the closes safe port with air cover. What, if any, is teh air bal number on Lunga?

Yes, there are undetected enemy aircraft carriers within strike range of Lunga. I believe it is official Matrix policy to get rid of the psychic detection of carriers "feature" that was present in the original release of UV. The Japanese air balance over Lunga remained positive, it went from about 336 prior to USN CV arrival to about 128. If this is not a bug, it makes it impossible to recreate Admiral Mikawa's Tokyo Express run of Aug. 9 1942. Admiral Mikawa assumed that enemy carriers were in the area yet he continued with his mission, sinking many Allied cruisers and ending his mission without attacking Allied transports due to fear of the USN carriers even though I think the carriers had withdrawn out of range by that time.

______________________________

Click here for "Hell No, We Won't Go" video.

[image]http://oznik.com/b/new_refusenik_watch_eng.gif[/image]




Mike Wood -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/8/2005 10:16:40 AM)

Hello...

Am reading posts. This is reason for public beta testing. Will continue to adjust.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

Continuing my report on experience with 1.604. All seems stable and working well. I have no problem with getting pilots via the button (and I did have that problem before the fix). Allied player did not say if he was ok with pilot button but no complaints probably means he is ok. A possible concern is new ASW routines. Lots more action is being seen but almost no hits. The concern is if we have strayed over the threshold into the area where subs are too resistant to attacks. It could be the sensitivity of the adjustment makes it difficult to fine tune this but it seems to me so far (admittedly with limited data) that this might be the case. I would like to hear from others before we lock this in for version 1.7.





asdicus -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/8/2005 5:39:55 PM)

I have been testing the new asw routines and the new combat results look good - plenty of near misses etc which cause system damage but do not sink the sub. In my view much more realistic as the sub will have to go home for repairs but will live to fight another day.
I have not seen any sub killed yet but it is too early to tell if the balance is correct. Thanks to Mike and the team for adding this to the game.

As Mike is looking at sub related features at the moment I would like to request that the sub air spotting is toned down a bit. I know this has been discussed at length in the past but version v1.50 really did overdo sub spotting by planes and v1.60 does not really reduce it that much. The game should assume that subs spend daylight hours submerged near airbases - when usa subs get radar this should warn them in time to dive. If this means that sub attacks on ships are reduced near airbases then so be it - in real life aircraft mostly just prevented subs from getting into attack positions. Mike if you get the time please have a think on this. Thanks.



dereck -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/10/2005 12:51:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

As the Japanese player in late 1944 my pilot pools are almost always 0 so I wouldn't necessarily know if anyhting was wrong there. I haven't received any squadrons yet so not able to check that aspect either yet.


[:(]

I just want this pilot replacement bug fixed. I was happy at version 1.3 because I didn't have to deal with any "enhancement" that nerfed the Allies and now I'm forced to wait for a patch that will put me right where I tried to stay out of.

My only option once they fix the pilot replacement bug is to try to modify my next scenario to counter these changes.

I just want to be able to continue the game I've played since February which I can't without pilot replacements [:(]



dereck -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/10/2005 9:07:51 PM)

Any idea when the next patch -- which hopefully is going to fix the pilot replacement bug will be out?



dwbradley -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/14/2005 11:01:11 PM)

I thought I'd post an update on my experience with the 1.604 patch.

PBEM vs Gilligan, now in Jan, 1945. Started under 1.3 and continously updated using Tanaka scenario.

Still stable, no problems seen with pilot replacement which had been a serious issue.

Surface ASW vs subs: Many encounters over approx. 30 days of game time. Some subs have received quite a bit of sys damage. I had one at 90 after two attacks ( two different ASW TFs) but was able to sail to port and begin repair. I have seen zero instances of hits, have seen only misses or near hits which cause some damge. I have seen no instances so far where an attack immediately resulted in the sinking of the sub. This seems to be nearly, or completely impossible. Subs have been sunk in our game during this time period but I think (Gilligan is uncertain, also) that the effect of ASW A/C added to surface damage or was suficcient in an of itself to cause the sinkings. My vote would be to tweak this one more time to allow some possibility of those near misses to be a direct hit, maybe less than 3%, but there has to be some chance of hitting the dang things.

Dave Bradley



Captain Ed -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/16/2005 12:42:49 AM)

This Pilot replacment issue you speak of. I have a Pilot problem which started just before patcjing to 1.604 a Small sqn of A6M3`s of nine planes have now got 25 pilots but no extra planes cannot remember the unit name but it started withe nine planes and nine pilots. It is now attached to southern army and sits in Tokyo waiting for planes that are in the replacement pool but I cannot get it to fill up. Is this were peoples extra pilots are going[&:]



dwbradley -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/16/2005 1:08:31 AM)

Another update on my experience with 1.604 and now with 1.70 beta.

In the most recent turn I experienced lockups when trying to use the pilot replacment button. During the course of this turn, still under the 1.604 beta, I proceeded through the playback normally noticing only one oddity. One of my search planes based in Tokyo was shot down by a pilot from one of my opponent's carrier based fighter groups. This was very worrisome but no TFs were detected.

I proceeded working through my normal order routine but about half way through I began to encounter crashes (lockups) when I used the pilot button and in one case when I attempted to move a group. After 4 or 5 lockups I thought maybe that I could fix things by upgrading to the 1.70 beta or at least it would be worth a try. I installed 1.70 beta and resumed order entry and the previously noted problems went away. I was reviewing my air assets in the Home Islands as a response to the above noted incident when I discovered the cause. There are approx. 10 Allied air groups ( group fragments really with the /x designations) that are at Osaka. They include USAF, US Navy, US Marine, and even a group or Russian fighters!

I don't think that the change to 1.70 beta brought the groups to Osaka because I saw the search plane downing during the replay when I was still under 1.604.

After consulting with Gilligan (my PBEM opponent) I proceeded to replay the turn from the beginning using 1.70 beta. Results changed in only minor ways and the allied air groups are still there. I have stood down the groups (training/0%) and we are hopeful that this may be self-correcting.

Hmmmm, it occurs to me I may have a hostage situation here. Would he drop the big one on his own men? Can I move them to other cities? Just kidding.

Game saves available if this is of interest.

Dave Bradley



dwbradley -> RE: v1.604 Reports and Feedback (10/16/2005 1:17:14 AM)

Captain Ed

I think you are showing one symptom of pilot problems that we and others have faced. As I understand it, the major problem was related to the 30K limit on total number of pilots in the game, which has been fixed (Ihope). There may be a number of reasons why you are seeing the pilot overfill and no planes, some of which may even be valid game responses ( such as insufficient supply at the base where the group is stationed). I have installed 1.70 to try to solve a different problem but it seems to be running ok so maybe you should give it a go.

Dave Bradley



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.53125