Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Should I bother with 1.6?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Should I bother with 1.6? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Should I bother with 1.6? - 12/13/2005 2:41:15 AM   
bigmed1204


Posts: 128
Joined: 1/5/2005
From: Washington DC area
Status: offline
I am currently running 1.5 from download and was wondering if I should upgrade to 1.6. I am only digging into the tutorial really so it won't ruin anything. What good will it do to upgrade if yes?
Post #: 1
RE: Should I bother with 1.6? - 12/13/2005 2:51:06 AM   
ckk

 

Posts: 1268
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: Pensacola Beach FL
Status: offline
IIRC 1.6 is the last stable patch that you will need to load 1.x? on top of. So you'll have to go to 1.6 sometime to be current.

(in reply to bigmed1204)
Post #: 2
RE: Should I bother with 1.6? - 12/13/2005 2:54:01 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
Here is what is changed, from the whatisnew.rtf file

6/20/2005 v1.60

Special Thanks:

This build incorporates a number of subtle but important fixes to the map data file. These fixes are a result of the hard work of Andrew Brown, who has kindly given his permission for their inclusion in this official release. These fixes also include some changes he made to land combat unit movement that make it more consistent in areas where rail and non-rail hexes adjoin. A full list of changes is noted below. We thank Andrew for all his hard work in support of War in the Pacific and encourage players to look at his additional alternate maps for War in the Pacific.

Bugs Fixed:

1) Sometimes, when an “all follow” order is given to a group of land units in a hex and then one of them is ordered to “defend”, the “all follow” order is disrupted for the rest of the units in the hex. Fixed. If having problems with this in an existing game, the end user might reissue these orders, to update the save file.
2) Under some circumstances in which land units move as a stack, having selected the “all follow” order, the lead land unit and following land units would end up in differing hexes. Fixed. If having problems with this in an existing game, the end user might reissue these orders, to update the save file.
3) Land units crossing a river into a hex with superior enemy assault value were not always automatically assaulting on the turn in which they crossed. Fixed. Please note the rule has changed. Now, all land units crossing the river will assault any time they cross, without regard to total assault values present for either side, unless there is a friendly base in that hex.
4) Friendly headquarters land units were crossing rivers when prohibited so to do. Fixed. Note that rule has changed. Headquarters land units may now cross a river, if at least one friendly land unit is in hex to be entered. If no friendly land unit is in the hex when the headquarters land unit is about to move into the hex, movement and follow orders for the headquarters land unit will be cancelled and distance traveled will be set to zero. Please note that the headquarters land units are checked after other land units, so the headquarters land unit can cross a river into a hex with other units, using the “all follow” command or if using the “march all” or “march” command if it happens to cross on the same turn as another land unit.
5) Under some circumstances, dividing a land unit and then recombining caused the land unit to grow. Fixed.
6) Land units with an existing fragment located somewhere were being allowed to divide. This caused a swap prime unit function to be called, when the units recombined. Fixed. Land units may no longer divide, if a fragment of that unit exists.
7) When an air group was withdrawn or disbanded (and told to reform), then the aircraft required to rearm the air group were being charged twice. Fixed.
8) Air search and air based ASW effectiveness were too effective. Fixed.
9) The auto-convoy system was not working properly. Fixed.
10) Submarines with mine dispensers were not able to properly reload them, using MLE type ships. Fixed. Please note that MLE will only reload mines for ships of the same nationality.
11) When the player turned off replacements for an air group on an aircraft carrier and there were fewer pilots than planes and the group flew a mission, it used ordinance according to the number of ready aircraft, instead of ready pilots. Fixed. Please note that there is not always a one to one ratio of possible sorties flown to ordinance points used. The mission type and ratio of planes flying to ordinance pointes left do modify ordinance points used and as ordinance points are reduced, the number of planes flying is also reduced, as the carrier captain tries to make what he has left last longer. If the number of ordinance points left is less than twice that needed for an escort mission, the number of planes sent is halved and if less than six times that needed for a strike mission, the number sent is reduced by one fourth. There is also a small variance due to aborted missions or flights.
12) The headquarters of a captured base would sometimes revert to a headquarters of the other player. Fixed.
13) When units received replacements, there was no experience reduction. Fixed.
14) Units were always receiving a large suppression penalty when crossing a river. They no longer do so, if there is a friendly base in the hex into which they are moving.
15) The combat resolution replay sometimes showed varying results, when the two players had differing settings for the combat reports, animation and combat summary preferences or when one of the players used the hot keys to turn on or off animations, combat summaries, or the kill text options during combat resolution or playback. Fixed. The problem was that these variances caused the random numbers generated to differ. Please note the hot keys listed above no longer function in secure PBEM games. The settings are saved when the Japanese player completes his turn. These saved values are used during combat resolution and playback and the player’s original values restored immediately afterwards. So, for instance, if the Japanese player has combat animations turned on from a menu (cannot be turned on or off, by hot key), animations should appear during the resolution and playback and neither player can turn them off.
16) Players may continue existing games and gain the benefits of the new orders of battle files (OOB), by going to the in game preferences screen. If the saved game has not had the version 1.60 OOB changes added, the player can click on the hot text, to so do. In the case of a secure PBEM game, only the Japanese player will have this option.
17) Adjusted level bomber vs. fighter combat routines, by allowing a greater chance for bombers to fire at fighters or drive them away. Also, increased ammunition level bombers were using when so doing.
18) The following bases indicated an incorrect zone on the base orders screen: Amoy, Swatow, Hong Kong, Yap, Ulithi, Woleai, Satawal, Truk and Tarawa. Fixed.
19) Adjusted bomber vs. fighter combat routines, by increasing benefits of larger level bomber formations, by allowing more guns to fire.
20) When variable reinforcement was selected, Japanese naval land units, naval air groups and ships were still using the fixed reinforcement option. Fixed.

Clarification:

Rule Clarification: The rule that says bases in malaria and cold zones are exempt from the penalties applies to bases with a maximum normal airfield build size of 9 or more. Building facilities at bases with smaller maximum normal airfield or port sizes will not negate the penalty, but will somewhat ameliorate the problem.

Data Changes:

Please Note: Players may continue existing games and gain the benefits of the new orders of battle files (OOB), by going to the in game preferences screen. If the saved game has not had the version 1.60 OOB changes added, the player can click on the hot text, to so do. In the case of a secure PBEM game, only the Japanese player will have this option.

1) Fixed facing issue of Nevada Class 12/41 secondary batteries 3/60 scenario 15 and 8
2) Fixed facing issue of Colorado Class 12/41 forward turret Scenarios 15-16
3) Fixed facing issue for North Carolina Class 20 mm (1203) 4/43 all scenarios
4) Fixed facing issue for South Dakota Class 20 mm (1205) 1/44 all scenarios
5) Fixed device list order for (336) O-19 class, subs should now be able to reload mines from MLE, all scenarios
6) Changed device 294 Japanese 4.7 DP gun is now DP Gun
7) Changed device 278 Japanese 20mm AA/AT gun to AA Weapon
8) Changed Device (61) Allied 4"/45 is now DP
9) Changed Aircraft (051) KI-45 KA1a Nick to maximum load 300.
10) Changed Aircraft (052) KI-45 KA1b Nick to maximum load 1102.
11) Reduced the replacement rate of B-17E from 25 to 10, and weapon slot #12 (B-17E) of the Seattle location (#853) from 50 to 30. (Total B-17E production now 40 units per month, Campaign scenarios only)
12) Changed the Following Japanese device Penetration / Anti-Armor values.
a. Device 292 3" DP Gun 25 / 25
b. Device 293 4.7" CD Gun 50 / 50
c. Device 294 4.7" DP Gun 50 / 50
d. Device 295 5.5" CD Gun 60 / 60
e. Device 296 8" CD Gun 190 / 190
f. Changed device (294) Accuracy value to 50
13) Changed designations of the following Allied units
a. Unit (2638) is now 86th USA CD Battalion
b. Unit (2738) is now 144th USA CD Regiment
c. Unit (2961) is now 1st Australian Artillery CD Regiment

Map Fixes:

1) The map changes below are identical to those in Andrew Brown’s separately released official map fixes (version 6).
2) The major change is a modification to the way the presence of rail/road/trail links between hexes are represented. The change is intended to prevent the 'bug' which allows LCUs to move from a hex containing rail/road/trails, to a hex that does not, at a fast movement rate - as if the rail/road/trail DID join the two hexes.
3) Hexside between 68-41 and 69-41 changed from ocean hexside to ocean+land hexside. This should fix the problem with the railway along the East coast of Honshu north of Tokyo.
4) Hexside between 35-39 and 36-38 changed from ocean hexside to ocean+land hexside. This should fix the problem with the railway along the East coast of Vietnam near Hanoi.
5) Hexside between 38,54 and 38,55 changed from ocean to blocked. This is the 'canal' that passes through the island of Palwan in the Philippines.
6) (*) Hex 107,24, near Nome, changed from deep ocean to shallow ocean.
7) Hexside between hex 110,31 and 110,32, near Anchorage, changed from land to ocean+land to match the map art.
8) Hexside between 112,31 and 112,32, near Anchorage, changed from land to ocean.
9) Hexside between 113,29 and 114,30, near Anchorage, changed from land to ocean.
10) Hex 113,31, near Anchorage, changed from coastal clear to deep ocean, and land bridges to the West and Northwest removed.
11) Hex 113,32, near Anchorage, changed from coastal clear to deep ocean, and the land bridge to the Northwest removed.
12) Hex 40,53, between Taytay and San Jose, changed from deep ocean to coastal forest. There is a large island drawn in this hex.
13) Hex 45,52, near Lamon Bay, changed from deep ocean to coastal forest. There is a large island drawn in this hex.
14) Hex 41,55, near Iloilo, changed from coastal atoll to deep ocean. There is no island drawn in this hex.
15) The hexside between 41,55 and 42,56 (Iloilo) is changed from ocean to blocked, to remove the 'canal' through the island of Panay.
16) Hex 36,66, near Tomini in Sulawesi, changed from deep ocean to coastal clear. There is a large island drawn in this hex.
17) The hexside between 50,79 (Near Hollandia) and 50,80 changed from land to ocean (hex 50,79 is an ocean hex).
18) The hexside between 48,78 (Sarmi) and 48,77 changed from land to ocean (hex 48,77 is an ocean hex).
19) Hex 28,59, in the middle of Borneo, changed from coastal mountain to land mountain.
20) (*) Hex 27,63, near Banjarmasin, changed from coastal forest to land forest.
21) Hex 28,64, near Banjarmasin, changed from coastal forest to land forest.
22) Hex 14,20, near Trivandrun, changed from coastal clear to coastal forest to match the map art.
23) (*) Hex 35,45, near Camranh Bay, changed from coastal forest to deep ocean to match the map art.
24) An island with clear terrain has been added at hexes 104,22 and 104,23, to match the map art.
25) An island with clear terrain has been added at hex 104,29 to match the map art.
26) Hexside between hex 103,36 (Dutch Harbor) and hex 104,36 changed from ocean to land.
27) All of the hexsides bwteen hexes 127,34, 126,33 and 126,34, near Prince Rupert, changed from ocean to land to match the map art (a large island is drawn here). In addition the hexside between hex 127,34 and 126,35 is changed to blocked to make it impossible for ships to cross the island.
28) Hexside between hex 125,32 and 125,33, near Prince Rupert, changed from ocean to land, to match the map art (a large island is drawn here).
29) Hexsides between 122,31 (Sitka) and adjoining hexes changed to match map art, and to stop ships sailing through Baranof Island.
30) Hex 29,22, near Calcutta, changed from trail to rail/highway transport link type to match map art.
31) The hexside between hex 17,49 (Mentawi Island) and 17,50 changed from land to ocean.
32) The hexside between 50,143 and 51,144, near Dunedin, changed from blocked to ocean+land.
33) Hex 67,112, near Koumac, changed from coastal forest to deep ocean.
34) (*) Hex 41,39, near Wuchow, changed from trail to rail/highway, to match the map art. In case this was changed to trail on purpose (to make Wuchow harder to attack) I also severed the transport link between this hex and Wuchow (42,39).
35) (*) Hex 41,40, near Wuchow, changed from rail/highway to trail, to match the map art.
36) (*) Hex 14,25, between Trincomalee and Colombo, changed from road to trail to match the map art.
37) Hexside between ocean hexes 34,79 and 35,79 changed from land to ocean (this looks like the hangover from an island that was removed from the map).
38) Hex 31,23, near Dacca, changed from trail to railway/highway, to match the map art.
39) Trail removed from hex 32,23, near Dacca, to match the map art.
40) Hex 75,81 changed from Atoll to Deep ocean to match the map art (no island is drawn in this hex).
41) Hex 85,93 changed from Atoll to Deep ocean to match the map art (no island is drawn in this hex).



(in reply to bigmed1204)
Post #: 3
RE: Should I bother with 1.6? - 12/13/2005 2:57:56 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
I would recommend doing so. V. 1.60 is the last "official" patch, and tried to fix a number of things, although it is far from being the "final solution" to many of WitP's problems. It is the version I have settled on until Matrix publishes the next, and hopefully last, patch, which, from all reports, is still another beta patch away, so it's going to be awhile.

Consult the "what's new" PDF for the changes (what I did was download v. 1.795 beta, install it over 1.60, and save the PDF. I was dissatisfied with that patch, so I re-installed back up to v. 1.60, but I still have the most recent PDF for reference purposes). Be warned that some promises about what v. 1.60 accomplished are made there that were not delivered on.


_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to bigmed1204)
Post #: 4
RE: Should I bother with 1.6? - 12/13/2005 3:18:25 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
As a further note, if you play one of the many mods then the data and map changes will probably not be an issue.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 5
RE: Should I bother with 1.6? - 12/13/2005 3:38:17 AM   
FeurerKrieg


Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
1.6 is good, but I prefer 1.602 since it fixed the following unit vanishing problem, and didn't seem to create any new bugs that weren't already present in 1.60. Being able to safely use follow orders if very helpful when entering Hong Kong, Singapore, the areas near Rangoon and a whole host of places in China.

_____________________________


Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 6
RE: Should I bother with 1.6? - 12/13/2005 3:56:39 AM   
bigmed1204


Posts: 128
Joined: 1/5/2005
From: Washington DC area
Status: offline
Roger that and thanks guys. I shall go for 6. Thanks for the info on 1.795 pasternakski. I'll think about it but from what I've read it'll be best to wait for official. I'll avoid all betas like the plague being that I am so new I couldn't be trusted to test anything, even opening the game up. Good idea with the reference PDF though, I shall copy it.

Thanks again.

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Should I bother with 1.6? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.406