Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Patch Progress Update...

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Patch Progress Update... Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Patch Progress Update... - 6/13/2002 2:29:42 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Just a quick post to update you on what to expect in the first patch. This is not necessarily the final list, but it's close. :)

Patch Items for Uncommon Valor version 1.10

1) Most critical damage text passages for naval combat are no longer upper case.

2) The program should no longer require 100% of CPU capacity.

3) Spelling for torpedoes, critical and surprised were corrected.

4) Tactical exposition has been added to the air combat screen for fighter versus fighter and fighter versus bomber combat.

5) Fighter type aircraft given a sweep mission, should no longer try to strafe the target area, unless the group altitude is set to 100 feet.

6) The routines for the list all ships function called from the upper tool bar have been optimized for speed.

7) Japanese auto-victory conditions were updated to include all scenario conditions.

8) Passwords for PBEM games are now encrypted. Old PBEM games which did not have encrypted passwords will start work with v1.10. The player will not have to start those games over.

9) Base bombing animation has been adjusted to fit into the new base bombing screen.

10) To prevent ships from unloading troops in shallow water hexes, ships may now unload only at bases or beaches.

11) A new scenario has been added.

12) The code for calculating plunging fire and penetration for deck, tower, turret and belt hits has been rewritten, using new formula. Results should now seem more realistic, when used with new data base.

13) Non-penetrating hit locations are now displayed in naval combat. Naval battles also now show more descriptive text, concerning damage to locations and surface vessel torpedo fire.

14) Aircraft that carry torpedoes as default load, such as patrol aircraft and torpedo bombers were not switching ordnance loads to bombs, when on search and anti-submarine missions properly. The torpedoes were not very effective against submarines. This has been fixed. These aircraft will still carry torpedoes, when on naval attack or night naval attack missions.

15) The F2 key now toggles the shallow water indicator on and off. When on, a small, white “s” will appear on the map in all shallow water hexes. This indicator should be useful for submarine and mine laying operations.

16) Mine fields placed in deep water decay at the rate of 50% per day. These either sink, float away or the moorings brake.

17) Mine layers, mine laying submarines and submarines on special mine laying ops may now only rearm mines at Noumea or Truk. Rearming at any other base will replenish the gun and torpedo loads, but not the mines.

18) Passwords for PBEM games are now encrypted. This will necessitate restarting PBEM games.

19) Minesweepers will now clear friendly, offensive minefields. Task forces will avoid friendly offensive minefields, when determining shipping routes.

20) The mine warfare text message has been changed from “will MINE” to “will conduct mine warfare ops”.

21) A bug that allowed the Allied player to see Japanese fleet dispositions during the replay in PBEM and hot seat games has been corrected.

22) Task Forces of greater than 10 or more ships now suffer an anti-aircraft penalty.

23) Graphics clipping for the bottom bar has been fixed and during the execution phase, the top line of the thumbnail map should no longer be visible.

24) The average pilot fatigue is now displayed on the air group screen, immediately below group morale.

25) A bug which prevented Japanese submarines from refueling to full tanks at bases has been corrected.

26) The new data base has adjusted penetration values for 5” guns and smaller, which should make cruisers fare better in a gun battle against smaller ships.

27) The code for laying, entering, searching minefields has been rewritten. Minefields placed anywhere other than a friendly base, airfield, port or friendly beach are now defined as offensive mines. These are not as well mapped or maintained as well and are much more likely to damage friendly ships.

28) Please note that the program will now run inside of a window, instead of full screen, if in 1024x768x16 bit screen mode and if the command line parameter –w is used.

29) Air groups bombing ports now target significantly fewer ships in port. Port facilities, supply, fuel and base troops are now targeted more often. The greater the number of ships in port, the greater the chance that one or more will be bombed. Also, note that ships in port take a reduced amount of damage from being bombed.

30) The computer opponent strategic abilities and options have been extended.

31) Sub chasers (SC) may now train to a higher level, the level of destroyers, in shake down cruises.

32) Patrol craft attacking submarines will now always report the attack.

33) A bug which allowed air groups to transfer to carriers, such as the long Island, not on the map has been corrected.

34) Text error, “Sub attackat X,Y” fixed.

35) A new number now appears immediately after the unit name on the ground combat screen. This number is the assault value of the unit or the number of artillery pieces being used in the battle for artillery units. That value can be reduced via bombardment, casualties, fatigue or disruption, during the combat phase. This should provide clues as to how the units are faring during combat. Note that units with no assault value or bombardment capacity, such as headquarters units, do not appear on the list. The units listed are considered to be in or directly supporting the front line. The player will first see text which tell which attacking units are bombarding and if the bombardment does any damage, the numbers for the defending player will be reduced. Counter battery fire may occasionally reduce attacking unit numbers. He will then see text telling which units are attacking. At this point the attacking unit numbers may be reduced substantially. This represents fire from the defensive fire phase. He will then see text telling which units are assaulting or providing support fire. These will come one at a time and the numbers for the defender will be reduced. This is the offensive fire phase. After all this, the player may see reductions in defender player artillery and other units not on the front line, that have been overrun. Finally, the player may see text saying that units, including non-combat units have been destroyed. These units have also been over run and captured.

36) Naval combat description has been enhanced. The player should now see more text items at the bottom of the combat screen, including the results of the maneuver attempts by the task force commanders, such as “Fletcher has crossed the ‘T’ “ or “Russell has dispersed task force and is evading”.

37) Pilot rotation for training, search and anti-submarine missions has been reworked to allow pilots with less experience to fly more missions. This should help relieve the problem of the best pilots flying all the missions and becoming very fatigued.

38) The Japanese auto-victory conditions have been changed. To achieve an auto-victory, the Japanese player must now hold one of the following: Townsville, Rockhampton, Brisbane, Noumea, or Luganville after January 1, 1943 with twice the supply needed to operate the base.

39) Movement on a major road should now be less fatiguing than before. And, no matter how tired troops are, they should now be able to move at least 1 mile per day, across any terrain.

40) An extraneous space was removed from the ship sighting message.

41) The land based combat screen now shows the Japanese forces on the top of the pop-out box and the Allied forces on the bottom. Icons for armor, infantry and any other forces assigned an attack mission will appear, to a maximum of 26 units for each side. Extra text messages describing the battle have been added.


Notes on Combat Exposition

1) Land combat. The values listed after the unit symbol are either the assault value or in the case of artillery, the number of tubes engaging. The player will note that the assault value listed during the orders phase will not always be the same as the value listed in the combat screen. This is because the one listed in the orders phase is the assault value at rest, or potential assault value. The one listed in the combat screen has been modified by the combat situation, the disruption and fatigue, damage and confusion of the battle. During the combat execution, the player will note that the value may sometimes be decreased. This dynamic value is the one actually used in the combat calculations. After combat, in the orders phase, the unit has had some time to drink a bit of tea, bandage wounds and reorganize, so the resting value may be higher than it was at the end of combat. The values in combat can be used to ascertain the general condition and strength of the opposition, but fog of war makes it impossible to assume accurate figures.

2) Naval combat. The general situation is now displayed at the beginning of combat. Non-combat task forces will try to disperse and flee, while escorts run interference and engage the enemy task force. Fog, darkness, sea conditions and the lack of knowledge of minefields or other forces in the area can sometimes make full engagement difficult for the combat task force trying to attack a non-combat force. And, although the player can see all the ships in the defending task force, the task force commander may not be able to. Combat task forces will try to engage each other in the most favorable fashion. If possible, they will try to cross the T, that is turn and fire broadsides at the front of the enemy column. If they cannot, they will try to assume the best position. The player should note that non-penetrating hit locations are now displayed and penetrating hits now display a variety of messages, concerning the nature of the damage. The messages are taken from tables assigned to various ship locations and are generic in nature. So, messages saying that the ship is taking on water, for instance, mean damage below the water line has opened the ship to the sea.

3) Air to air (version 1.06). The cloud cover over the general target area is now displayed. This affects the bombing accuracy and the ability of CAP to find the attacking aircraft. The message that the group is climbing to intercept, means it does not have adequate climb rate to engage effectively during that impulse. Higher altitude gains an advantage for both attacking fighters and bombers. The messages that the group is intercepting means it has sufficient altitude and is close enough to attack effectively. The message that LR CAP (long range CAP) is intercepting means some CAP was approaching, while some returned to base and the group is engaging with less effectiveness than if it were all together. The message that the group area CAP is intercepting means that the CAP was spread out over a goodly area and is engaging, like LR CAP, piecemeal. There may also be a group tactic. This is what the group leader is trying to do and may include bouncing, that is attacking from above or with surprise, attacking head on in a slashing attack, maneuvering for a tail attack, gaining the advantage by attacking in formation or engaging, that is just trying to get his planes to shoot at the enemy, however they can. After this last message is displayed, the flights exchange fire. Each group is broken into flights and these are handled separately. Each flight is broken in individual planes and these are handled separately. Cloud cover, the range the attacking group has had to fly, the group leader's characteristics, the relative altitude and the aircraft characteristics, mainly speed and maneuverability help to determine the relative position and conditions under which the individual pilots operate. Similar tactical calculations are made for each pilot. So, although the flight may be at a tactical advantage the pilot may not be able to take advantage of that advantage. When fighters attack bombers, the messages will tell he attacker and direction of attack. On the bomb run, the cloud cover over the specific target is displayed. When bomber formations turn back or fighter formations break off, a message now appears.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
Post #: 1
- 6/13/2002 2:41:41 AM   
daft

 

Posts: 406
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
Sounds very good indeed! Thanks for the update. :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 2
- 6/13/2002 2:43:25 AM   
Huskalator

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Thanks for the update

I'm curious, how far out of the way will TFs go to avoid friendly minefields? I could see it getting very frustrating if they avoided them altogether.

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 3
- 6/13/2002 2:47:34 AM   
WW2'er

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 4/20/2000
From: East Dundee, IL, USA
Status: offline
Looks Great, Eric! Thank you!

Now the question....

Can you reconcile #8 with #18 for me? They seem to contradict each other.

Thanks!

_____________________________

WW2'er

"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." — Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
- 6/13/2002 2:48:10 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
Wow - great!

With all that detail, maybe I'll take back what I said about not keeping a pilot history.

Any more specifics on the expansion of AI capabilities? Just generally better or are there specific things which were fixed?

:)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 5
- 6/13/2002 2:50:32 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WW2'er
[B]Looks Great, Eric! Thank you!

Now the question....

Can you reconcile #8 with #18 for me? They seem to contradict each other.

Thanks! [/B][/QUOTE]

I think it means that any old games where you just hit enter instead of putiing in a password will still work but if you have a game where you actually entered a password it won't. Just my interpretation though.:)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 6
Aha! - 6/13/2002 2:53:26 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Excellent, I'll remove #18. :) That crept into this version's readme from an earlier version where a restart would have been necessary. That is no longer the case and #8 is the current state of things - old PBEM games will be able to continue. However, you will only see the new database changes by starting a new game.

The avoidance of minefields has not been an issue so far in testing, mine warfare in general is much improved over v1.00 in my opinion.

I'm not sure what was specifically enhanced with the AI and I'm not sure those who do know will tell. ;)

I forgot to put these in the first post, so here are the list of database changes to date:

Uncommon Valor OOB Changes

1) Revised penetration ratings for the following devices:

# Device Name Type Old Pen. New Pen.
6 6in/50 41YT Gun Naval Gun 200 75
7 5.5in/50 3YT Gun Naval Gun 150 50
8 5.5in/40 QF Gun Naval Gun 150 50
9 5in/50 3YT Gun Naval Gun 150 50
10 4.7in/45 3YT Gun Naval Gun 150 50
21 5in/51 Mk 7 Gun Naval Gun 150 50
22 4in/50 Mk 9 Gun Naval Gun 125 40
23 5in/38 Mk 22 Gun Naval Gun 150 50
24 5in/51 Mk 9 Gun Naval Gun 150 50
25 8in/50 Mk VIII Gun Naval Gun 275 180
26 6in/50 Mk XXI Gun Naval Gun 200 135
27 4.7in/45 QF Gun Naval Gun 150 100
28 4in/45 BL Mk IX Gun Naval Gun 50 35
30 5in/40 Type 89 Gun DP Gun 150 50
31 4.7in/45 10YT Gun DP Gun 150 50
32 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun DP Gun 100 35
33 3.9in/50 Type 88 Gun DP Gun 100 35
34 3in/60 Type 98 Gun DP Gun 75 25
35 3in/40 Type 88 Gun DP Gun 75 25
36 5in/25 Mk 10 Gun DP Gun 150 50
37 5in/38 Mk 12 Gun DP Gun 150 50
38 3in/50 Mk 10 Gun DP Gun 100 35
39 4in/45 QF Mk V Gun DP Gun 100 65
40 4in/45 QF Mk XIX Gun Naval Gun 50 35
41 4in/45 QF Mk XIX Gun Naval Gun 50 35

2) Corrected W. Halsey (101) rank to admiral for scenarios starting later than 26 Nov 42.

3) Added IJN destroyer Tokitsukaze to scenarios 9 and 13. Changed leader to M. Motokura for scenarios 4, 8, 9, and 13.

4) Modified text description for Tutorial scenario 18. This tutorial should be played “head to head”, as the AI will disband starting TF’s in “computer” mode.

5) Adjusted USN APD Colhoun (1302) for an arrival date at Noumea around 21 July 42.

6) Added Pilot Officer John Gorton, RAAF to 77th RAAF Squadron.

7) Adjusted rating of K. McCullar, leader of 64th BS.

8) Moved S. Sakai to F1/Tainan Daitai.

9) Adjusted arrival dates of APD’s Manley, Colhoun, Gregory, Little, Mckean, and Stringham to historical values.

10) Removed destroyer Athabascan (1293) from database.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 7
Destroyers not as effective... - 6/13/2002 3:05:28 AM   
WW2'er

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 4/20/2000
From: East Dundee, IL, USA
Status: offline
Wow, the 5 inch and 5.5 inch guns' penetration levels are being cut by two thirds! That's a big change that really will make them a lot less effective against the bigger ships.

I'm not trying to cast blame because as long as it is fixed and will be correct, that's what matters, but how did a mistake that big fall through the cracks? :confused:

Anyway, my continued thanks to 2by3 and Matrix for improving an already excellent game!

_____________________________

WW2'er

"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." — Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 8
Well... - 6/13/2002 3:14:04 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
WW2er,

Well, despite its importance it's still a needle in a haystack in terms of all the things to test and check during development. As you can see, even in the patch it was one of many things to look into (and there is still a very long list).

In this case, the penetration was adjusted based on what kind of ammo navies of various nationalities tended to field. This resulted in severe reductions for exclusively HE-equipped ships and less so for those fielding semi-AP ammo. Even without the penetration adjustments, the battle results were generally very realistic and thus didn't raise any alarms. Only in watching them carefully do you realize that DDs are getting too many penetrating hits.

I think everyone will appreciate the new combat code and database changes. As much as I loved the old combats, I would never go back now that I've been testing the new one.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 9
- 6/13/2002 3:21:09 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
Erik did they fix the Wewak bug in single play where the japanese AI would base aircraft out of Wewak when you own it?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 10
- 6/13/2002 3:31:18 AM   
WW2'er

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 4/20/2000
From: East Dundee, IL, USA
Status: offline
Eric,

Thanks for the very fast and honest answers!:)

[B]Everyone please notice![/B]

Matrix support strikes again!:D :D :D

_____________________________

WW2'er

"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." — Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 11
- 6/13/2002 3:35:13 AM   
svhrg

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: New York, NY
Status: offline
Erik, all sounds great and can't wait to get hands on with it - any revised est on release date? Do you still think we will have it before the weekend?

Cheers

R

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 12
PBEM fix ?????????????????? - 6/13/2002 3:35:38 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
If #21 is all you did on the PBEM combat resolution / combat replay, then as feared, you never understood the problem.

Yes, the replay file starts out showing JAP TF's near Truk, which I suppose you have now fix. But after that, it switches over to the US view and shows all US TF's and subs and bases as it rolls through an aborted replay. And both sides see this same abomination: The IJN player when he first loads the standard save file, and the USN player when he selects the combat replay file (which appears to be just a copy of what the IJN player sees/generates.

Has anyone at 2BY3 actually tried to PBEM the game and failed to see this?

Am I on crack? Somebody back me up here before it is too late!!

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 13
Fix List - 6/13/2002 3:58:24 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
#8 and # 18 contradict each other regarding whether PBEM games will have to be restarted.......

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 14
- 6/13/2002 4:13:30 AM   
Jagger2002

 

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline
Just to clarify...

If we want access to the new gun penetration tables, will we need to restart PBEM's?

Also I have the same problem as Stafford, replays are from the US perspective regardless of whether I am playing IJN or US. Hopefully that has been fixed.

Any idea when the patch will be coming out. I think I recall from this last weekend, someone mentioning that it would be out by this coming weekend at the latest.

Thanks for the hard work.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 15
- 6/13/2002 4:16:15 AM   
AlvinS

 

Posts: 665
Joined: 12/2/2000
From: O'Fallon, Missouri
Status: offline
dpstafford wrote
[QUOTE]#8 and # 18 contradict each other regarding whether PBEM games will have to be restarted.......[/QUOTE]

Erik Rutins wrote
[QUOTE]Excellent, I'll remove #18. That crept into this version's readme from an earlier version where a restart would have been necessary. That is no longer the case and #8 is the current state of things - old PBEM games will be able to continue. However, you will only see the new database changes by starting a new game.[/QUOTE]

Looks like you can keep going.:cool:

_____________________________

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." ---Mark Twain

Naval Warfare Simulations

AlvinS

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 16
- 6/13/2002 4:18:03 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
What about the problem where both Lexington and Yorktown begin Scenario #17 with NO Wildcat pilots? (Also seems to be true of American CVs at the beginning of other scenarios?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 17
Version 1.20, or 1.30? - 6/13/2002 4:21:26 AM   
Basement Command

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/1/2001
From: Boise, ID
Status: offline
Here's a suggestion for a later patch. I'm a player who opts to turn off battle animation. After all, it's not exactly like watching the battle sequences from the movie Midway, and this is an operational level game. I'm very content to read the after-action report and get back to issuing orders. Even with the battle animation turned off though, I have to sit through the messages regarding which pilot has achieved kill number 2, or 3, or 4, or has bailed out, etc. I'd prefer that these messages be eliminated when battle animations are switched off so I can get back to those game elements over which I can exert direct control. Again, the after action reports give me a very good odea as to how the battle had gone, so these extra messages just slow game play for those of us not concerned with the rather abstract tactical screens.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 18
- 6/13/2002 4:27:07 AM   
Pkunzipper


Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]What about the problem where both Lexington and Yorktown begin Scenario #17 with NO Wildcat pilots? (Also seems to be true of American CVs at the beginning of other scenarios? [/B][/QUOTE]

It was yet answered, the pilots exist, but they won't be displayed until they fly a mission

MATRIX, REALLY THX FOR THE SUPPORT :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 19
- 6/13/2002 4:30:58 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pkunzipper
[B]

It was yet answered, the pilots exist, but they won't be displayed until they fly a mission

MATRIX, REALLY THX FOR THE SUPPORT :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm.....remember what thread that was answered on?

And it's definately a problem...for one thing, everything else begins with their normal number of pilots.

The pilots gradually appear, (takes 3-4 turns for a full complement) but on one of the carriers it was 2 guys with 99 experience and everyone else at pure replacement level....very odd.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 20
- 6/13/2002 4:54:54 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]

Hmm.....remember what thread that was answered on?

And it's definately a problem...for one thing, everything else begins with their normal number of pilots.

The pilots gradually appear, (takes 3-4 turns for a full complement) but on one of the carriers it was 2 guys with 99 experience and everyone else at pure replacement level....very odd. [/B][/QUOTE]

There really isn't anything odd about that. Its called a cadre.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 21
- 6/13/2002 5:01:39 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
Erik & Matrix : All changes are goodness and light, except the [B]MINE WARFARE OPERATIONS[/B] scheme, which will now be arbitrary and unrealistic. Wish you would go for a more flexible scheme.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 22
- 6/13/2002 5:08:19 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
Patch Info
16) Mine fields placed in deep water decay at the rate of 50% per day. These either sink, float away or the moorings brake.

Questions:

1. Will the player now get some data on how many mines are placed in a hex?

2. Will mine data be added to the unit database, there is currently no mine data?

3. Won't the all mines in a hex disapear before the player can return to Truk to reload them? If so won't this make mines useless?

4. Please tell me that you have removed the disband /recreate TF to reload mines?

5. Will the new mine warfare rules be an option in the patch?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 23
- 6/13/2002 5:13:05 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

On the list for the next patch.

Bye...

Michael Wood

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sultanofsham
[B]Erik did they fix the Wewak bug in single play where the japanese AI would base aircraft out of Wewak when you own it? [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 24
Re: PBEM fix ?????????????????? - 6/13/2002 5:20:21 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

Sorry, I may have been too terse in my description of item #21.

In a PBEM game, you can glean no data concerning the enemy, that you did not know during your plotting phase. I rewrote the code entirely. All fixed. No more problem. You will be happy.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dpstafford
[B]If #21 is all you did on the PBEM combat resolution / combat replay, then as feared, you never understood the problem...
Am I on crack? Somebody back me up here before it is too late!! [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 25
- 6/13/2002 5:22:44 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

Not on list, but in patch. Just finished it a few minutes ago. The pilots will be there, along with the group leaders from the data base.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]What about the problem where both Lexington and Yorktown begin Scenario #17 with NO Wildcat pilots? (Also seems to be true of American CVs at the beginning of other scenarios? [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 26
Re: Re: PBEM fix ?????????????????? - 6/13/2002 5:24:40 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
[B]Hello...

Sorry, I may have been too terse in my description of item #21.

In a PBEM game, you can glean no data concerning the enemy, that you did not know during your plotting phase. I rewrote the code entirely. All fixed. No more problem. You will be happy.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________

[/B][/QUOTE]

Can't wait !!!!! :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 27
- 6/13/2002 5:28:32 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

I am sad that you do not like the new mine rules. There was some active debate on the subject, which I followed. I ended up developing the new mine rules with the most informed person I could find in the field. He wrote a book on the topic for the US Navy, Lt. Commander Paul Vebber. Knows more about mines than me or Gary.

Try to Have Fun anyway and Sorry Again...

Michael Wood
________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]Erik & Matrix : All changes are goodness and light, except the [B]MINE WARFARE OPERATIONS[/B] scheme, which will now be arbitrary and unrealistic. Wish you would go for a more flexible scheme. [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 28
- 6/13/2002 5:57:13 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

Last minute additions to patch:

1) Some air groups start with far too many pilots. Fixed.

2) Some air groups start with no pilots. Fixed.

3) Some air groups do not have the proper, or in some cases any, group leaders. Fixed.

4) Some air groups that are transferred do not take enough pilots to fly the planes with them. Fixed.

5) Pilots assigned to an air group in the data base are not always appearing. Fixed.

6) Group leaders assigned to an air group in the database are present on turn one, but have no plane and on turn two, they disappear and are replaced by some one who has a plane. Fixed.

Bye...

Michael Wood

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 29
Patch to the Readme File for the Patch - 6/13/2002 6:03:23 AM   
FirstPappy


Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline
Patch Info
16) Mine fields placed in deep water decay at the rate of 50% per day. These either sink, float away or the moorings brake.

"brake" should be changed to "break"

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Patch Progress Update... Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

1.172