RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/16/2011 1:54:43 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbmsts

Michealm this was written in the change log for the 1108k8 patch

quote:

Tweaked Group stacking on base with AF 6+ gains a 1/3 lowering of the "Aircraft Stack Level" for 4E planes[MEM]

Could you please exlpain this in detail? Will AFs of size 9 and 10 also have overstacking now or is this about something else?

See the immediately preceding post (#359) by Michael.

quote:

MichaelM wrote:

On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I like it.

< Message edited by treespider -- 4/16/2011 1:55:21 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to dbmsts)

Post #: 361

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/16/2011 2:15:14 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

MichaelM wrote:

On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I like it.

On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it.

This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.

And more results like this one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof?

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 362

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/16/2011 4:04:28 PM

Theages

Posts: 167
Joined: 2/16/2007
From: Austria
Status: offline

Using version k8 und alternate font.
There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers.

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 363

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/16/2011 7:30:42 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
I like it.

I like it too. I LOVE the ability to stockpile where I choose.

Thanks Michael.

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 364

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/16/2011 8:16:12 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Michael,

Thanks for the great ongoing support!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 365

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 12:05:13 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbmsts

Michealm this was written in the change log for the 1108k8 patch

quote:

Tweaked Group stacking on base with AF 6+ gains a 1/3 lowering of the "Aircraft Stack Level" for 4E planes[MEM]

Could you please exlpain this in detail? Will AFs of size 9 and 10 also have overstacking now or is this about something else?

From memory, AF 9+ never have had any restrictions.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to dbmsts)

Post #: 366

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 12:09:09 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theages

Using version k8 und alternate font.
There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers.

Thought I had checked alt font.
Ah welll. So hard to find space nowadays.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Theages)

Post #: 367

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 5:33:26 AM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
I like it.

I like it too. I LOVE the ability to stockpile where I choose.

Thanks Michael.

+2! Count me in - outstanding work, Michael!

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 368

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 5:38:31 AM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The next build will expand the stockpiling option to bases. The code had hooks for this (added in last patch) but I hadn't activated it.
You will be able to stockpile supply, fuel, resource and oil at bases. This means that bases will retain these and not allow other bases to access them.
Note that this applies only to supply&resource movement between bases, normal LCU and industry access is not affected.

OMG! Can I now stuckpile fuel for ships for example in Brisbane and not have it being sucked to industry in other parts of Australia?

That's the theory.

No matter how smart the distribution method gets, there is always going to be some case where the PLAYER wants to keep huge stockpiles in one place determined by the player rather than the AI's ditribution net.

michaelm -

This is absolutely First Class - a very useful feature. Please keep up the good work!

AE Loyalist Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 369

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 8:15:32 AM

dbmsts

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/18/2011
Status: offline

thanks

(in reply to dbmsts)

Post #: 370

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 10:10:06 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Viberpol may be on to something.

Maybe 7+ level airfields should be considered more sophisticated, and shouldn't the repair rates be across the board?
Not just 4E aircraft, say 20-25% reduction for all types.

Just my 2 cents from an AFB...

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 371

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 10:21:52 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Viberpol may be on to something.

Maybe 7+ level airfields should be considered more sophisticated, and shouldn't the repair rates be across the board?
Not just 4E aircraft, say 20-25% reduction for all types.

Just my 2 cents from an AFB...

This is only stacking level - how many planes can fit at airfield without impact to ops.
Does not affect repair/support.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 372

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/17/2011 12:35:33 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Gotcha!

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 373

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 12:33:49 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

I'm trying to figure out how to do a print screen to show you these two, but I'll write about them until I can get a picture.

1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics.

2: I have a ship docked and loading an LCU at Manila. When I click the "all task forces" button, it says 'Manila, headed to'. It should say "At Manila." All the task forces that are docked, or just sitting in base hexes say "xyz location, headed to" They should say, 'at xyz location' or 'at sea at xyz location' See my picture below. task force 122 is the example, but I could find others.

This is with the most recent patch (I downloaded it today.) I'll try to get some graphics loaded so you can see what I mean.

Thanks, Brad

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Bradley7735 -- 4/18/2011 1:33:41 AM >

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 374

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 12:43:34 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

Is it correct that after this message:
Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Loyang
the enemy unit disappears?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 375

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 1:44:17 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics.

Thanks, Brad

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 376

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 4:12:02 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Is it correct that after this message:
Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Loyang
the enemy unit disappears?

I beleive that is correct, at least that is what happens for me.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 377

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 4:44:26 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics.

Thanks, Brad

Flak is shown only if there are flak values present.
Pls attach the pre-turn (save #2) where you see this, thanks

PS if the save also has the "docked" issue, it would also be helpful.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 4/18/2011 4:45:27 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 378

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 7:04:46 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Hi Michael,

Here is the Dec 7th turn. When you run it, you'll see several examples of the flak at empty bases (PI and Maylay peninsula).

Look at the transport task forces loading supplies at SF, Soerbaja, Singers, Manila. They all say "xyz location, moving to" I have noticed that once a task force has stopped loading stuff, it says the normal, correct response. But, if it's in the process of loading something, it says it's moving there.

FYI, this is heavily moded from stock. I apologize if it's my changes that are causing the problems and you spend time that isn't necessary.

Thanks, Brad

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 379

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 8:01:25 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

I like what michaelm has done for the "parking space" at bases..Tinian should be a good example..

_____________________________

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 380

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 8:27:10 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

The location in the Taskforce list didn't account for the possibility that the destination was the base docked at. Re-arranged the order of tests to account for docked TFs.

The flak indicator is on but I can't see exactly where it is being turned on, but I'll try to track it back.
Yep, found it. The flak indicator is being updated even if there wasn't any flak in hex. Oversight around since start.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 4/18/2011 10:32:21 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 381

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 2:27:50 PM

asdicus

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline

Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 382

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 4:04:28 PM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

Sorry.
I did take a look and it appears that the enemy fields are active, but generally will active new TFs entering the hex. Once a TF sits in the hex, the chance of encountering the mines lessen each turn. I suppose this would represent ships anchoring in fairly safe waters after awhile.

Nothing has changed in this regard in the last set of patches, if anything the length of the "un-safe" turns in the hex has been slightly increased.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to asdicus)

Post #: 383

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 4:45:23 PM

asdicus

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

Sorry.
I did take a look and it appears that the enemy fields are active, but generally will active new TFs entering the hex. Once a TF sits in the hex, the chance of encountering the mines lessen each turn. I suppose this would represent ships anchoring in fairly safe waters after awhile.

Nothing has changed in this regard in the last set of patches, if anything the length of the "un-safe" turns in the hex has been slightly increased.

Thank-you for your prompt and detailed reply.

If it ok with you I would like to keep an eye on this. In my pbm the japs are soon going to invade some heavily mined dutch bases and I am hoping to see at least some minesweeping required and also perhaps a few hits. I must be very unlucky with my minefields because I cannot recall seeing a jap ship hit a defensively laid mine for ages but in very old patches I am sure I got hits.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 384

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 6:15:35 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

MichaelM wrote:

On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I like it.

On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it.
This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.

And more results like this one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof?

Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 385

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 6:32:25 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

MichaelM wrote:

On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I like it.

On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it.
This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.

And more results like this one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof?

Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...

Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 386

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/18/2011 7:07:57 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

I'm sorry.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 4/18/2011 7:09:30 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 387

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/19/2011 2:21:39 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof?

Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...

Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

Exactly.

And here's another example from today's PBEM turn.

Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 23

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 228

252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped?

I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one...

And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy.
Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more...

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 388

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/19/2011 2:42:02 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof?

Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...

Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

Exactly.

And here's another example from today's PBEM turn.

Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 23

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 228

252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped?
I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one...

And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy.
Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more...

Not to hi-jack this thread ...so perhaps this discussion should be taken elsewhere...I'll start a new thread...

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 389

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Move... - 4/19/2011 3:21:45 PM

Theages

Posts: 167
Joined: 2/16/2007
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theages

Using version k8 und alternate font.
There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers.

Thought I had checked alt font.
Ah welll. So hard to find space nowadays.

Would it be possible to add the max draw value as a permanent info on the base screen?

I found another minor issue present since mouse over information of the fulfullment of garrison requirements has been introduced.
The mouse-over of a base shows if the garrison requirements are met. This does not seem consistent with the results shown eg. on the base screen. It seems that if the AV at the base is more than about 90% of the garrison requirement, the mouse-over shows the requirement is met, whereas the base or LCU screen shows red numbers indicating that eg. 91 is indeed a smaller number than 100 and therefore the requirements are not met.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 390

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108k8 Resource Movement