RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 July (2nd part)

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 1108p5 updated 24 July (2nd part)

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 1108p5 updated 24 July (2nd part)

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 1:00:18 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

I've finalized the turn from the same save (made after I've seen the combat report posted above), setting a few airgroups to attack industry at Chungking, please take a look at the results.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 121

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 2:03:37 PM

michaelm75au

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

Yep. Found it.
This has been there since start of AE (and possibly WITP).

If a attack needs to breakdown into smaller packets, it is not passing along the city attack parameters (ie industry slot or type) to the new flights. As a result the new flights fall back to a random selection for the city attack.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Chungking , at 76,45

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 2 damaged

Light Industry hits 2
Fires 27

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 6000 feet (7th Sentai / 11th Air)
City Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Chungking , at 76,45

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 21
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 3 damaged

Light Industry hits 2
Fires 27

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 6000 feet (8th Sentai / 5th Air)
City Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
21 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 6000 feet (27th Sentai / 3rd Air)
City Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

< Message edited by michaelm -- 7/27/2011 2:23:34 PM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 122

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 3:11:53 PM

michaelm75au

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

Quick update
Fixed City attack industry not set when flights were split off from main attack [MEM]
Changed Added a nationality to device pool screen [MEM]
Tweaked Refined the static-attached units as added in previous beta p5 [MEM]

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by michaelm -- 7/27/2011 10:24:04 PM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 123

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 3:26:02 PM

Bradley7735

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Also, may I ask one more question, related to this save? What is needed for a unit to upgrade its TOE? Some of the Japanese base forces (for example at Singapore, Sabang, Tulagi, Milne Bay) are stuck with their old TOEs for months now, only one such base force in Tokyo upgraded to its new TOE so far. Armaments pools are full (although DP guns included in the new TOE are not produced), and at least Singapore had over 100k supplies for several weeks.

I believe TOE upgrades need to have the unit in rest mode and a command HQ within range.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 124

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 5:31:48 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

well this is a late request, but it'd be v. useful if one could see a (range) field in the TF screen Destination area that shows the distance in hexes (along the TF's path) from its current position to its Destination. Then i could divide that number by 2 x the TF's speed & get a rough idea of the # of days it'll take the TF to get there.

Given the intercontinental distances involved in the game, this info would be a big help!

This would be very nice and save a bunch of manual counting.

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 125

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 8:24:23 PM

CaptDave

Posts: 659
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

well this is a late request, but it'd be v. useful if one could see a (range) field in the TF screen Destination area that shows the distance in hexes (along the TF's path) from its current position to its Destination. Then i could divide that number by 2 x the TF's speed & get a rough idea of the # of days it'll take the TF to get there.

Given the intercontinental distances involved in the game, this info would be a big help!

This would be very nice and save a bunch of manual counting.

Agreed, but since you're willing to do some math anyway, this is easily calculated. Take the coordinates of your task force and the coordinates of the destination, calculate the difference between the X coordinates and the difference between the Y coordinates, and then take the greater of the two differences. This is your approximate distance (could be off by 1 because of staggered X columns, and will be off by more if your path is one of those going the long way around to avoid air cover). If you have waypoints set, you'll need to calculate each leg separately. You'll also need to factor in an undeclared waypoint if you're sailing around a large land mass that interferes with the direct route!

< Message edited by CaptDave -- 7/27/2011 8:25:27 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 126

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 9:10:08 PM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

well this is a late request, but it'd be v. useful if one could see a (range) field in the TF screen Destination area that shows the distance in hexes (along the TF's path) from its current position to its Destination. Then i could divide that number by 2 x the TF's speed & get a rough idea of the # of days it'll take the TF to get there.

Given the intercontinental distances involved in the game, this info would be a big help!

This would be very nice and save a bunch of manual counting.

I would add the estimated days in parentheses.......

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 127

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 10:11:32 PM

Ol_Dog

Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline

In your attachment, the exe file has a 7/13/11 date - earlier than the 7/24/11 date in the current file.

Holding off replacing the exe and dll

_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 128

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 10:11:33 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

well this is a late request, but it'd be v. useful if one could see a (range) field in the TF screen Destination area that shows the distance in hexes (along the TF's path) from its current position to its Destination. Then i could divide that number by 2 x the TF's speed & get a rough idea of the # of days it'll take the TF to get there.

Given the intercontinental distances involved in the game, this info would be a big help!

This would be very nice and save a bunch of manual counting.

Agreed, but since you're willing to do some math anyway, this is easily calculated. Take the coordinates of your task force and the coordinates of the destination, calculate the difference between the X coordinates and the difference between the Y coordinates, and then take the greater of the two differences. This is your approximate distance (could be off by 1 because of staggered X columns, and will be off by more if your path is one of those going the long way around to avoid air cover). If you have waypoints set, you'll need to calculate each leg separately. You'll also need to factor in an undeclared waypoint if you're sailing around a large land mass that interferes with the direct route!

No - not that easy. BTW I've posted a spreadsheet here in the past which calculates the distance between two hexes.

The problem is that TF's use routing: sometimes way points, often routing around islands, coastal waters, perceived danger, and so on. So the straight line distance is very often not the actual distance the TF has to go.

(in reply to CaptDave)

Post #: 129

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/27/2011 10:26:29 PM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

In your attachment, the exe file has a 7/13/11 date - earlier than the 7/24/11 date in the current file.

Holding off replacing the exe and dll

It is the right EXE. I saved into a older zip which kept the origibal date.
I refreshed the zip to make the date more current.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Ol_Dog)

Post #: 130

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 11:06:33 AM

Oliver Heindorf

Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Quick update
Fixed City attack industry not set when flights were split off from main attack [MEM]
Changed Added a nationality to device pool screen [MEM]
Tweaked Refined the static-attached units as added in previous beta p5 [MEM]

Is this the latest .EXE ? Sorry but I have trouble to keep up / follow it if multiple exe's are stored in almost every 10th post ;-)

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 131

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 11:36:01 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

Is this the latest .EXE ? Sorry but I have trouble to keep up / follow it if multiple exe's are stored in almost every 10th post ;-)

The solution to your problem would be for Matrix to release an official patch.

Alfred

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)

Post #: 132

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 11:38:46 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Quick update
Fixed City attack industry not set when flights were split off from main attack [MEM]
Changed Added a nationality to device pool screen [MEM]
Tweaked Refined the static-attached units as added in previous beta p5 [MEM]

Is this the latest .EXE ? Sorry but I have trouble to keep up / follow it if multiple exe's are stored in almost every 10th post ;-)

I'll do the normal weekly installer and put it in the first post.
That post just had an early copy of it in case players wanted to try out the changes earlier - a "beta" beta so to speak.

The official non-official installers will be in the first post of thread.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 7/28/2011 11:39:32 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)

Post #: 133

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 11:48:32 AM

m10bob

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

Hello Michaelm..Wonder if this can be looked at?

Ever since WITP(vanilla), sometimes a carrier TF with plenty of big guns and speedy ships alongside may encounter an enemy surface force with inferior strength, and the game engine has been allowing the weaker force a free ride to get away, with no surface combat at all.
Will the game engine allow this to be improved to where the CV's escorting surface ships can at least attempt to sink the enemy, more often?
IIRC, it is already set up to make the carriers the last target the enemy has a shot at..

TY for your considerations.

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 134

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 12:00:59 PM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Hello Michaelm..Wonder if this can be looked at?

Ever since WITP(vanilla), sometimes a carrier TF with plenty of big guns and speedy ships alongside may encounter an enemy surface force with inferior strength, and the game engine has been allowing the weaker force a free ride to get away, with no surface combat at all.
Will the game engine allow this to be improved to where the CV's escorting surface ships can at least attempt to sink the enemy, more often?
IIRC, it is already set up to make the carriers the last target the enemy has a shot at..

TY for your considerations.

Do you have an example where this occurs to look at?
Last night, I just happen to have had a US CV TF encounter a Japanese SurTF with a couple of CAs and DDs, and lost the CV. I thought the CV TF had one or two BBs in it plus 3 CAs. Not sure about the Japanese TF. I think I got one of the CAs.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 135

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 12:06:48 PM

michaelm75au

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

Looks like I got some of the details wrong

Here is how the combat played out. Using latest beta - though nothing has changed with surface combat from memory since patch 5.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 11, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Rennell Island at 110,139, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
�� CA Chokai, Shell hits 15,� heavy fires
�� CL Yubari, Shell hits 7,� on fire
�� DD Yuzuki, Shell hits 7,� heavy fires,� heavy damage

Allied Ships
�� CV Enterprise, Shell hits 6,� heavy fires
�� BB North Carolina, Shell hits 1,� on fire
�� CA Portland
�� CLAA Atlanta, Shell hits 5
�� DD Grayson
�� DD Maury
�� DD Benham
�� DD Balch, Shell hits 3

Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions: 20,000 yards
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 20,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CV Enterprise at 20,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CV Enterprise at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CV Enterprise at 15,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Maury at 15,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Benham at 15,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Maury at 15,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CV Enterprise at 11,000 yards
CA Chokai engages BB North Carolina at 11,000 yards
CA Portland engages CA Chokai at 11,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CLAA Atlanta at 11,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Maury at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
CV Enterprise collides with DD Balch at 110 , 139
CA Chokai engages CLAA Atlanta at 8,000 yards
CA Chokai engages BB North Carolina at 8,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CA Portland at 8,000 yards
CLAA Atlanta engages CL Yubari at 8,000 yards
DD Benham engages CA Chokai at 8,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Grayson at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CV Enterprise at 10,000 yards
BB North Carolina engages CA Chokai at 10,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Yuzuki at 10,000 yards
DD Maury engages DD Yuzuki at 10,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Grayson at 10,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CV Enterprise at 10,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CV Enterprise at 10,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Maury at 10,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CLAA Atlanta at 10,000 yards
DD Balch engages DD Yuzuki at 10,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Benham at 10,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Maury at 10,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CV Enterprise at 11,000 yards
BB North Carolina engages CA Chokai at 11,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Maury at 11,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CLAA Atlanta at 11,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Balch at 11,000 yards
DD Grayson engages DD Yuzuki at 11,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CV Enterprise at 13,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CV Enterprise at 13,000 yards
DD Yuzuki engages DD Benham at 13,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CLAA Atlanta at 13,000 yards
DD Balch engages DD Yuzuki at 13,000 yards
CA Chokai engages DD Maury at 13,000 yards
DD Grayson engages DD Yuzuki at 13,000 yards
Watanabe, S. orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range increases to 16,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CV Enterprise at 16,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CV Enterprise at 16,000 yards
CA Chokai engages CA Portland at 16,000 yards
DD Maury engages DD Yuzuki at 16,000 yards
DD Grayson engages DD Yuzuki at 16,000 yards
Range increases to 22,000 yards
CV Enterprise� screened from combat
- escorted by DD Balch ,� DD Benham ,� DD Maury ,
� DD Grayson
BB North Carolina engages CL Yubari at 22,000 yards
CA Portland engages CL Yubari at 22,000 yards
BB North Carolina engages DD Yuzuki at 22,000 yards
Range increases to 28,000 yards
CV Enterprise� screened from combat
- escorted by DD Balch ,� DD Benham ,� DD Maury ,
� DD Grayson
CA Portland engages CA Chokai at 28,000 yards
CA Portland engages CL Yubari at 28,000 yards
CLAA Atlanta engages CA Chokai at 28,000 yards
Task forces break off...

< Message edited by michaelm -- 7/28/2011 12:07:57 PM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 136

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 12:12:09 PM

m10bob

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

That (to me) is another problem, with your BB along, I should think the CV would have been well back and out of the action altogether!
(Am I the only one noticing the BB's in game could not hit the broad side of a barn in any surface actions, with the best visuals, Radars, etc?)

As for my issue, It only happens "sometimes", I I checked the speed of the CVTF's guardians, and by all rights, they should have been able to force a surface confontation..I guess I am asking if their is a "%chance" for a surface action?

If it is a matter of the engine doing a die roll check, can it be tweked, perhaps dependent on the agressiveness of the commanders, speed of the ships??

< Message edited by m10bob -- 7/28/2011 12:13:35 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 137

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 12:22:10 PM

michaelm75au

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

Yes. I wasn't happy that the lead ship of the TF seemed to be the CV and it got pounded. Coup de grace came next turn when Jap CVs attacked and sank it because it couldn't get its CAP up due to damage from the surface engagement.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 138

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 12:53:02 PM

m10bob

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Yes. I wasn't happy that the lead ship of the TF seemed to be the CV and it got pounded. Coup de grace came next turn when Jap CVs attacked and sank it because it couldn't get its CAP up due to damage from the surface engagement.

Bummer, and knowing the true events of "Taffy six", we know that would not have happened IRL....

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 139

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 1:25:34 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I faced 2 CV's with DD/CA escort with my surface group and noticed several times the phrase " xxx screened by xxx. The CV's took hits but most of the shots hit the DD's and cruiser. I went back and ran it several times with the same effect. Some damage to the carriers but most on the escorts. What it reminded me of was the action in the north Atlantic when the German BC's ran into the brit carriers. The escorts raced in to protect them but in the end the CV's went down.

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 140

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 3:17:29 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Yes. I wasn't happy that the lead ship of the TF seemed to be the CV and it got pounded. Coup de grace came next turn when Jap CVs attacked and sank it because it couldn't get its CAP up due to damage from the surface engagement.

Bummer, and knowing the true events of "Taffy six", we know that would not have happened IRL....

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, Bob. The way it happened in one real life circumstance is not the way it had to happen, and weren't two CVE sunk by gunfire that day? Kurita could have turned into the torpedo wakes instead of away and many more battleship guns would have been relevant.

I don't mean that the CV should be the lead ship, the game engine doesn't model that or show us, I mean that the vulnerable prizes were in range.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 141

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 3:25:07 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

There is code to screen carriers (and transports) from combat under certain circumstances. Also a random factor. You can see the screening near the end of the engagement, but that is on the way out. It looks like the carrier TF should have been strong enough to screen, so the random may be getting in the way. The surface combat TF did (properly) select the most valuable ship in the carrier TF as a target.

This routine might need a tweak or two. I'll at least give it a read.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 142

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 3:45:08 PM

m10bob

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Yes. I wasn't happy that the lead ship of the TF seemed to be the CV and it got pounded. Coup de grace came next turn when Jap CVs attacked and sank it because it couldn't get its CAP up due to damage from the surface engagement.

Bummer, and knowing the true events of "Taffy six", we know that would not have happened IRL....

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, Bob. The way it happened in one real life circumstance is not the way it had to happen, and weren't two CVE sunk by gunfire that day? Kurita could have turned into the torpedo wakes instead of away and many more battleship guns would have been relevant.

I don't mean that the CV should be the lead ship, the game engine doesn't model that or show us, I mean that the vulnerable prizes were in range.

My friend, you are of course correct..My worse error here was in using the word "never"..

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 143

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 3:47:44 PM

m10bob

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

There is code to screen carriers (and transports) from combat under certain circumstances. Also a random factor. You can see the screening near the end of the engagement, but that is on the way out. It looks like the carrier TF should have been strong enough to screen, so the random may be getting in the way. The surface combat TF did (properly) select the most valuable ship in the carrier TF as a target.

This routine might need a tweak or two. I'll at least give it a read.

Best thing about AE was that all the contributors were owners of WITP, all of whom had vast eperience actually playing it, (and not just a bunch of "theorists"..
Too, they have shwon a vast winningness to keep an open mind, and not fall to the temptation of trying to appease every nipicker without really looking hard at an idea......

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 144

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/28/2011 5:18:33 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Yes. I wasn't happy that the lead ship of the TF seemed to be the CV and it got pounded. Coup de grace came next turn when Jap CVs attacked and sank it because it couldn't get its CAP up due to damage from the surface engagement.

Bummer, and knowing the true events of "Taffy six", we know that would not have happened IRL....

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, Bob. The way it happened in one real life circumstance is not the way it had to happen, and weren't two CVE sunk by gunfire that day? Kurita could have turned into the torpedo wakes instead of away and many more battleship guns would have been relevant.

I don't mean that the CV should be the lead ship, the game engine doesn't model that or show us, I mean that the vulnerable prizes were in range.

My friend, you are of course correct..My worse error here was in using the word "never"..

Well I never use that word.

Doh!

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 145

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/29/2011 1:49:50 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

I have a problem with a unit at Aden that is not in a restricted command, is in Strategic mode, but my Transport TF says it is not in Strategic mode.

first pic:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 146

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/29/2011 1:50:25 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

second pic:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 147

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/29/2011 2:06:03 AM

michaelm75au

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

If using latest beta, then the unit 'appears' to be moving.
1. Check the unit and see if it has a move destination. If so cancel the move. Else ..
2. Change from Strat mode to Combat mode, and then back to Strat. This might clear the 'moving' indicator.

The next build removes one of the moving indicators as it does not appear to be cleared all the time.

Can send/attach the save so I can verify that this is the case?

Thanks

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 148

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/29/2011 4:28:34 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If using latest beta, then the unit 'appears' to be moving.
1. Check the unit and see if it has a move destination. If so cancel the move. Else ..
2. Change from Strat mode to Combat mode, and then back to Strat. This might clear the 'moving' indicator.

The next build removes one of the moving indicators as it does not appear to be cleared all the time.

Can send/attach the save so I can verify that this is the case?

Thanks

Thanks, michaelm. Your number 2 worked. I'll PM the turn to you.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 149

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 Ju... - 7/29/2011 6:44:32 AM

Itdepends

Posts: 937
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

This may or may not be related to the patch but something screwy is going on in the last turn of my PBEM. Running 1108p3

The combat replay results don't match the turn. When I first run the combat replay CL Sumatra getting torpedoed east of Noumea and there's no air action north of Tenant creek. The turn I received shows aircraft damaged from a large air battle north of Tenant creek (bomber types match) but no damage to CL Sumatra.

If I run the combat replay a second time- CL Sumatra doesn�t get torpedoed but the big air battle happens north of Tenant creek (which matches the aircraft losses showing in the turn intel screen).

The results are 100% repeatable. If I save the combat replay from the email my opponent sent to my AE directory, the first time I run the replay I get CL Sumatra torpedoed and no air battle north of Tenant creek. Run it the second time and the air battle happens but CL Sumatra doesn't feature.

Is this a possible bug or could it be a result of the combat replay being a different "run" (resolution of turn) from the actual saved turn.

And whats with the combat replay changing depending on how many times you view it- it's like there's a "counter" in there (or in the program) which influences the results.

Cheers,

Daniel

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p5 updated 24 July (2nd part)