possible bug/error

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

possible bug/error

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 >> possible bug/error

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 3:27:03 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

My game with Wargmr continues and I have had an odd thing happening I am hoping someone can help with.

Ever since I started this game I have not seen an Allied TF unless it is adjacent to my ground units. Wargmr explained this saying he is maximum speed moving from port to port, although auto-disbanding into size 0-2 ports with no ground unit should not be happening per the rules.

Anyway, I started noticing that my spotting reports were much like my TFs, so I did a little test. I build a 6 PB TF at Tokyo, sent it a bit offshore and had it steam slowly east and then west. Sure enough every turn my aircraft spotted 5-7 Allied ships steaming east or west near Chichi Jima. This went on for 15 turns.

Am I supposed to be spotting my TFs every turn and misidentifying them?
Could this be a result of me not having the beta patch on when we started and Wargmr having it on?

Post #: 1

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 3:29:24 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

I don't know about every turn, but some of my spotting of enemy forces are actually my own. Beta.

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 11/7/2017 3:30:03 PM >

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 2

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 4:35:25 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

Fog of War is a fickle Bit*h. Sometimes. Spotting your TF as the allies is nothing new. NavSearch training of your pilots in search aircraft to 70 will help....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to MakeeLearn)

Post #: 3

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 4:38:07 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

TFs set to auto disband do not disband at the end of the naval movement phase, but rather later in the turn and should still be visible to NAV search at the port of arrival.

What kind of NAV search are you running? What types of aircraft? What ranges? Are you setting search arcs or allowing default 360 degree search coverage?

With Fog of War turned on your own search planes will misreport your own TFs as enemy, especially if the pilots are low in NAV search skill.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to MakeeLearn)

Post #: 4

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 6:42:00 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

I dont think having different levels of patches is good.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 7:02:05 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

I was just surprised how many turns in a row I identified my ships as an allied TF.
I am playing Japan so i am hard up for search aircraft. I noticed that in AE my G3M and G4M pilots are blind (25-30) at NS. I have been training them most days as it is not like I have anything else to do with my bombers.

So my search is usually Mavis's at 30-40% search with set arcs 15 range or so, while my Jake's are at 50% search random arcs often, sometimes I set them. I have a group of 12 Mavis's sitting in Cam Ranh since early game searching across the South China sea 30% or so per turn, they have never spotted anything but my ships.

I have never seen his ships in port with nav search, only port recon. And the Mavis's with their great range have about... 25 recon skill, so I cannot use them for effective recon.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 6

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 7:49:16 PM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

While no expert I have told that we may upgrade betas any time...you do risk bugs if not both using same Beta

If you are scrambling for Japanese search planes use some Nells or Bettie's.

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 7

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 8:40:56 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

I have never seen his ships in port with nav search, only port recon. And the Mavis's with their great range have about... 25 recon skill, so I cannot use them for effective recon.

Naval Search only spots TFs not ships disbanded in port. At least that has been my experience.

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 8

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 8:57:28 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

Yea, I know that Xargun, that is why Don & I pushed to make it a rule for no auto disband in below size 3 ports with no friendly land unit.

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 9

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 9:03:35 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: decourcy2
I was just surprised how many turns in a row I identified my ships as an allied TF.
I am playing Japan so i am hard up for search aircraft.

What was patrol altitude?
It is fine by me to have aircraft spot some TF and not be able to ID its side until later when cross referensing with Navy data. In the end no false Allied TFs are ever shown where your own TFs were. So working as designed in my book

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 10

RE: possible bug/error - 11/7/2017 11:59:20 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

TFs set to auto disband do not disband at the end of the naval movement phase, but rather later in the turn and should still be visible to NAV search at the port of arrival.

+1.
I believe TFs disband during the "Return TFs to Port" step at the end of each phase.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 11

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 12:41:44 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

TFs set to auto disband do not disband at the end of the naval movement phase, but rather later in the turn and should still be visible to NAV search at the port of arrival.

+1.
I believe TFs disband during the "Return TFs to Port" step at the end of each phase.

Depends on op points remaining.

Early in the game, search is harsh because of low skill, low experience, range, limited assets, high fatigue, weather, etc.

You really need to blanket areas with lots of planes flying both day and afternoon search in an area, and as always land base air is more reliable than Mavis/Jake/Dave etc.

Anything past 12 hexes is very hard to spot. Low experience pilots often report your own ships.

Float plane night search does help.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 12

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 2:36:44 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

It will take a year for false reports of enemy ships and TFs to stop, presuming you are training these people. I pay no attention to such reports because more likely than not they are bogus. Go to the global map display and eliminate your own TFs, ground forces and air forces and what you have left is what you should be concerned with.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 13

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 5:31:20 AM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

Yeah, that would be nothing. I have spotted nothing all game, cause Wargmr has stealth tech.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 14

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 10:12:40 AM

kbfchicago

Posts: 359
Joined: 10/17/2009
From: NC, USA
Status: offline

Decourcy2, to address this here is what I do;

- 1 - Build skills. Load up your searching Squadrons (FP and LBs) with pilots. e.g. You can put 16 pilots in a 12 plane squadron. Set 60-70% search, 30-20% training, 10% rest (4E FPs will need higher rest or your aircraft will quickly fatigue out of service). That will help accelerate skills. It will take @ 4 months to get everyone up to 70%ish search, when that occurs, transfer out 20% trained and replace with fresh recruits. As IJ you need to do this for at least the first 12 months to build up FP pilots.
- 2 - Expand FP units. Note: some consider this gamey, even as an AFB I consider this "survival" for IJ... Use your CS ships to expand most of the small fragment FP squadrons to 20 or 24 AC each. This gives you many more squadron for expansion of pilots as noted above and cover your coastal areas. Note this also means not cutting FP production for fighters early in the game! You will need/want AC with a decent range to fill these expanded units.
- 3 - Settings/Range. Search ONLY out to 12 hexes range. Beyond that capabilities rapidly diminish.
- 4 - Settings/Arch. (you can find lots of debate on this on the forum...) I VERY seldom us specified arcs. Use 000/000. My understanding of prior posts and general observation is the game engine will always give you x% chance to sight if you are using random arcs and a target is within range. If you specific arcs that x% seems to diminish. Counter intuitive...but that's my observation.

Lastly...know that with FOW you will not know what you don't know. So "be paranoid" even if searching an area. Also, get your versions in sync with your PBEM partner, there can be nothing good that comes from using two different versions!

Happy gaming,

Kevin

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 15

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 3:04:59 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

Seriously? And I felt i was being smart using specific arcs. Dammit. Okay, I will try 0/0.
12 hexes? Okay, I can try that. I had been using about 15 or 16 since anything beyond and my pilots were exhausted the next day.

I have expanded a few FP units, but mostly to 10's as I have, um, Nisshin I think putting 2 FP units on it and increasing them from 4-6 to 10 aircraft.

We are on the same version now, I started my first turn on the release, Mike did his first turn on Beta, then on installed Beta for second turn. We know it had some negative effects as he has seen a few inconsistencies in reports.

As an aside while I love the idea of specific pilot skills, and I know why this was added, it may be a little to specific. My flying boat crews "Sir, we see a TF over the South China sea!" "Report it in crew." "Sir, we have lost them, they went into a port and we cannot see them now as we have a recon skill of 19!"

(in reply to kbfchicago)

Post #: 16

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 3:13:20 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Don't lose sight of the fact that it is a game that has limitations on how accurate a simulation it can be.
The Nav search mission is required to spot ships in Task Forces whether in a port hex or not.
Ships disbanded into the port (representing ships anchored/docked and not in TFs) can only be spotted by the recon mission targeting the port.

A good technique is to have some recon squadrons set with no target (local commander discretion on target selection).
These squadrons may just target a port you had no idea might contain disbanded ships.
If you suspect a particular port is harboring disbanded ships target it with recon and a port bombing mission.

Its also a good technique for finding enemy ground troops moving in open country and not adjacent to your ground troops that would allow them to be spotted.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 11/8/2017 3:14:39 PM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 17

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 4:26:54 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

Yeah, I know Hans. The problem I am having is the 10 hex range most of recon Sqds have. This does not give them the range to recon what I need.
The Japs start with a number of 9 plane chutai Nell units that I have taken off line and am training in recon. And in between raids I am training the larger Nell/Betty units in nav search.

Just the total lack of available air units is what is killing me; it does not help that 25% of the Japanese air force is not on map at game start as it should be.
Part of the reason I left CHS, and did not work on AE was the influx of AFBs fighting us on giving Japan what they historically had.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 18

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 4:30:32 PM

RichardAckermann

Posts: 271
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline

Curious. I always thougth WITP AE would have pinpoint accuracy in units, historically.
What is japan missing?

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 19

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 5:08:40 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

I typically only play the Allie side and I can attest that there is no paucity of both Nav search and Recon on the opposing side.

You can use any plane type for recon. You get better and more reliable info from recon aircraft and even from non-recon aircraft that are camera equipped, but you do get results with non-recon aircraft flying the recon mission.

Its the Allied side that has a real lack of recon aircraft in '42 and resorts to using B17s for that purpose.

I sense you are holding yourself in check by not using all of your resources to their maximum.

Just about every TF I send out gest spotted by the far ranging Emily's and Mavis's.

The Japanese AI uses Betties relentlessly for recon.

Almost across the board the lighter weight Japanese planes have a distinct range advantage over their more rugged Allied adversaries.

You have the advantage for both Nav search and recon.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to RichardAckermann)

Post #: 20

RE: possible bug/error - 11/8/2017 6:13:18 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

As an example, the Kanoya air group on Dec 8th (Tokyo time) had 36 bombers at Taichu and 36 at Saigon. Every source I have and Niehorster agree with this. For whatever reason the two units start with 27 bombers at each location.

Tainan had 54 A6Ms and 8 C5Ms but in game they have 45 A6Ms and 6 C5Ms. etc.

I was fixing the air OOBs back in the day and if I added anything to the Japanese side a chorus of AFBs would scream 'Japanese favoritism' and pitch a fit. Eventually I ssaid F this and walked away.

I ended up working with Dennis on the aircraft for War in the West and I decided to come back to WitP again.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 21

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 2:22:00 AM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

As an example, the Kanoya air group on Dec 8th (Tokyo time) had 36 bombers at Taichu and 36 at Saigon. Every source I have and Niehorster agree with this. For whatever reason the two units start with 27 bombers at each location.

Tainan had 54 A6Ms and 8 C5Ms but in game they have 45 A6Ms and 6 C5Ms. etc.

I was fixing the air OOBs back in the day and if I added anything to the Japanese side a chorus of AFBs would scream 'Japanese favoritism' and pitch a fit. Eventually I ssaid F this and walked away.

I ended up working with Dennis on the aircraft for War in the West and I decided to come back to WitP again.

Saigon, the units start split, 27 are set to day, 9 are set to night ops, 36 total.

Similar for Tainan, there are 2 subgroups that need to be added to get the total.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 22

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 4:25:02 AM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

Sorry Pax, I built this air database. The Bihoro and Genzan units are the two that start split; 27 & 9 for each unit. This is also incorrect, they each had 48 G3Ms on roster. Most of the navy groups flew 4x12 aircraft chutai.
And Tainan has 27+9+9 A6Ms, 45 total not 54. 6x9 aircraft chutai. Plus Kawai detachment from Tainan and 3rd should be exactly 13 A5Ms, the game shows 9.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 23

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 8:45:43 AM

RichardAckermann

Posts: 271
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline

Most interesting! Did you ever think of releasing a corrected scenario file with the airgroups having the real numbers? I would really love to use it.

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 24

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 3:09:09 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

I did, we called it CHS.

Seriously, I have most of the work done now, for an AE version.
Fixes the B29
Adds maneuver to most American fighters
Adds the 4th Yamato
Adds 2 more Taiho carriers so you, the player, can make the historical choice Japan did; more medium carriers or fewer small carriers
Untangles and fixes the cluster puck that is the Ki44 & Ki61
Adds the G5m & G8M
Puts oil and refineries in their correct spots
Adds the correct aircraft numbers for both sides at start position.
etc

(in reply to RichardAckermann)

Post #: 25

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 4:13:16 PM

RichardAckermann

Posts: 271
Joined: 12/4/2015
Status: offline

Great to hear that. I will grab a copy once it is available.
Keep up the good work.

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 26

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 4:51:09 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

I was fixing the air OOBs back in the day and if I added anything to the Japanese side a chorus of AFBs would scream 'Japanese favoritism' and pitch a fit. Eventually I ssaid F this and walked away.

What did you expect?

Given the very premise and foundation of the game is predicated on "Japanese favoritism", it is both perfectly understandable and certainly predictable that any efforts to expand upon the base level of 'favoritism' already grated the Japanese side would meet with a chorus of nay's from the Allied side.

Why do so many JFBs fail to understand this?

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 27

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 5:24:17 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

That is exactly why I left this community Hans. Don and I did the best we could to make an historical game. The only real Japan favoritism is oil does not take enough damage during conquest giving Japan too much oil.

I said 'add the aircraft Japan actually had', and you read 'JFB favoritism'.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 28

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 6:50:13 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

That is exactly why I left this community Hans. Don and I did the best we could to make an historical game. The only real Japan favoritism is oil does not take enough damage during conquest giving Japan too much oil.

I said 'add the aircraft Japan actually had', and you read 'JFB favoritism'.

What fantasy land are you living in?

Allowing the Japanese full control over an economy they can grow way beyond a realistic historical proportions, allowing them control over R&D, allowing them to have jets in '44 while denying all of these aspects to the Allied side are only a few examples that readily come to mind of the inherent base favoritism given the Japanese side I was alluding to.

In order to make the Japanese side viable to play in a competitive game favoritism HAD to be shown to that side.

We all understand that. That's why JFBs seeking additional favoritism above and beyond that meet with resistance from AFBs,

That's the point I was attempting to make.

What I got from you was that any attempt, not the specific attempt you referenced, to enhance the Japanese side meets with AFB resistance.

I was endeavoring to explain why.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to decourcy2)

Post #: 29

RE: possible bug/error - 11/9/2017 9:31:35 PM

decourcy2

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline

We did the best we could (oil excepted) to limit the growth of the Japanese economy to historical proportions. I am sorry it was not good enough for you, but Don and Joe did their best.

In my mod the jets are removed as they were not developed in Japanese r&d facilities, but developed from German data. Other aircraft, such as the Ki44, could have been built in great numbers, like the Ki43 and A6M were, that was a real choice the Japanese made that we felt the player should have.

Economy growth is limited at the starting end by resources; there are more resources in the game than Japan used during WW2 but not much more, and a limiter is getting the resources to Japan for production. I have seen AARs where the allied player did not put much work into sinking merchants and the Japanese had a great economy, and games where the Japanese were unable to get their resources home and their economy tanked at the beginning of '45.

If you pay attention to games and tests, we found that the Japanese economy actually tends to implode several months earlier than historical, but I think that is players over producing and that is exactly what we went for.

So, no, Don & I did not feel that the Japanese favoritism that you allude to is very strong. I would maybe argue that Allied favoritism is just as strong, but you don't see what you do not want to.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 30