1128b - bugs and issues

[Ian R]

Okay, so those map mods will not be usable.

I anticipate, broadly speaking, that a modded scenario made for the 1126B version standard map will work to a reasonable extent in the 1128 version thereof (which omits the various off map changes, and adds new things in previously vacant data lines in the locations file, as I understand it).

As a result, units should appear in the correct places, and the AI scripts should reference the correct geographical locations. However, I have not studied the locations file in detail- this is more of an inference from that which Andrew Brown has said in repect of the 1128 map. Some things might be a little off, and the AI might not be scripted (seeing as a mod generally uses old scripts imported to the mod from the base scenario it was modded from) to use the new dot-locations to best effect.

TL:DR version - I think they'll work because/if the major bases have the same location file line numbers, but I could be wrong.

Edit: As long as Andrew put Aden back in the slot it used to be in before Suez City was added. If not, all bets are off.

[Andrew Brown]

Okay, so those map mods will not be usable.

I anticipate, broadly speaking, that a modded scenario made for the 1126B version standard map will work to a reasonable extent in the 1128 version thereof (which omits the various off map changes, and adds new things in previously vacant data lines in the locations file, as I understand it).

As a result, units should appear in the correct places, and the AI scripts should reference the correct geographical locations. However, I have not studied the locations file in detail- this is more of an inference from that which Andrew Brown has said in repect of the 1128 map. Some things might be a little off, and the AI might not be scripted (seeing as a mod generally uses old scripts imported to the mod from the base scenario it was modded from) to use the new dot-locations to best effect.

TL:DR version - I think they'll work because/if the major bases have the same location file line numbers, but I could be wrong.

Edit: As long as Andrew put Aden back in the slot it used to be in before Suez City was added. If not, all bets are off.

This is basically correct. Aden and Suez both used the same base number, to simplify scenario modification, so that shouldn't be a problem.

[PaxMondo]

Thanks Andrew!!!!

Much appreciate your continued and ongoing efforts!!!

[Sardaukar]

Not a bug per se, but bit of an issue (I think it has been like that a long time):

WitP-AE task force "return to base" code is really weird. Especially when there is enemy air threat. I have lost some ships because of it.

E.g. having SCTF striking enemy TF in Merak (DEI), home port Batavia (DEI), one hex away.
One ship gets seriously damaged...what does code do...sends it into Tjilitjap instead of Batavia. Tjilitjap is like 10 hexes away other side of Java island... Absolutely ridiculous.

I have learned to avoid that by setting TF to Absolute threat tolerance, then they behave better.

[Sardaukar]

When you create e.g. Transport TF with escorts and merchants, game always selects from among escort ship commanders the lowest naval skill one as default TF commander.

Probably not what was originally intended and it's been like that from the beginning, I think.

[btd64]

When you create e.g. Transport TF with escorts and merchants, game always selects from among escort ship commanders the lowest naval skill one as default TF commander.

Probably not what was originally intended and it's been like that from the beginning, I think.

That's a problem from way back. Nobody has really complained about it. Probably not a candidate for a fix. I look at it as a chance to change a lowly commander....GP

[Sardaukar]

When you create e.g. Transport TF with escorts and merchants, game always selects from among escort ship commanders the lowest naval skill one as default TF commander.

Probably not what was originally intended and it's been like that from the beginning, I think.

That's a problem from way back. Nobody has really complained about it. Probably not a candidate for a fix. I look at it as a chance to change a lowly commander....GP

Yea, it's no big deal. I always check anyway. Just wanted to make new people aware of this.

Usually changing ship commander does not cost many PP:

[btd64]

When you create e.g. Transport TF with escorts and merchants, game always selects from among escort ship commanders the lowest naval skill one as default TF commander.

Probably not what was originally intended and it's been like that from the beginning, I think.

That's a problem from way back. Nobody has really complained about it. Probably not a candidate for a fix. I look at it as a chance to change a lowly commander....GP

Yea, it's no big deal. I always check anyway. Just wanted to make new people aware of this.

Usually changing ship commander does not cost many PP:

....GP

[RangerJoe]

That's a problem from way back. Nobody has really complained about it. Probably not a candidate for a fix. I look at it as a chance to change a lowly commander....GP

Yea, it's no big deal. I always check anyway. Just wanted to make new people aware of this.

Usually changing ship commander does not cost many PP:

....GP

That is also why checking on the escort captains is also important.

[Seacat54]

Yea, it's no big deal. I always check anyway. Just wanted to make new people aware of this.

Usually changing ship commander does not cost many PP:

....GP

That is also why checking on the escort captains is also important.

I check every captain that leaves port, very painful when you dont have the PP to change everyone you would like.

[RangerJoe]

What I would like to know is if a campaign game were started, would any updates break the game so it would have to be started over?

[Chris21wen]

The default fo TF leader is the captain of the flagship. The game has set routines for determining which ship and I thought there was section in the manual covering this but blowed if I could find it.
I have an old document that says this but it may have changed.

The Flagship of the Task Force is determined automatically using the following guidelines:
• Flagships are designated in order of Ship Class: AGC-CV-BB-BC-CVL-CA-CL-CLAA-CVE-DD (the list continues through all classes).
• Between ships of the same class, the largest ship in the task force (highest durability) is selected as the Flagship.
• For ships of the same class and equal durability, the last ship selected or added to the TF is the Flagship.
• The nationality of the Flagship determines the nationality of the TF and therefore the available pool of RADM and VADM to command the TF.

You can change the default commander by turning on 'Auto-select Commander'. Again set routines are used based on rank, TF type and size. It does not seem to include Naval or Air ability in its selection?? It also includes captains' of the ships in the TF and will leave the default if it can't find anyone It these that are suspect.

Lastly, do it yourself.

[Sardaukar]

Basically problem is usually with long-range tanker convoys.

Lots of long-range escorts in early war are PC/PG (PG Charleston with 12000 endurance is prime example). They are "lower in totem pole" than TKs, so TK captain is selected. And they are usually crap.

Be whatever TF, it is always wise to check who is actually commanding your TF and if needed, change accordingly.

[Nazcatraz]

What I would like to know is if a campaign game were started, would any updates break the game so it would have to be started over?

I'm sure it will.

[Don Bowen]

Not a bug per se, but bit of an issue (I think it has been like that a long time):

WitP-AE task force "return to base" code is really weird. Especially when there is enemy air threat. I have lost some ships because of it.

E.g. having SCTF striking enemy TF in Merak (DEI), home port Batavia (DEI), one hex away.
One ship gets seriously damaged...what does code do...sends it into Tjilitjap instead of Batavia. Tjilitjap is like 10 hexes away other side of Java island... Absolutely ridiculous.

I have learned to avoid that by setting TF to Absolute threat tolerance, then they behave better.

Been a while, but I believe the return to base code considers the threat status of the retire-to base. If a more distant base is selected the code has decided that the relative enemy threat to a closer base is too great to expose a damaged ship for an expected repair duration.

[Sardaukar]

Not a bug per se, but bit of an issue (I think it has been like that a long time):

WitP-AE task force "return to base" code is really weird. Especially when there is enemy air threat. I have lost some ships because of it.

E.g. having SCTF striking enemy TF in Merak (DEI), home port Batavia (DEI), one hex away.
One ship gets seriously damaged...what does code do...sends it into Tjilitjap instead of Batavia. Tjilitjap is like 10 hexes away other side of Java island... Absolutely ridiculous.

I have learned to avoid that by setting TF to Absolute threat tolerance, then they behave better.

Been a while, but I believe the return to base code considers the threat status of the retire-to base. If a more distant base is selected the code has decided that the relative enemy threat to a closer base is too great to expose a damaged ship for an expected repair duration.

It is not that big deal, since I discovered that using Absolute threat tolerance remedies the issue, at least mostly.

[jwilkerson]

Been a while, ...


==

Don Bowen Posted - Hooo Raaah !!!

[Don Bowen]

Don Bowen Posted - Hooo Raaah !!!

Is that a bug or an issue?

[Sardaukar]

First TheElf and now Don Bowen and jwilkerson...

World is going to end this rate!

[Chickenboy]

First TheElf and now Don Bowen and jwilkerson...

World is going to end this rate!

Geez, I hope not!