New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

[Andrew Brown]

In the new beta Kyushu is still disconnected by rail and road to the rest of Japan? This was connected in the base game and 1126 beta. Is this intentional? As previously discussed before:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9#p5197849

I would have to check the 1126 beta, but they were not connected by rail or road in the original release.

[Andrew Brown]

First, thank you to everyone who made this happen.

not really a big deal, but just a few database issues I noticed
the following ship entries should have their ship classes listed as 202 - River British
19071
19072
19075
19076
19081

Actually the class data is all present except the class name (for class 3100), which is blank.

[Andrew Brown]

Scen001

Seems the v1128 patch notes do not mention ALL bases which changed their names in the new beta. This is what I get when I load my first turn save into Tracker, and then load my updated regions definition file which includes all previous AndyMac's new bases from his updated scen001v5

Dambulla was the only non-coastline base on Ceylon, great for developing a big airfield safe from ship bombardment.

Paingkyon was an important base in the early defense of Burma.

I guess all name changes warrant a mention in the patch notes just to avoid further confusion.

I think most or all of those are base name changes (though Kandy is in a different hex to where Dambulla was). I will see whether I can add notes for each change, but that might take some time.

[littleike]

About the manual

A little typo on 2.4.1 Fog of war
New players to AE may find some benefit in having this switch toggled off as they learn game mechanics. Most experienced
players will toggle this switch off


A further question:

1) The manual directory has two pdf addendum related to pilot management and interface. Do you think that will be better have these merged in the new manual?

[Cavalry Corp]

Hi Guys

Can I assume the map changes affect the stock map? So to add the changes in we can only play with the stock maps?
From what I have seen, yes the new maps are different. Are you asking about different map looks or different map data? As far as I know, how the map looks should not be a problem but changes in the map data could be. But the flooding in China wiping out the bridges including railroad bridges affect the movement of units but not the movement of supplies, fuel, resources, and/or oil. The same thing for Kyshu and Honshu which are no longer connected.

Can i assume I can add in the DB changes to my mod? But there is not a full list - quite understand how tiresome that could be.
I do not know if there is a full list of the DB changes, I found some errors in my play testing and reported those that I had found. But I only went so far. That is what my sole AAR was based upon, my play testing as the Allies. I did not do extensive research on units as to their locations but having a B-29 unit entering the war in 1942 was reported as well as ships coming in too early as well as ships coming in too early with an upgrade that wasn't done yet.
So for the DB changes, you may have to ask the developer lead for assistance and/or the person doing the updates to the DB. There may have more than one person working on the DB changes as well.

Hard-coded game functions and changes would work in standard and modded games without issue.
Probably so unless there is a new AI script targeting a base that is not on an older map used.
Please advise.

Cav

You can just change the .exe in the older version for the new one, I suggest saving the older .exe to a .bak or a .exe.bak so you would still have it if it is needed. You can use different maps if you do your own AI scripts including just adjust some of the older AI scripts while adding new one since the different maps may not have all of the bases in the new scripts. I do not know if the base being non-existant would break the game.. There actually is a thread somewhere about writing new AI scripts. So maybe the CEA will actually send LCUs to attack Auckland!

Ok let me try and digest this feels a bit out of my scope....I will have to see if someone wants to get involved to update my mod properly. thanks for the input.

[RangerJoe]

Hi Guys

Can I assume the map changes affect the stock map? So to add the changes in we can only play with the stock maps?
From what I have seen, yes the new maps are different. Are you asking about different map looks or different map data? As far as I know, how the map looks should not be a problem but changes in the map data could be. But the flooding in China wiping out the bridges including railroad bridges affect the movement of units but not the movement of supplies, fuel, resources, and/or oil. The same thing for Kyshu and Honshu which are no longer connected.

Can i assume I can add in the DB changes to my mod? But there is not a full list - quite understand how tiresome that could be.
I do not know if there is a full list of the DB changes, I found some errors in my play testing and reported those that I had found. But I only went so far. That is what my sole AAR was based upon, my play testing as the Allies. I did not do extensive research on units as to their locations but having a B-29 unit entering the war in 1942 was reported as well as ships coming in too early as well as ships coming in too early with an upgrade that wasn't done yet.
So for the DB changes, you may have to ask the developer lead for assistance and/or the person doing the updates to the DB. There may have more than one person working on the DB changes as well.

Hard-coded game functions and changes would work in standard and modded games without issue.
Probably so unless there is a new AI script targeting a base that is not on an older map used.
Please advise.

Cav

You can just change the .exe in the older version for the new one, I suggest saving the older .exe to a .bak or a .exe.bak so you would still have it if it is needed. You can use different maps if you do your own AI scripts including just adjust some of the older AI scripts while adding new one since the different maps may not have all of the bases in the new scripts. I do not know if the base being non-existant would break the game.. There actually is a thread somewhere about writing new AI scripts. So maybe the CEA will actually send LCUs to attack Auckland!

Ok let me try and digest this feels a bit out of my scope....I will have to see if someone wants to get involved to update my mod properly. thanks for the input.

You are welcome.

Basically, you can just switch out the .exe and keep the map files to the older maps if you want to. Just include them in the download and have people replace the new map files with the old map files.

You can also adjust your scenarios to the new data if you want to, ships were withdrawn in actually but not in the game so I do believe these withdrawls are in the new scenarios. So some of these ships return as well. Some of the withdrawls were due to damage from the Pearl Harbor attack (USS Nevada) while others were from damage (USS Boise) to be repaired and then used elsewhere, while a lot of the older 4 piper destroyers were withdrawn for use in the Atlantic and even retired - the USS Alden whose skipper then commanded the USS Johnston, commanded by Lt. Commander Ernest Evans, MOH . . .

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-hi ... st-e-evans

[Moltrey]

Good to see you back on the board Andrew. I emailed Skacee last week and he was enthused about getting back to finalizing his standard map.
He didn't give any ETA, but you may end up hearing from him.

[Cavalry Corp]

Ranger

I will add the OOB and data changes for sure - my mode does not have ship withdrawals, so that's is not an issue.

If we patch this now... nothing will happen to installs with the old maps - like my mod yes? Just installs with the new and the super extended map??

Does the patch have a new map?

I am in a bit of a muddle as there has not been a patch for so long...

Cav

[RangerJoe]

Ranger

I will add the OOB and data changes for sure - my mode does not have ship withdrawals, so that's is not an issue.

If we patch this now... nothing will happen to installs with the old maps - like my mod yes? Just installs with the new and the super extended map??
Just switch the .exe and you will be fine. But save the older .exe as something like .exe.bak in case you want to go back to it.

Does the patch have a new map?
Yes, Andrew Brown has mentioned some things about the map.

I am in a bit of a muddle as there has not been a patch for so long...

Cav

If you reread this thread concentrating on Andrew Brown's posts, maybe it will help you.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... &start=120

As far as map errors, this picture says it all . . .

[Andrew Brown]

Good to see you back on the board Andrew. I emailed Skacee last week and he was enthused about getting back to finalizing his standard map.
He didn't give any ETA, but you may end up hearing from him.

I am happy to help.

[Andrew Brown]

...
Does the patch have a new map?
...

The latest patch map is not a version of my 'super extended map'. It is compatible with the original stock map, but does have a few new islands, and some changes to the transport routes, mainly in China.

[bradfordkay]

Screenshot 2024-11-07 202639.jpg

A change in trackage to east coast?

Surprisingly, that is not a change. That odd rail type has been there since the game was released. As with most of the map bugs reported since this latest beta update was announced, this "bug" (if it is even a bug) has been there all along. In fact this may even be a deliberate design element to slow down the rate or speed of traffic using that rail connection. I can't remember. Given it has been there all along I am reluctant to change this.

I believe that it was done on purpose to reflect the actual track distance from the east coast bases. By all appearances, the "slow track" ends at Rock Springs, WY which is approximately 2/3 of the distance from the east coast US to the west coast.

[Tanaka]

Some people have mentioned other things left to address in Discord so I thought it was worth posting here as well:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4&t=359863

Heclapar
—
Yesterday at 11:25 PM

Things that negatively impact the average user experience and should be semi easy to fix are reserve movement swap immunity, unsweepable training cap, AKE capacity stacking, 0 build up base weirdness with supply caps, autoflip heavy industry deletion, complete industry destruction on base captures due to engineer stacking/stupid crit mechanic, exploitation of reserve buttons to teleport pilots with no delay, offmap allied training bonus, kamikaze multistrike, general offmap movement weirdness (this one might have been fixed but I havent tested), base/offmap imbalance due to supply draw mechanics and irreducible lcu forts, maybe some kind of bandaid for stratosweeps (the code is too simple here)

consider opening the exe to allow modding it. Especially if the latest update really is the latest update. Like forever.

1. In the last public beta update, what if any bugs exist that you find game-breaking or cause you to avoid that beta update? None that were not already in the earlier builds. This is my top list:

Reserve movement mode change immunity - Bombing LCU's does not flip them into Combat mode (minor bug)
unsweepable training cap - Air units on a 'training' mission avoid any sweeps but happily engage subsequent bomber raids (training flight caught up in raid- message). The issue when these 'trainees' are frontline fighters with elite pilots. (bug)
dot base weirdness with supply caps - dot bases have 1k supply cap until something is built, then the intended cap kicks in (minor bug)
base autoflip heavy industry deletion (bad) bug
complete industry destruction on base capture - due to engineer stacking crit mechanic bug
exploitation of reserve buttons to teleport pilots with no delay UI elements not behave consistently, one button insta-transfers a pilot with no loss of XP, the other has the 'normal' transfer delay & XP loss when transferring across 'types' UI bug, has major effect on pilot training
offmap allied training bonus - unless confirmed as intended
kamikaze multistrike (this one is really funny) - a kami has a chance for a hit for each bomb it carries, until it does hit. Kamis' are not meat to 'drop' the bombs, they are truly a one-shot weapon. late war bug
Bomb hit chance mechanics that calculate the hit chance of every one of the 16 bombs that a B-17 carries like it would not be the whole flight dumping all their ordinance & getting out of dodge! The request is to have a different hit chance & damage calculation for tactical bombing runs (e.g. trying to hit with each individual bombs) vs strategic raids where an entire raid unloads everything as soon as the flight leader does. (carpet bombing)

Just to point out that LST has some solutions for some of these in his Bottlenecks Mod:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8&t=309505

Stratosweeping:

⦁ The accuracy of the .50cal machine-guns on medium and heavy bombers has been halved (new device) The number of fighters, esp. night-fighters downed by bombers just does not feel right – those bombers are self-escorting as well as the best sweepers the Allies have! My theory for the accuracy change is that - since the number of weapons and fire pulses has not changed - there will be the same amount of “driven away by defensive fire” messages, but less kills than before. The front-facing machine-guns of designated attack bombers remain at original accuracy.

Bomb chance hit mechanics:

⦁ I’m experimenting with aircraft weapons filters and different bombloads per mission profile.
⦁ There is a perceived problem with “over-effective” results of tactical air strikes i.e. ground/airbase/port and naval strike missions, esp. at night and when strategic 4E bombers are being (mis)used for tactical missions. Level bomber accuracy seems to be too good when attacking “pinpoint” targets, which has led to house rules like “no 4E bombing under 10k feet” or “no night-bombing of airfields and ports”.
⦁ From what I have read, IRL level bombers often made just one target approach and dropped their entire bombload in a single bomb run in order to increase the chance of a hit in the target area and to limit the time spent in a “hot area”. Multiple bomb runs with the dropping of partial loads or single bombs were the exception (mostly “night harassing” missions)
⦁ That means there was a chance that the entire bombload missed the target, or only a part of the bombload landed in the target area.
⦁ IRL level-bombing was notoriously inaccurate, even with "magic devices" like the Norden bomb aiming device.
⦁ Studies have shown that just under 50% of US bombs dropped under perfect daylight practice conditions came within a quarter mile of the intended target. Under daylight operational conditions less than 10% came within that distance. At night it was even worse. The other Allied countries weren't any better.
⦁ An example of the difficulties of precision bombing was a raid in the summer of 1944 by 47 B-29's on Japan's Yawata Steel Works from bases in China. Only one plane actually hit the target area, and only with one of its bombs. This single 500 lb (230 kg) general purpose bomb represented one quarter of one percent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission.
⦁ In another example, it took 108 B-17 bombers, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 percent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 x 500 ft (150 m) German power-generation plant.
⦁ A RAF Bomber Command report on night bombing accuracy in 1941 showed that less than 33% of their bombs were hitting within five miles of their targets - at that time they were theoretically aiming for key military and industrial targets. This inaccuracy of night bombing was one of the factors that lead Bomber-Harris to adopt the "area bombing" and "dehousing" strategy. Even after the introduction of navigational aids like GEE in 1942, less than 30% of the bombers dropped their loads within the target area - defined as 3 miles (!) around the aiming point. After the introduction of OBOE in mid-43 accuracy increased to 50-60% and by the end of the war with H2S radar, pathfinders and much experience night bombing accuracy reached 90% of bombs dropped within 3 miles of the aiming point. I suck in math but a 3 mile radius should cover around 28 square miles. London Heathrow airport covers less than 5 square miles and the average WW2 airfield even less, so I would say an airfield is indeed a pinpoint target for WWII night bombing.
⦁ However, the game mechanics “aim" each bomb individually, as if there was one bomb run per bomb carried.
⦁ It has been said on the forum that the game mechanics account for the probability that the bomb load missed partially or entirely through an increased probability that if an individual bomb missed, the following bombs may miss as well – but it seems to me this does not work too well
⦁ My game experience shows that even a small number of bombers can cause considerable damage which seems to be out of proportion: time and again I see a handful of bombers raiding an airfield and destroying 2-4 times their numbers of planes on the ground, even at night and in low moonshine – when IRL they would have had trouble finding the enemy’s airfield in the first place.
⦁ For me the problem is that planes which carry multiple bombs - like the Wellington and the 4Es – get too many “dice rolls” to obtain a hit due to the “individual aiming” of each bomb. It is likely that each plane in a strike will obtain one or more hits – the probability that a plane misses with the entire bombload - seems to be rather low.
⦁ Therefore I introduced the concept of “bomb sticks” in my mod for bombers which carry more than 3 bombs. Instead of dropping individually aimed bombs, bombs are grouped into “sticks” of 2, 3 or 4 bombs, depending on total numbers carried and bomb weight. For example, a B-25 which carries a total of six 500lb bombs drops three sticks of two bombs each instead of six individual bombs. In theory the chances to obtain hits is 50% for a 2x-stick, 33% for a 3x-stick and 25% for a 4x-stick, compared to stock / DBB.
⦁ However, since dropping several bombs in one bomb run increases the chance to obtain a hit, and a “stick” may include a direct hit and damaging near-misses, the accuracy and effect values for “sticks” have been increased by 50% per 2 bombs (if 1 bomb = 100, 2x-stick = 150, 4x-stick = 225) – just in case these values are being used at all. It seems that “effect” has no impact on airfield attacks and only the number of bombs counts. In any case, these values are tentative and subject to testing.
⦁ Overall this means that on tactical missions like ground support, airbase, port and naval strikes, there should be less hits, but a hit may cause more damage.
⦁ Tactical bombers which usually carry four to six bombs (= two or three 2x-sticks) are being “punished” less than strategic bombers “misused” for tactical missions which carry between 8 to 12 bombs (= two or three 4x-sticks)
⦁ The “bomb sticks” do not apply to city strikes which are strategic bombing missions on area targets and where the individual bombs don’t seem to be an issue (in fact, manpower bombing seems to yield less results that seems to be right)
⦁ In application of the above, most aircraft have dedicated bomb loads for:
⦁ city attacks > strategic strike on area target with usual bomb load of individual bombs
⦁ naval/ground/air/port attacks > tactical strikes using bomb sticks
⦁ ASW attacks
⦁ Exception: Coastal Command “GR” ASW planes and USN / USMC PBJs and PB4Ys used on city attacks don’t use individual bombs but sticks (and a lighter bombload) in order to simulate that those planes were less capable in that role due to doctrine, pilot training and presence of specialized ASW equipment in the aircraft. This is to discourage the “misuse” of such specialized assets

[Dewey169]

My understanding that to enable WITPTracker to use 64-byte Java, it needs a 64 byte version of the pwsdll7.dll. Game needs the 32 byte version to read the save files but is there any chance of making an additional pwsdll7.dll that is 64-bit and including it in a sub folder in the final update? That shouldn’t cause an issue for the game and players could then copy to their tracker directory. Or make it available for download off the forum?

[jwilkerson]

Thanks for the visit Andrew !!!

[pbiggar]

Thanks for the new manual! It appears the Index page references are not correct.
My version of the manual ends at page 267. Most of the Index references pages 392-413.

Here is an excerpt from page 264 of the Index of the new manual dated 9/20/2022.

Automatic Target Selection for Air Units Lacking a Set Target, 395
Automatic Upgrade for Air Units, 395
Automatic Victory, 395
Auxiliary Minelayers, 395
Average Pilot Experience by Nationality, 395
Base Composition, 395
Base Construction and Repair, 395
Base Force Replacements, 395
Base Information Screen, 395
Base Ownership, 395
Base Symbols, 395
Base with Air Unit Present, 395
Base with Ground Unit Present, 395
Base with Naval Unit Present, 395
264

[Tanaka]

I'm noticing that none of my Nate fighters set to 100% train in China are getting any fatigue even though this patch is supposed to give training fatigue? While everything else seems to be getting the fatigue. I am wondering if setting to 100ft sweep training has anything to do with it?

[Yaab]

v1128b, scen001

Starting from this post
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3#p5200443
I documented a total of 37 hexes, where there is a discrepancy between displayed map terrain and data terrain.

[Yaab]

FINAL MANUAL, p.109

Aren't ASW TF limited to max 4 ships?

[Sardaukar]

Yes, ASW TF is max 4 ships.

I usually put full 25 ships in Air Combat TFs too, just for maximal survivability. AAA (flak) contribution declines with ships over 15, but 25 ships still have more AAA than 15.