Patch Progress Update...

[dgaad]

Originally posted by JohnK


Hmm.....remember what thread that was answered on?

And it's definately a problem...for one thing, everything else begins with their normal number of pilots.

The pilots gradually appear, (takes 3-4 turns for a full complement) but on one of the carriers it was 2 guys with 99 experience and everyone else at pure replacement level....very odd.

There really isn't anything odd about that. Its called a cadre.

[dgaad]

Erik & Matrix : All changes are goodness and light, except the MINE WARFARE OPERATIONS scheme, which will now be arbitrary and unrealistic. Wish you would go for a more flexible scheme.

[pad152]

Patch Info
16) Mine fields placed in deep water decay at the rate of 50% per day. These either sink, float away or the moorings brake.

Questions:

1. Will the player now get some data on how many mines are placed in a hex?

2. Will mine data be added to the unit database, there is currently no mine data?

3. Won't the all mines in a hex disapear before the player can return to Truk to reload them? If so won't this make mines useless?

4. Please tell me that you have removed the disband /recreate TF to reload mines?

5. Will the new mine warfare rules be an option in the patch?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

On the list for the next patch.

Bye...

Michael Wood

Originally posted by Sultanofsham
Erik did they fix the Wewak bug in single play where the japanese AI would base aircraft out of Wewak when you own it?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Sorry, I may have been too terse in my description of item #21.

In a PBEM game, you can glean no data concerning the enemy, that you did not know during your plotting phase. I rewrote the code entirely. All fixed. No more problem. You will be happy.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________

Originally posted by dpstafford
If #21 is all you did on the PBEM combat resolution / combat replay, then as feared, you never understood the problem...
Am I on crack? Somebody back me up here before it is too late!!

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Not on list, but in patch. Just finished it a few minutes ago. The pilots will be there, along with the group leaders from the data base.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________

Originally posted by JohnK
What about the problem where both Lexington and Yorktown begin Scenario #17 with NO Wildcat pilots? (Also seems to be true of American CVs at the beginning of other scenarios?

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Mike Wood
Hello...

Sorry, I may have been too terse in my description of item #21.

In a PBEM game, you can glean no data concerning the enemy, that you did not know during your plotting phase. I rewrote the code entirely. All fixed. No more problem. You will be happy.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________

Can't wait !!!!!

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

I am sad that you do not like the new mine rules. There was some active debate on the subject, which I followed. I ended up developing the new mine rules with the most informed person I could find in the field. He wrote a book on the topic for the US Navy, Lt. Commander Paul Vebber. Knows more about mines than me or Gary.

Try to Have Fun anyway and Sorry Again...

Michael Wood
________________________________________________

Originally posted by dgaad
Erik & Matrix : All changes are goodness and light, except the MINE WARFARE OPERATIONS scheme, which will now be arbitrary and unrealistic. Wish you would go for a more flexible scheme.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Last minute additions to patch:

1) Some air groups start with far too many pilots. Fixed.

2) Some air groups start with no pilots. Fixed.

3) Some air groups do not have the proper, or in some cases any, group leaders. Fixed.

4) Some air groups that are transferred do not take enough pilots to fly the planes with them. Fixed.

5) Pilots assigned to an air group in the data base are not always appearing. Fixed.

6) Group leaders assigned to an air group in the database are present on turn one, but have no plane and on turn two, they disappear and are replaced by some one who has a plane. Fixed.

Bye...

Michael Wood

[FirstPappy]

Patch Info
16) Mine fields placed in deep water decay at the rate of 50% per day. These either sink, float away or the moorings brake.

"brake" should be changed to "break"

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Mike Wood
Hello...

I am sad that you do not like the new mine rules. There was some active debate on the subject, which I followed. I ended up developing the new mine rules with the most informed person I could find in the field. He wrote a book on the topic for the US Navy, Lt. Commander Paul Vebber. Knows more about mines than me or Gary.

Try to Have Fun anyway and Sorry Again...

Michael Wood
________________________________________________

Mike, get serious. No one in either the USN or IJN who was in the war would have liked or agreed to a scheme which limited mine center ops to one fixed port for 18 months. Ask this knowledgeable person if they think this is a good idea. Counter propose to them a scheme which allows mine warfare centers to be moved according to a changing operational situation. See what they say then.

You and the staff may be making the oft-made mistake of associating the importance of minefields in your minds with the number of ships/subs sunk or damaged by them. This has very little to do with it. The importance of mine warfare ops is the amount of resources, personnel time, and other efforts, expended in laying, marking, sweeping, detecting and avoiding mines. That's the key to understanding this aspect of warfare.

I'll still have fun.

[David Heath]

The Author was the one who helped us make the Mine rule. From what we learned mines were very limited and not all over the place as many would think.

From the research we did and the information we got I do feel we got this correct. If more information comes to light we will of course look into it again.

David

[Erik Rutins]

Dgaad,

I know I've seen you dig up some pretty esoteric historical info, so if you're interested in seeing mobile depots, see if you can find out more info about them. At present, the info Paul has indicates that the current model is fine.

If you dig up some historical evidence to show that there was a depot at Rabaul or that it was moved from Truk to Rabaul in less than a week, for instance, that would certainly create a new design discussion.

Anyway, just speculating constructively...

Regards,

- Erik

[Sabre21]

Dgaad

Here is something that I believe you are over looking...play balance. This is a game...and to allow people to lay thousands of mines all over the place is absurd. Some fix must be put in place...on one extreme the coders could try and set up a logistics scheme that allows for "X" number of mines to be available at a particular depot until resupplied from higher up the food chain...but where does this stop...what about submarine torpedoes...these were in short supply at that time for the US...or what about 18.1 inch shells for the Yamato...I can go into any port...even ones I captured on the same turn...and providing fuel and supplies are there...I get fully stocked. But I understand that this is an abstract logistics system...to keep track of every bullet, gallon of fuel, and mine...would be far too complex. The other extreme would be to do away with mines...but that won't go over well either.

What you seem to be looking for is an historical duplication of mine warfare...this might not be possible due to people taking advantage of the system. Personally I don't like the single mine depot either...but being able to lay thousands of mines is out of control.

Maybe there are other options that may work better...like having a unique mine supply value...like we have already for supply and fuel....or as I thought I read earlier, restrict mine operations from ports of a certain size...say 6..or even 9...and then every mine costs a supply point..or 10 points...or a hundred...whatever the play balance turns out is a good number. This value could always change depending on the year of the war and what side you are playing. As the war progresses..allied mines get cheaper while Japanese become more expensive.

What we need to propose are acceptable solutions to both the players and the coders...if it's too complex...then the coders most likely don't have the time...if its too lax...then players complain.

I like the idea about restricting it to a certain port size and then costing an arm and a leg to load up on mines. Possibly even adding a cap to the number available each month thru supply channels. But of course this value will be some arbitrary number to provide game balance and couldn't possibly take into account actual production.

Andy

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
Dgaad,

I know I've seen you dig up some pretty esoteric historical info, so if you're interested in seeing mobile depots, see if you can find out more info about them. At present, the info Paul has indicates that the current model is fine.

If you dig up some historical evidence to show that there was a depot at Rabaul or that it was moved from Truk to Rabaul in less than a week, for instance, that would certainly create a new design discussion.

Anyway, just speculating constructively...

Regards,

- Erik

Right, I appreciate that Erik.

I'm actually not convinced that historical data is useful here. The fact that something was deployed and remained in place for 18 months is not good evidence that a rule should be coded to make it impossible to move. The Noumea mine warfare center didn't need to move, since for the duration of the 18 months it was near enough to the mid and lower Solomons to provide adequate support.

Did it move once the campaign moved to the Marianas and Leyte? I'll guess that it did. THATS the point. It moved because the locus of operations moved. It should be possible to move it in the game, too, because there is and should be no guarantee that the Japanese will always put up a heavy fight in the mid-lower Solomons. That's the hamstringing thing about this rule I don't like.

In addition, you've already got another poster with historical evidence of a second mine center in Australia.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Sabre21
Dgaad

Here is something that I believe you are over looking...play balance. This is a game...and to allow people to lay thousands of mines all over the place is absurd. Some fix must be put in place...on one extreme the coders could try and set up a logistics scheme that allows for "X" number of mines to be available at a particular depot until resupplied from higher up the food chain...but where does this stop...what about submarine torpedoes...snippage
Andy

Andy, please read my other posts in other threads on the subject. I've stated that mines are exploited now, and that needs to be changed. I'd like a system allowing for flexibility of a mine center, but with vastly increased supply costs to use mines. I'm not objecting to ANY OTHER of Matrix's changes regarding mines, just the hardcoded arbitrary mine centers of Truk and Noumea, which allow zero operational flexibility.

I like your ideas about variable cost changes also, Andy.

[dgaad]

I'm hoping you guys institute Operational Flexibility to Mine Warfare Operations Centers just to shut me up. Can you tell? Is it working?

[WW2'er]

Originally posted by dgaad



Did it move once the campaign moved to the Marianas and Leyte? I'll guess that it did. THATS the point.

Dgaad,

You're right, that is the point. You are "guessing" that it did. Matrix is asking you to do the research and show that it did. Then they might be willing to discuss changing it.

I think we all understand your views by now. I compliment you on your overall good attitude. I even admire you persistence a little. But how much farther will you take this discussion? At least for me you are reaching the end of the road on this point.

Let's all try the new version for a couple of weeks and see what we think. This will also give you time to research and make an historical case for a change. Then we can start a new post and discuss it anew if necessary. Waddya think?

[Jagger2002]

I think this question was overlooked in the mines discussion.

Did I misread or will we need to start new PBEM games if we want the new penetration database in effect?

Thanks,

[Erik Rutins]

Note that the changes to penetration are more far-reaching than just the database. Pretty much the entirety of the penetration / damage / location code was re-worked on for the patch.

With that said, the database component which reduces penetration on the smaller naval guns will only be available in games started with 1.10 or later. The save file itself includes its own database when it is created and there was no feasible way for us to backfit this new data into old saves.

There's no reason you _must_ restart your game though - all the other fixes and enhancements will be in effect and old passwords will update just fine. I would suggest starting a new game as well to get the full effect, but your v1.00 database games should be just as playable as before and even more enjoyable.

Regards,

- Erik