Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
RUPD3658
Posts: 6921
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:25 am
Location: East Brunswick, NJ

Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by RUPD3658 »

The following stragne things happened last turn in my PBEM with KDonovan:

1. B-24s, LB-30s, and PB4Ys flew strike missions from Tarawa to Kwaj (12 hexes). This would not be a problem except that Tarawa is only a 4 AF and the planes should only be flying to their normal range (10-11 hexes). He had an F-5A fly right before so maybe this messed up the range calculations for the other AC at the base.

2. About 4 months ago my best Zero pilot, WO Handa with 17 kills, was wounded. Since his squadron was mauled it was withdrawn a few days later. He returned before his sqaudron and went to another Zero squadron. This was under 1.08.02. I looked for him today and found that he and a 12 kill and 2 5 kill Zero pilots are now flying Bettys in a sqaudron that just arrvied today.

Kenny has lost 2 Maraine para units to the air transport bug recently so neither of these are game killers.

I still love this game so I hope that the causes of these oddities can be located and corrected in the next patch. In the mean time I will treat these as FOW.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke
[img]https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfi ... EDB99F.jpg[/img]
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by tocaff »

Nothing like a fix for one thing that flubs another........................
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by Halsey »

1. 4e bombers flying from smaller than normal airfields "do not have their range decreased". Only the bombload is considered. This has been like this from the start.

2. So the pilot became a replacement.
I don't see this as a bug, or gamebreaker.
He's still alive isn't he?

3. The airtransport LCU loss has been around for awhile.
If you stop transporting them after 50+% have been moved the fragment will become the parent unit.
You can then restart the transfer.
Again, another easy fix that's been doable from the begining.
User avatar
niceguy2005
Posts: 12522
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Super secret hidden base

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by niceguy2005 »

I thought that the air transport bug had been fixed! [&:]

I have had no recent transport bug problems from either fast transport or air transport. Are others still having problems?
Image
Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by Halsey »

Actually, I haven't seen it in awhile myself.[;)]

Though I still use the above formula anyway.
Just in case.[:D]
User avatar
Honda
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 5:15 pm
Location: Karlovac, Croatia

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by Honda »

Eye for an eye, bug for a bug[:D]
User avatar
KDonovan
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:52 am
Location: New Jersey

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by KDonovan »

4e bombers flying from smaller than normal airfields "do not have their range decreased". Only the bombload is considered. This has been like this from the start.


i was under the impression that 4E bombers can't fly extended range missions from level 4 airfields. And if they do fly normal range missions, then their bomb loads are decreased. Am i wrong in this assumption?
Image
Sonny
Posts: 2005
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 9:51 pm

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by Sonny »

ORIGINAL: KDonovan
4e bombers flying from smaller than normal airfields "do not have their range decreased". Only the bombload is considered. This has been like this from the start.


i was under the impression that 4E bombers can't fly extended range missions from level 4 airfields. And if they do fly normal range missions, then their bomb loads are decreased. Am i wrong in this assumption?

That is what I thought too.[&:]
Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
User avatar
KDonovan
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:52 am
Location: New Jersey

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by KDonovan »

according to the manual, my B24's with extended range of 14 and normal range of 10, shouldn't have been able to attack Kwalajien (12 hexes away) from Tarawa (level 4 AF)

Image
ckk
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Pensacola Beach FL

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by ckk »

You are stating what the Manual says in 7.2.2.8 and 4E bombers require level 5 fields to fly extended range missions.
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by Grotius »

I also thought the air transport bug had been fixed. The 1.802 patch notes mention something about it:
Item 45 - Disappearing unit during air pick up.

Pick up of unit by air transport incorrectly transposing parameters and possibly causing disappearance of unit being picked up. Corrected parameters and added more bulletproofing

Although whenever a dev talks about "bulletproofing," I get nervous. :P
Image
User avatar
RUPD3658
Posts: 6921
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:25 am
Location: East Brunswick, NJ

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by RUPD3658 »

ORIGINAL: Halsey

1. 4e bombers flying from smaller than normal airfields "do not have their range decreased". Only the bombload is considered. This has been like this from the start.


7.2.2.8 page 128 in the stock manual:

Level bombers flying out of a small airfield cannot fly at extended range, and will be treated as if they are flying at extended range when bmbing targets at normal range

We are playing stock scn 15 ver 1.08.04
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke
[img]https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfi ... EDB99F.jpg[/img]
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by Halsey »

Another inaccuracy in the manual.[:(]

There are a lot of them.[;)]
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by rtrapasso »

There was a lot about this particular business a while back... something about whether a certain island base could be bombed by the Allies (before B-29s). While the rulebook stated that it couldn't be bombed (because the only way to reach it was flying 4E bombers from a size 4 airfield at extended range) - someone finally tried it and did it, proving the rulebook incorrect.

So - Halsey is right (once again)... [&o] [&o]


EDIT: This was WAY before 1.80.04 - maybe version 1.21 or so...
User avatar
tabpub
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:32 am
Location: The Greater Chicagoland Area

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by tabpub »

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

There was a lot about this particular business a while back... something about whether a certain island base could be bombed by the Allies (before B-29s). While the rulebook stated that it couldn't be bombed (because the only way to reach it was flying 4E bombers from a size 4 airfield at extended range) - someone finally tried it and did it, proving the rulebook incorrect.

So - Halsey is right (once again)... [&o] [&o]


EDIT: This was WAY before 1.80.04 - maybe version 1.21 or so...

I recollect it as the game with 2 Italians playing it. One, not knowing that he "couldn't" do it, built up Thursday Island to 4, filled it with B17's and caught the Rabaul air groups of the other sitting on their keesters. I think the IJ player was Hoeppner, as I recall; and he was frothing for a bit afterward.[:@]
Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: Possible bugs with 1.08.04

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: tabpub

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

There was a lot about this particular business a while back... something about whether a certain island base could be bombed by the Allies (before B-29s). While the rulebook stated that it couldn't be bombed (because the only way to reach it was flying 4E bombers from a size 4 airfield at extended range) - someone finally tried it and did it, proving the rulebook incorrect.

So - Halsey is right (once again)... [&o] [&o]


EDIT: This was WAY before 1.80.04 - maybe version 1.21 or so...

I recollect it as the game with 2 Italians playing it. One, not knowing that he "couldn't" do it, built up Thursday Island to 4, filled it with B17's and caught the Rabaul air groups of the other sitting on their keesters. I think the IJ player was Hoeppner, as I recall; and he was frothing for a bit afterward.[:@]

Possibly, although i recall it was folks asking questions about the possibility in the main forum or War Room... although the question could have been resolved in this incident... [:D]
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”