Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

[michaelm75au]

In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
In other word for the R&D counts, if any disabled devices for the factory then all devices for that factory are not counted.


Seems wrong to me.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??

I beleive this has always been a potential issue. I think the only reason it doesn't come up as a complaint is because by the time most games get to the point that the allies can intervene, R&D is the 'least' of the IJ problems.

OTOH, it should be possible to interupt R&D. Certainly, the allies tried to do this in europe. And of course, as the date for the ac comes close, repair happens pretty fast.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: michaelm
In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Yeah - the global numbers for R&D have always been like that (and wrong).

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices?

I agree.

And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
Seems wrong to me.

The factory has to be fully repaired for R&D to accumulate. If it were any other way then points would accumulate too quickly. But given that if the factory reached full production and then was bombed, I'd agree that if a way could be found to simulate part production that would be great... but that might cause other problems in the code re: upgrades, changes etc.

[edit] And as Pax says ... by the time the allies can get close enough ... well it doesn't matter too much.

[michaelm75au]

Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

[edit]
in the save I am looking at the R&D total shows as 1257. Once I add the check I mentioned, it then shows 690.
Which what it is if I go thru the R&D locations and count up the actual non-damaged factories.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

That would be good.

While I'm here -
Any thoughts to making realistic R&D more realistic ?

At present, if I'm not mistaken once a R&D factory is fully repaired you can move along the upgrade path with no cost. This is fine for normal R&D but it still makes realistic R&D a tad easy. I propose that with realistic R&D the free upgrade along the path is either done away with or the factories are halved or reduced by 2/3 to give the impression of an associated economic cost.

Anyway - that's probably a big change so more input might be needed.

Another rambling pipe-dream thought -

How about opening the editor up more to the costs associated with the multipliers for engines, planes, Arm, & Veh? And let the existing multipliers allow fractions ...

You know if you keep making changes, people are just going to ask for more and more ... [;)]

Thanks mate and have a good evening. We all appreciate what you do.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

That would be good.

While I'm here -
Any thoughts to making realistic R&D more realistic ?

At present, if I'm not mistaken once a R&D factory is fully repaired you can move along the upgrade path with no cost. This is fine for normal R&D but it still makes realistic R&D a tad easy. I propose that with realistic R&D the free upgrade along the path is either done away with or the factories are halved or reduced by 2/3 to give the impression of an associated economic cost.

Anyway - that's probably a big change so more input might be needed.

Another rambling pipe-dream thought -

How about opening the editor up more to the costs associated with the multipliers for engines, planes, Arm, & Veh? And let the existing multipliers allow fractions ...

You know if you keep making changes, people are just going to ask for more and more ... [;)]

Thanks mate and have a good evening. We all appreciate what you do.

Well a player changing a/c factory costs 1/3 of the devices.
Can you give me an example of the R&D scenario with an upgrade? Don't often play Japan in deep testing, so bit hazy on what you mean.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

That would be good.

While I'm here -
Any thoughts to making realistic R&D more realistic ?

At present, if I'm not mistaken once a R&D factory is fully repaired you can move along the upgrade path with no cost. This is fine for normal R&D but it still makes realistic R&D a tad easy. I propose that with realistic R&D the free upgrade along the path is either done away with or the factories are halved or reduced by 2/3 to give the impression of an associated economic cost.

Anyway - that's probably a big change so more input might be needed.

Another rambling pipe-dream thought -

How about opening the editor up more to the costs associated with the multipliers for engines, planes, Arm, & Veh? And let the existing multipliers allow fractions ...

You know if you keep making changes, people are just going to ask for more and more ... [;)]

Thanks mate and have a good evening. We all appreciate what you do.

Well a player changing a/c factory costs 1/3 of the devices.
Can you give me an example of the R&D scenario with an upgrade? Don't often play Japan in deep testing, so bit hazy on what you mean.

realistic r&d ... once the factory is repaired you can change it all the way along the upgrade path to the end plane. In my example I show 3 iterations from the M3a to the 5b but I could have gone to the M8 with no cost associated. I don't want to cause probs - I just think for realistic r&d it should be governed by slightly more rules and disadvantages than what is currently in place. Actually, I'd go further and say non-realistic should have some costs associated with changing too ... but that might be a bitter pill for some players.

[rader]

Did something change with regards to detection levels and spotting?

It seems that now when I move the KB (or any AV/unit launching planes), the detection level is showing up as very high (up to 10/10!). I hope he's not following the KB around the map , seeing exactly where it is just because it's conducting routine search ops. Didn't happen before...

[rader]

ORIGINAL: rader

Did something change with regards to detection levels and spotting?

It seems that now when I move the KB (or any AV/unit launching planes), the detection level is showing up as very high (up to 10/10!). I hope he's not following the KB around the map , seeing exactly where it is just because it's conducting routine search ops. Didn't happen before...

In fact, I just checked and everything that launched a plane shows up as having a non-zero detection number. E.g., a sub lanching a glen shows up as 4/4 way behind the lines at my base.

[trhinz]

I tried to report on a similar observation yesterday.

There appears to be a problem with fog-of-war arising out of the latest beta changes. On Friday michaelm posted a fix dealing with the problem of the map centering on the wrong locations when false sighting reports occurred. I installed it. The next turn in my game as Japan with zuluhour after that I was surprised to see an actual sighting of a significant Allied TF near Rangoon as well as a cluster of TFs around Trincomalee. I thought this might be due to a sighting by my subs, but it didn't feel right.

On Sunday I installed the new 1108q3. On the next turn the issue continued and was compounded by a sighting of a CV TF near San Diego where I have no subs!

Also Sunday I started a new PBEM game as Japan with SgtSwanson using 1108q3. After the combat I can see 2 large task forces west of Hawaii. One is due north of Johnston Island (10 ships DDDDDDD). The other is SSW of Midway (9 ships DDDD). I'm pretty sure these are the US carrier TFs, which I've never had show up before.

[m10bob]

Hello michaelm..Would it be possible/feasable to make 2 forms of auto convoy:Sea-going and coastal..?

The latter would be entirely historical and could allow smaller craft like LST's to engage in those duties, as IRL..

I like chrome as much as the next guy..

[zuluhour]

Wow the sightings are dead on. Saratoga is in San Diego and Force Z off Rangoon.
Oh yeah, Those are ASW TFs back from shakedown cruises.[;)]

[trhinz]

I re-installed 1108q2 and then opened Zuluhour's latest turn, generating the combat replay. The clairvoyant sighting issue is gone. Re-opening turn 2 of my game with SgtSwanson shows the problem still exists. I think that is because the combat replay was generated under q3 and is not affected by the rollback to q3.

[apbarog]

I am using 1108Q1. I am also seeing the map jump during the replay to areas of the map that are well behind the lines, where I have no units to spot anything. I have not seen enemy units spotted in this way during my turn, but I haven't specifically looked for them way behind the lines either. I will keep an eye out in future turns. I have had my suspicions about detection level issues. I've reconned several bases and gotten no detection level at all to show.

If I find erroneously spotted units in a future turn, I will post a save.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
In other word for the R&D counts, if any disabled devices for the factory then all devices for that factory are not counted.


Seems wrong to me.

Maybe (although I agree with PaxMondo, that if Allies are bombing Home Islands, Japan has bigger problems), but getting Shindens in mid-1944 is far wronger, and that's what will eventually happen if non-fully-repaired facilities are allowed to produce research. Instead of only moderate investment in late-war planes, due to limitations of the current system, assigning 10 size 30 facilities to J7M and Ki-94-II will become the way to go. In the mod game file from which I posted I can now expect A7M to be available in the beginning of 1944. I foresee houserules of "no accelerating planes by more than X months" becoming standard if this change persists, but date-tracking associating with them is a needless hassle.

Also, I think that changes with such massive impact on ongoing campaign games shouldn't be introduced without a really good reason. Please, return things to the old status quo.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
In other word for the R&D counts, if any disabled devices for the factory then all devices for that factory are not counted.


Seems wrong to me.

Maybe (although I agree with PaxMondo, that if Allies are bombing Home Islands, Japan has bigger problems), but getting Shindens in mid-1944 is far wronger, and that's what will eventually happen if non-fully-repaired facilities are allowed to produce research. Instead of only moderate investment in late-war planes, due to limitations of the current system, assigning 10 size 30 facilities to J7M and Ki-94-II will become the way to go. In the mod game file from which I posted I can now expect A7M to be available in the beginning of 1944. I foresee houserules of "no accelerating planes by more than X months" becoming standard if this change persists, but date-tracking associating with them is a needless hassle.

Also, I think that changes with such massive impact on ongoing campaign games shouldn't be introduced without a really good reason. Please, return things to the old status quo.

You missed this post - Michael made a rare mistake and things are going back to normal. My thoughts were just something that I feel needs addressing in the future.

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Your right. Went back and more closely compared the code from p6 and now.

The line checking for disabled devices being zero is commented out. I might have inadvertently done that when playing around with R&D for the following items from p8.

Tweaked Allow R&D factory change before starting production if R&D option ON [MEM]
Tweaked Production can be turned off but R&D will still happen [MEM]

I'll put it back in.
Sorry for the error.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: rader

Did something change with regards to detection levels and spotting?

It seems that now when I move the KB (or any AV/unit launching planes), the detection level is showing up as very high (up to 10/10!). I hope he's not following the KB around the map , seeing exactly where it is just because it's conducting routine search ops. Didn't happen before...

I moved some code in one section dealing with patrols (asw/search/cap) as it was using endurance on ships even if no planes ended up flying. The code now executes only if planes end up getting launched in the same manner as how strike missions are done.
However, strike missions can increase the DL of the the launching TF and this was carried over to the code I had moved to the patrol.

Everytime TF launched a CAP (patrol) it was inflating the DL.
I have removed the DL piece.

[michaelm75au]

Fixed Restored fully repaired factory needed before R&D starts [MEM]
Fixed Removed incorrect DL addition for TF air patrols [MEM]
Changed Updated RD totals to reflect actual R&D available for a/c and engines [MEM]

Updated installer

[seille]

I do not know why, but after i installed the latest Beta on Sunday in my PBEM as jap player i get some info i should not get.
I can "see" some taskforces that i did not spot. For one of them i have no own recon or nav search planes near enough.
And i get VERY detailled intel here. I´m sure this is a bug since i have no detection level on that hex.

Turn attached. Details come with PM.

edit: After reading the last 20 entries here i think it is the bug that was posted by rader. But would like to get a confirmation.
The reworked patch will remove this ?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Fixed Restored fully repaired factory needed before R&D starts [MEM]
Fixed Removed incorrect DL addition for TF air patrols [MEM]
Changed Updated RD totals to reflect actual R&D available for a/c and engines [MEM]

Updated installer

Great Support Michael!!

[&o][&o][&o]