Database upgrade TOE vs devices/scen 2

[viberpol]

Michael,

I noticed some difference between TOE and device upgrade.
Many Japanese AA units upgrade their 75 mm AA flak into 88 mm flak.
But if you take a look at the sprintscreen placed below, there are some direpancies.
TOE says it should upgrade the device (730 --> 1486), but under the devices itself the 88 mm gun has no production date (0/0) and the device 730 says it upgrades to... no upgrade.

I think I've seem some other cases of such a difference but now only this AA comes to mind.
Which info (TEO or devices) is correct?

[viberpol]

I mean I think I understand the difference between the TOE upgrade and (every) device upgrade.
I think it means that not every 75 mm is to be upgraded into 88 mm but then still, if the 88 mm has no production date, in 145 days there'll be still none in the pool?

[michaelm75au]

But don't Japanese devices get built as required???

Anyway, a TOE upgrade will dump the old devices back into the pool, and build/pull from pool the new device for the upgrade.

A device will follow the device upgrade separately to the TOE upgrade. So a device could go thru several device specified upgrades, before a TOE one kicks in.

[Numdydar]

Armment production just produces points. These points are then used to automatically produce devices that the various units need. Unlike plane production, where you can see when new planes will start being produced, devices only start producing when a ship/LCU/etc needs it. So when the time comes and a LUC needs a new device, armment points will be allocated to start producing it. So the LCU will need an 88mm AA in 145 days, they will start being produced in 145 days, regardless of the availability date.

If after a week or so after the point when the LCU needs them, your pool is still zero, then we have an issue [:(]

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

But don't Japanese devices get built as required???
Anyway, a TOE upgrade will dump the old devices back into the pool, and build/pull from pool the new device for the upgrade.
A device will follow the device upgrade separately to the TOE upgrade. So a device could go thru several device specified upgrades, before a TOE one kicks in.

Ok, but those 88mm guns are not currently produced. Maybe because of the error in the database.

Let's follow the 22nd Air Defence Regiment from the example above.
Current equipment: 75 mm
Current TOE line is now: 88 mm (those guns are (should be?) available, but pool says = 0 produced)
Next TOE available: 12 cm

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
So the LCU will need an 88mm AA in 145 days, they will start being produced in 145 days, regardless of the availability date.

That's my point. They're not be needed in 145 days, they're needed now.
In 145 days LCUs will upgrade with 12 cm guns.

Conclusion: they're required because they're in many current TOEs, they're not being built (probably because of wrong start production date of 0/0).

[michaelm75au]

My scen #2 shows the 88mm available date is 41/12, but a date of 00/00 is also treated as 'available now'.

[viberpol]

Well, my scen says 0/0. Please take a look at the save.
It's possibly because that's a 3 years old PBEM and the error has been corrected.

ORIGINAL: michaelm
My scen #2 shows the 88mm available date is 41/12, but a date of 00/00 is also treated as 'available now'.

I am not sure, but it seems it's not produced.
See the 21st Air Defence Regiment or 7th ADR at Nagasaki or Sendai -- those are sitting there with full supply and none has changed it's TOE to get 88 mm for 3 years now... [:D]

This save can be of interest for you as well because of "aircraft upgrade" issue.
Japanese 938 Ku T-2/A received... Avengers III [:D]

[viberpol]

Another issue of this kind is the sound detector upgrade (device number 1467).
There is 5 (sic!) devices called as "sound detector".

Some of them are described in the database as ugrading into some kind of radar (Ta-Chi or Type 3 radar). Unfortunately the device no. 1467 has no upgrade defined.

This issue is kind of serious because it affects many standard base forces (see 95 detectors active even in '44). [:(]

Is it an error in the database or WAD?
If error, is there any chance you can edit the save posted?

[michaelm75au]

This is not a code bug.
Could be a mistake in the data, though.

If so, it is out of my hands.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

This is not a code bug.
Could be a mistake in the data, though.

If so, it is out of my hands.

Maybe I am getting paranoid, but there are many more such problems with data in long played older scenarios (vide my light tank upgrade path I posted).

As I understand your (or latest) official scenario differs from my save, right?

My memory is kind of foggy, but I believe there were database changes introduced in some previous patch(es).
So, is there really no way the database changes apply to the long played PBEM?

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: viberpol


Well, my scen says 0/0. Please take a look at the save.
It's possibly because that's a 3 years old PBEM and the error has been corrected.

ORIGINAL: michaelm
My scen #2 shows the 88mm available date is 41/12, but a date of 00/00 is also treated as 'available now'.

I am not sure, but it seems it's not produced.
See the 21st Air Defence Regiment or 7th ADR at Nagasaki or Sendai -- those are sitting there with full supply and none has changed it's TOE to get 88 mm for 3 years now... [:D]

I have split a IF statement during the TOE device checking process to (a) determine that there is a change in the TOE device, AND then (b) determine how many new devices are needed.

The combined test could have failed if you already had the correct NUMBER of devices for the TOE (as in your case, it knew that it changed but it failed as the number needed was already the number of devices (but it was for the old, not the new)).

Now it will determine if it needs to change to the TOE device. And then decide on how many are needed to replace the old devices. And it will thus build them as needed.

Fixed in Q7

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: michaelm

This is not a code bug.
Could be a mistake in the data, though.

If so, it is out of my hands.

Maybe I am getting paranoid, but there are many more such problems with data in long played older scenarios (vide my light tank upgrade path I posted).

As I understand your (or latest) official scenario differs from my save, right?

My memory is kind of foggy, but I believe there were database changes introduced in some previous patch(es).
So, is there really no way the database changes apply to the long played PBEM?

The game does have the ability to take device changes from the editor and put them into the current save.
However, someone needs to update the editor files and have them stamped as official. And then get them into production.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I have split a IF statement during the TOE device checking process to (a) determine that there is a change in the TOE device, AND then (b) determine how many new devices are needed.

The combined test could have failed if you already had the correct NUMBER of devices for the TOE (as in your case, it knew that it changed but it failed as the number needed was already the number of devices (but it was for the old, not the new)).

Now it will determine if it needs to change to the TOE device. And then decide on how many are needed to replace the old devices. And it will thus build them as needed.

Fixed in Q7

[&o] OK. Great! I'll see if it works during next turns. [&o]

ORIGINAL: michaelm
The game does have the ability to take device changes from the editor and put them into the current save.
However, someone needs to update the editor files and have them stamped as official. And then get them into production.

OK. Got it.
Whom should we contact as fas as the database changes are concerned?
I'd really hear he officialcomment on it,
as this sound detector upgrade seems (to me) like a simple error/omission & I see this is still present in current scenarios.
The same with Type 95 light tank and a typo in Type 2 light tank.
Imho Type 95 should upgrade into Type 98.
If not, maybe a new Type 4 Ke-Nu should be introduced?

[Numdydar]

As far as I know there are no plans for any future database changes given the outcry on the one made in the last official patch which fixed the sub split tube issue. There have been other remaining DB issues, Japanese Escorts as an example (some models being too powerful) that have been commented in other threads. It has been stated that these will never be fixed due to requiring changes to the DB.

The issue with any DB changes, is that to get them into an ongoing game, the game would need to be restarted in order to do this. Once a game begins (again based on my limited understanding) there is a new DB that is created that tracks all the changes to the items in the game, ships sunk, etc. which cannot be altered in any way. When the game begins, the original DB (with any new changes, like yours) is copied and the original is no longer used, until the next game that is started from the beginning.

So the only option would be for you to go into the original copy that you have and edit the items that you think are incorrect using the editor that comes with the game and then start a new game using those mods. That is the only way that you will be able to get the changes you want included. Of course, if playing a PBEM game, the Japanese player would need to either make the changes or have you email them a copy of your modified DB in order for them to be included.

Hope this helps.

[PaxMondo]

What numdydar stated above is true for official scenarios.  UD scenarios can have db updates ocurr during a game.  I don't think we players can make changes to the official scenarios ...

[Andy Mac]

[font=calibri]The 88mm issue is not applicable to every game as the device was added after the data patch and our game started before that so it is fixed in post patch 3 games bt there were always some weird issues with upgrading save games in mid game.[/font]

[font=calibri]It is not a direct upgrade for the 75mm gun as only selected AA regiments get them so it is not a device that goes into most units - there are only about a dozen Japanese Regts and Bns due to get them that is a deliberate OOB decision made by the Japanese ORBAT guys - this device was also added in patch 3 to correct an omission.[/font]

[font=calibri]Kereguelen is the real expert.[/font]

[font=calibri]The Radar is an error you would need to check how many of your aviation Bns are still using sound detectors it may be possible to fix that one via a database update in game if you want to try but as the team has disbanded it wont be official.[/font]

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
As far as I know there are no plans for any future database changes given the outcry on the one made in the last official patch which fixed the sub split tube issue.

Outcry? I thought all Allied players were happy for the fix? [:)]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
There have been other remaining DB issues, Japanese Escorts as an example (some models being too powerful) that have been commented in other threads. It has been stated that these will never be fixed due to requiring changes to the DB.

Japanese ENos have data right. Any change would be a tweak not a fix.

In those cases mentioned here (no upgrade for one type of sound detector, type 95 light tank lack of upgrade, type 2 wrong antisoft value) we have clear errors in a database.
Changes can be and have been introduced even in ongoing games (as Michael noted).
What we need is an official stamp from somebody who's responsible for that field.
The game is still being sold, so there must be somebody... [;)]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
[font=calibri]The Radar is an error you would need to check how many of your aviation Bns are still using sound detectors it may be possible to fix that one via a database update in game if you want to try but as the team has disbanded it wont be official.[/font]

As the march '44 it's 95 units using the detector instead of radar.
I'd say it's a lot... [:(] and some more still in reinforcement queue.

[Andy Mac]

Type 95 is the same data as orig stock WITP ie the soft attack issue has been there for 10 years...
 
 

[Andy Mac]

OK been investigating the Tuype 95 not upgrading looks deliberate OOB decison as almost no Type 98's or type 2's were actually built and if the upgrade path was left in all tanks would upgrade on day 1 of the game as there is no way to stop the Industry expending all the Japanese Vehicle points for the upgrade.
 
So this is NOT an error but looks deliberate only K can confirm.
 
p.s. You dont need to agree witht he logic but having looked into it I am convinced its deliberate
 
The typo on the Type 2 may or may not be correct again K would need to confirm.
 
Only the SD issue is IMO a bug

[Andy Mac]

ps about 134 tanks of the type 2 and 98 were produced total and the type 95 was the standard tank used across the war so I am more convinced than ever its deliberate with only a few selected TOE's set to uise the 98/2 to avoid it suckign int eh entire japanese Vehicle pool for an ahistoric upgrade