Problem

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:34 am

Hi Michealm,

i have a huge problem in my Pbem with Rader.
We're playing using the fixed exe beta you provided that fixed the CAP routines...

I've just landed in Japan and all my LCU leaders vanished substituted by garbage leaders...
I've seen this problem has been solved (cause at the moment i cannot even find in the pools enough good leaders to replace them -even if i had the necessary PPs...).....so my question is.... what should we do? Re-do the turn with the new patch... but than we will anyway have the old "not fixed" CAp routine...

I'm in a bad situation cause i can't simply move over and live with it...with those awful leaders i cannot hope to break japanese perimeter or hold the beachhead and i don't have enough decent substitutes in the pools and not even enough PPs to change them all....

Do you see a way out in this mess?

Thanks in advance and, as always, YOU'RE THE BEST! [:)]

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:48 pm

Rader refers he's having the very same problem...since my massive landing all his LCU leaders disappeared and got substituted by very very poor ones....
 
Just for an example...my 2nd USMC Div now is led by a Lt. with land skill of 32[X(][X(]

rader · Post by **rader** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:28 pm

Actually, mine disapeared when I broke down the divisions and recombined a few days later (they didn't disapear, they just got reassigned...)

Nice "Big in Japan" sign, Greyjoy [:)]

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:05 am

I double checked. My leaders were all in place with the parent sub/unit (so aboard the ships) the turn right before the landings... so the problem is related with the landing+recombine procedure.
We should try to re-give orders of the last turn and re-make it with the newest patch (but still we so don't have anymore the excellent exe file that tune the CAP...which worked wonders)...and see what happens
 
Micheal would it be possible to have the newest pacth updated with the CAP-tuning modifications?

michaelm75au · Post by **michaelm75au** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:37 am

Latest changes with the extra combat rounds

That includes
Added Mouse-over on keep/upgrade factory will show the next air/device and when it it is due [MEM]
Fixed CS Convoy would not necessarily return to the correct destination when waypoints used [MEM]
(Tweak Factory upgrade timing [MEM] pwclock.cpp)
Fixed For CS, not being docked at homebase causes confusion for return trip [MEM]
Fixed LCU leader being lost on landing fragment swap [MEM]
Fixed Multiple sub-units being in same TF being merged [MEM]
Fixed Ship building at captured enemy base could be cancelled incorrectly [MEM]
Fixed Invasion auto-bombardment exhausting supply. Auto based on available supply [MEM]

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:49 am

Thx michealm!

But that version of the beta doesn't include the tuning you've made to the CAP routine, right? That was a very important change for our game...do you think it would be possible to have that CAP routine changement merged in the latest beta that fixes the LCU leader problem? Or it's too time consuming for u?

And, anyway, which is the correct procedure now for us? Re-enter with this newest beta the orders for tha turn that preceeded the landings ?

Thanks a lot

Gj

michaelm75au · Post by **michaelm75au** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:56 am

The one I posted above is the current beat WITH the addition of the extra rounds.
version is r7c

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:01 am

Y:O:U: A:R:E: A S:A:I:N:T!!!!
 
[&o]
 
Thank you so much Micheal!!!!!!

CT Grognard · Post by **CT Grognard** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:03 am

I see the attachment has been downloaded only once so far.

I wonder who by? [:D][:D][:D]

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:09 am

Hope rader did [:)]
 
 

rader · Post by **rader** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:31 am

Not me yet... Will do at lunch time here [:)]

rader · Post by **rader** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:40 am

Oh Michael, it also seems like while many small xAK, xAPs, and landing craft got shot at by shore guns, none of the APAs, or APs seems to have been shot at at all. Is this intentional that some of the invasion craft are able to land without being subject to being shot at? (Most didn't even appear in the combat report, although this could be an overrun thing because there were probably ~100 or so ships in each invading TF).

EDIT: It also looks as though pretty much the only devices lost in the landings were vehicles off these units (and I'd bet largely motorized support). All the infantry squads (presumably on the APAs) seem to have gotten in without being shot at (judging from the strength of the infantry divisions reported by the bombardment combat).

EDIT2: Actually, this was true in both runs we made under 2 different patches. It is still just barely possible that the proportion of APA type ships in the invading TFs was low enough that some kind of random selection of targets failed to find any... but I think this is unlikely. I suspect that for whatever reason (intentional or not), many of these types of ships were immune from fire (either because some kind of maximum ship data overrun, or just because these are designed in the code to be intrinsically less vulnerable).

(It's fine if it is intentional, it just seems a bit strange so I was curious...)

Theages · Post by **Theages** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:46 pm

Is the above version a different development path or can the 'CAP enhancement' be expected to make it into the next version posted in the regular BETA thread?
From the version number 7c I would guess it will be in the next official beta.

rader · Post by **rader** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:10 pm

Also, the .exe file does not have the usual "MP" in the file name. Just wanted to make sure this version has the 70k pilot array.

Thanks [8D]

rader · Post by **rader** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:13 pm

Actually, just tried it and it says "saved game failed to load". I wonder if this could be the differing pilot array sizes? Not sure why else it would be unable to load.

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:26 pm

ORIGINAL: rader

Oh Michael, it also seems like while many small xAK, xAPs, and landing craft got shot at by shore guns, none of the APAs, or APs seems to have been shot at at all. Is this intentional that some of the invasion craft are able to land without being subject to being shot at? (Most didn't even appear in the combat report, although this could be an overrun thing because there were probably ~100 or so ships in each invading TF).

EDIT: It also looks as though pretty much the only devices lost in the landings were vehicles off these units (and I'd bet largely motorized support). All the infantry squads (presumably on the APAs) seem to have gotten in without being shot at (judging from the strength of the infantry divisions reported by the bombardment combat).

EDIT2: Actually, this was true in both runs we made under 2 different patches. It is still just barely possible that the proportion of APA type ships in the invading TFs was low enough that some kind of random selection of targets failed to find any... but I think this is unlikely. I suspect that for whatever reason (intentional or not), many of these types of ships were immune from fire (either because some kind of maximum ship data overrun, or just because these are designed in the code to be intrinsically less vulnerable).

(It's fine if it is intentional, it just seems a bit strange so I was curious...)

Afaik the thing is that APA and AKA do have the 5OP guns that give them the ability to defend themselfs.
I had used nearly 700 landing ships of all types. Only 46 of them were APAs and all of them were grouped in The most supported TFs (those with BBs, CAs, DDs etc). The vast majority of the75 sunk ships were xAKs and LSTs grouped in TFs with poor gun support.
Same goes for the LSDs...none of them got hit...and they are all well armed....i think that's the key factor.

Anyway, i'm curious to know too....

Yes the MP version might be the problem imho....

Buck Beach · Post by **Buck Beach** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:56 pm

I did in the middle of the night here in Los Angeles (couldn't sleep). Haven't applied it yet though.

Buck

Buck Beach · Post by **Buck Beach** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:32 pm

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The one I posted above is the current beat WITH the addition of the extra rounds.
version is r7c

Will there be a MP version?

rader · Post by **rader** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:42 pm

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Afaik the thing is that APA and AKA do have the 5OP guns that give them the ability to defend themselfs.
I had used nearly 700 landing ships of all types. Only 46 of them were APAs and all of them were grouped in The most supported TFs (those with BBs, CAs, DDs etc). The vast majority of the75 sunk ships were xAKs and LSTs grouped in TFs with poor gun support.
Same goes for the LSDs...none of them got hit...and they are all well armed....i think that's the key factor.

Ah, it could be that. Wow, 700 transports [X(] Only about 100 showed up in the reports...

GreyJoy · Post by **GreyJoy** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:49 pm

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Afaik the thing is that APA and AKA do have the 5OP guns that give them the ability to defend themselfs.
I had used nearly 700 landing ships of all types. Only 46 of them were APAs and all of them were grouped in The most supported TFs (those with BBs, CAs, DDs etc). The vast majority of the75 sunk ships were xAKs and LSTs grouped in TFs with poor gun support.
Same goes for the LSDs...none of them got hit...and they are all well armed....i think that's the key factor.

Ah, it could be that. Wow, 700 transports [X(] Only about 100 showed up in the reports...

I landed 200k men and 450k supplies.... 700 transports were barely enough in order to deliver everything as fast as possible

Problem

Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem

RE: Problem