New! v1127 Public Beta Available

[btd64]

Except that the TF is OFF the map according to the TF screen. So if anything, that is a DISPLAY error but only if the TF symbol that is shown on the map is the actual TF in question.

I agree with RJ - the display can be wrong. That happens fairly often when I give an Off Map TF orders to sail to a point On Map and it has already finished loading or unloading so it is eligible to go straight into the holding box. Instead of the icon showing up in the holding box it appears in the darkened strip along the edge of the map, at the point it will come On-Map when it's travel time elapses. A bug, but not a harmful one if you don't try to change anything.

It isnt wrong though. I formed a new TF with it and did what I tried to do. Where it shows on the MAP is where it is. If the TF were indeed "off map" there would NOT be the option to form a new TF. Yet the option is there, and it works, which PROVES its on map...

Seriously, this game had some major problems prior to this beta, but after... I have CS TFs that wont stay CS TFs, I have air groups reassigning their own missions, I have off map TFs returning to the bases they left from, and I have no clue how its happening. I cant repeat them. Production facilities becoming movable units, the list goes on and on. The new bases have the AI doing somersaults tripping over itself. And all this since this "beta" came out.

Good luck with your beta kids. Its broken beyond fixing, but you wont accept that Im sure.

I ran it for 6 game months. Nothing that your describing showed up. Good bye....GP

[Meaneye]

My screen shots not withstanding...

Oh, and this PM from you back on Sept 18th...
I think that Ian changed scenario 2 then saved it back to the same slot. Two reasons;
1. a CVL and a CVE docked at Kure some how make it to the shores of Borneo and Sumatra on turn one and theer is not a Magic TF at that port.
2. Strange TF behavior from some of my TF's. Like not following orders.
These could be symtoms of a save of a new file in slot 002 or scenario 2.

What do you think?


Jus sayin...

[Dewey169]

My screen shots not withstanding...

Oh, and this PM from you back on Sept 18th...
I think that Ian changed scenario 2 then saved it back to the same slot. Two reasons;
1. a CVL and a CVE docked at Kure some how make it to the shores of Borneo and Sumatra on turn one and theer is not a Magic TF at that port.
2. Strange TF behavior from some of my TF's. Like not following orders.
These could be symtoms of a save of a new file in slot 002 or scenario 2.

What do you think?


Jus sayin...

When the 11.27 version came out I’d already had a GC against the Japanese AI going and was in February of 42. I had installed the beta separately and after a short bit decided that the new map had too many issues to restart. So I copied the exe from the 11.27 folder into my 11.26b game. I’m now to January 16th of 1943, so I’ve done approx 330 one day turns on the beta exe.

In my opinion it’s working fine. Although I’m not a fan of having to use the keyboard to disband a task force.

My CS TFs function as expected, not seen any problems with the air groups, and I’ve seen the off map TFs turning around but that is I feel tied to off map endurance calculation issue of all “999999” that’s already been identified. To me, a lot of issues are tied to the new map and I think they’ve had a year to test so next month hopefully we’ll see an improved new map.

As to your latest bug, I’ve not seen it, but that doesn’t mean what you explained might not be an issue. I’ll try it but due to holidays and playing one day turns it might be a bit before I get to the point of doing it as I have a cargo TF at Cochin and it’s turning around to go back to Cape Town. That said though, how rare of situation is it where you change the destination of a task force right before it goes off the map and in the same thought, go no, it needs to go to the original destination and you change it back by hitting the “return to” button at the bottom? In over 400 turns, Im not thinking that I’ve needed to do so.

Honestly, you keep coming across as someone who has an axe to grind with the past. I wrote software for 40 years so it’s easy to break something if you’ve written it and/or done the acceptance testing of it. In a game of this scale and complexity, there’s always going to be something, and as I said, 330 turns on the 11.27 exe and I’m good with the outcome so far from a player perspective.

[Meaneye]

A playtesters job is to "break" the game, and to report these "breaks" to the programmers (hopefully with details on how to repeat said "break"). Have an axe to grind? Not from MY end. Im just doing what I have always done. Report problems that I encounter.

The programmers job is to take said reports and fix them, thanking said playtester for his/her due diligence. THAT part seems to be lacking - jus sayin from my seats...

But my original statement on the state of the game still stands. There ARE bugs that are still present from the original development (the "9999" thing you just mentioned for one) and rather than to fix these real and obvious bugs, they seem to resent any help and out right lie about it to boot "I havent seen anything in 6 months game time" forgetting he sent that PM no doubt... (BTW, if you want to see CS TFs resetting, run the 5600/400 transports from Bombay to Capetown with fuel - I send them in TFs of 4 - some will "forget" they are CS TFs and some wont. I havent reported it because frankly I cant figure out WHY some do forget and some dont. Near as I can tell something in the common variables is getting hosed but I dont have the code to track it myself - and near as I can tell, this bug is exclusive to the beta. I have NOT seen it in .26). It isnt the TF itself, I have tried returning the TF to Bombay, forming a new TF and sending it out as a CS again and have it forget again in a day or 2. It MIGHT have to do with a particular ship in the TF.

And adding areas to the map that are completely meaningless in the name of "realism" and "detail" which just adds to the existing problems. If they want to go the "realism" route, then continuing to work on this is a waste of time (and considering Matrix itself says this is "the last beta" sounds like they agree with me). The time and effort could be better used creating a new engine / a new game. Starting with the most basic part of it - the ground system.

I was in the army 12 years in various infantry, airborne, and special operation units as both a medic and an infantryman so I know how units operate on the tactical and operational levels (I was assigned to Bn HQ for about 6 months as the commanders driver - fun fact: I was Gen Omar Bradleys wifes driver when they came to Ft Benning for the bi-centennial in 76 - very down to earth and interesting man). Units will dig in when they arent moving. How fast and how deep depends on their proximity to the enemy, but they certainly dont need engineers to do it. Not so in this game (and to be fair the original WitP as well). It is a basic design flaw GG made that cant realistically be "fixed" without starting over.

Engineers have a purpose of course, but not to the degree they are in this game. Building airfields/expanding ports, sure. But it isnt like ONLY engineers can do that. GG has games that treat non-engineers as "half engineers". Cant recall which ones atm (I think I have every game he made going back to SSI days) and not going to bother to look, but I will point out the fact that you dont have to be an engineer to put dirt in a hole in a runway to repair it after a bombing attack. So if you want realism, how about we start there?

Unloading rates. For example, when the 1st Marine Bde (6th Marine reg, 2nd Bn 10th Marine reg, 5th defense Bn and attached support including a tank company) landed in Iceland (in 3 troops ships and 4 APDs) the port there was only big enough to handle 2 ships at a time (a transport and an APD) and there was no port facilities to help them. The Marines did it themselves and unloaded in about 3 days (arrived afternoon Jul 8th and finished early on the 12th). Rail rates: My father was in the 96th division. When they moved from Camp Adair (Corvallis Oregon) to San Louis Obispo California (for their landing craft training), it took them 2 weeks to move the whole division...

There are other things that are wrong with the ground system of course. For example "losing" all your "unready" squads if the unit retreats for example. OMG! Really? Air HQs for torpedoes? Army air HQs pack torps when few (if any) army bombers carry them. Original WitP used airbase size (if I remember correctly it was a size 4 and maybe a minimum amount of supply as well, dont remember) which frankly is probably far more accurate. And air units should have a ground echelon as well. Why they dont (and never did) I cant even guess.

Air units. Look at how many different things air units can be trained in! And 3 of the most important arent even in the mix. Dive bombing, night bombing, and most of all, carrier trained. Lets start with carrier training. Take a pilot from a given unit and put him in squadron that is "carrier trained" and he suddenly knows how to operate from a carrier. Take a bunch of pilots out of a carrier group and put them in a new unit that isnt "carrier trained" and suddenly these guys "forget" how to work off a carrier... Same with dive bombing. Take a pilot that has a high naval attack rating that has never been in a dive bomber and suddenly its like he has been in it all his life. So the planes a pilot is trained in should also be a part of it also.

Frankly I (personally) question why pilots/ship commanders/ground commanders are even a part of the game. Simplifies things immensely to just remove them (as in every "wargame" from the beginning of time, the die roll represents the commanders ability). Dont need the player to take on the personnel branch as well. Area commanders maybe down to the corps level. Carrier and battleship TF commanders, MAYBE. But individual airplane drivers? Company commanders? LOL... Yeah, Im sure Nimitz (ie the player) is involved with all that. The less of this crap a player has to deal with the faster they can do their turn. The age old question of realism vs playability... Not to mention the simpler it is the easier it is to maintain.

Air attacks against naval targets can fly 2 missions regardless of range. A G4M can strike twice from 20 hexes out. Realistic? Air attacks can not be intercepted enroute. Realistic?

I mentioned that I spent a lot of time talking to James Swett and one of the things he said was when they converted to F4Us from F4Fs. He said, and I quote "the first time I flew the Corsair IT flew ME around for about a half hour before I finally got a handle on it". The Flying Tigers had to train on their aircraft, learn new tactics, ect before they started missions. In THIS game, I train my pilots in junk airplanes (P-26s and P-35s for example), and then move them into front line squadrons as they get near 70 experience in THIS game, they dont miss a beat (and they can transfer from the east coast to Australia the same day I might add). Realistic?

Axe to grind? Not even close. But it does frustrate me that they continue to waste time on this rather than to put that time into making a "realistic" game... Why dont I do it? Several reasons. Simply put, Im not up on current languages, I would have to re-do all the art work, all the audio files, The OBs, ect. ALL THAT is already DONE (for THEM). They also have more experience working in the current languages (I worked in FORTRAN, BASIC, and assembler - I doubt any of these - other than assembler - is still currently used).

[RangerJoe]

. . .
Axe to grind? Not even close. But it does frustrate me that they continue to waste time on this rather than to put that time into making a "realistic" game... Why dont I do it? Several reasons. Simply put, Im not up on current languages, I would have to re-do all the art work, all the audio files, The OBs, ect. ALL THAT is already DONE (for THEM). They also have more experience working in the current languages (I worked in FORTRAN, BASIC, and assembler - I doubt any of these - other than assembler - is still currently used).

Simply put, you want an entirely different game.

Fortran and Basic are still being used.

Where did that green button go?

[Omat]

Is Meaneye a relative of Pelton?

[Platoonist]

Is Meaneye a relative of Pelton?

Long ago, about the time the game was released he was a poster and play tester known as Yamato hugger, but that account maybe got lost in the forum change. He's clashed in the past with the game's developers, so still true to form.

[Meaneye]

I was a play tester on the original AE. Yes, I "clashed" with devs. You wouldn't believe what this "game" would look like if I hadn't.

You're welcome.

My 1 and only goal for these "clashes" is to make a playable, bug free GAME that you do not have to have 50 "house rules" to play.

That makes me a bad person I guess.

I don't care....

You all dont seem to understand a few background things so I will spell them out for you.
1) I did not ask to be on the team. I was asked to be on it.
2) I did stand up for what I thought needed to be done for playability and historical accuracy. In some cases that caused some "clashes". Actually a lot of them. And I will continue to do so.
3) At one point I was tired of the non-stop head butting and was going to quit. I was asked NOT to quit BECAUSE I wasnt afraid to head butt with them (so I was told) - especially Don. Which is why the "Matrix old boys club" constantly goes after me. I dont care (why they havent figured that out by now boggles my mind).
4) So my "clashes" were actually supported by people (I wont name them) in the Matrix organization. They would probably prefer if I kept it that way. And I will.
5) I asked to have my name removed from the box because I did NOT approve of the way this game was released. That request was denied.

[Arkham]

Hey folks. I'm not sure if the devs are going to notice this now, or if they are going to change anything at this late hour. However I did find one issue they might want to be aware of concerning naval search.

The long and short of it is that not setting any search arcs gives you better results for naval search over setting specific search zones. You can read more about it here for how I tested it and came to that conclusion.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5142184

[btd64]

Hey folks. I'm not sure if the devs are going to notice this now, or if they are going to change anything at this late hour. However I did find one issue they might want to be aware of concerning naval search.

The long and short of it is that not setting any search arcs gives you better results for naval search over setting specific search zones. You can read more about it here for how I tested it and came to that conclusion.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5142184

Known issue. Thanks and Happy New Year....GP

[Arkham]

Hey folks. I'm not sure if the devs are going to notice this now, or if they are going to change anything at this late hour. However I did find one issue they might want to be aware of concerning naval search.

The long and short of it is that not setting any search arcs gives you better results for naval search over setting specific search zones. You can read more about it here for how I tested it and came to that conclusion.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5142184

Known issue. Thanks and Happy New Year....GP

Good, does that mean its getting fixed?

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you as well.

[BBfanboy]

You assume everyone wants it fixed so they will have to do the tedious work of setting up hundreds of search arcs. Not so.

[Platoonist]

You assume everyone wants it fixed so they will have to do the tedious work of setting up hundreds of search arcs. Not so.

Yeah, I'm almost tempted to say if it's broke don't fix it. My love of aerial micro-management only goes so deep.

But it's still easier than War in the West where you plot your air groups course to and from the target, tell them what kind of weather they must abort in and what percentage of remaining fighter cover they must abort in and specify bomb load-outs and fuel load-outs how wide a target radius to bomb in and what days of the week to fly in and on and on and on...

[Arkham]

You assume everyone wants it fixed so they will have to do the tedious work of setting up hundreds of search arcs. Not so.

Yeah, I'm almost tempted to say if it's broke don't fix it. My love of aerial micro-management only goes so deep.

But it's still easier than War in the West where you plot your air groups course to and from the target, tell them what kind of weather they must abort in and what percentage of remaining fighter cover they must abort in and specify bomb load-outs and fuel load-outs how wide a target radius to bomb in and what days of the week to fly in and on and on and on...

LOL!

Individual pilot training and management is ok, but setting up a few search arcs is a bridge too far?

Bombing the Reich had its own fun systems too, especially when planing raids and scouting missions.

[RangerJoe]

You assume everyone wants it fixed so they will have to do the tedious work of setting up hundreds of search arcs. Not so.

Yeah, I'm almost tempted to say if it's broke don't fix it. My love of aerial micro-management only goes so deep.

But it's still easier than War in the West where you plot your air groups course to and from the target, tell them what kind of weather they must abort in and what percentage of remaining fighter cover they must abort in and specify bomb load-outs and fuel load-outs how wide a target radius to bomb in and what days of the week to fly in and on and on and on...

LOL!

Individual pilot training and management is ok, but setting up a few search arcs is a bridge too far?

Bombing the Reich had its own fun systems too, especially when planing raids and scouting missions.

Maybe setting up the search arcs at ports like Sydney should be done but that would have to be tested as well. If not, then don't really bother.

Also, setting up search arcs on ships may be a problem if the ships take a different route than what you have planned.

[Platoonist]

Bombing the Reich had its own fun systems too, especially when planing raids and scouting missions.

War in the West wouldn't be so bad if just consisted of bombing "Jerry" day and night. But having to run every division & brigade in the Anglo-American and Free French Armies as well just got to feeling like playing two monster games at once.

I don't think I'll ever be ready for War in the East 2. The thought of contending with those vast throngs of Soviet rifle divisions makes my brain melt. I'm so glad the Chinese Army in this game was consolidated for the most part into some rather unremarkable corps best suited to sitting in trenches.

[Kull]

You assume everyone wants it fixed so they will have to do the tedious work of setting up hundreds of search arcs. Not so.

The issue is that Naval search isn't functioning "as designed". The game is supposed to offer a 360 degree option in which all quadrants are searched, but that is supposed to involve "penalties". Currently there are no penalties.

I don't see any downside to fixing the problem. Search Arcs will work as they are designed and will provide higher chances of detection in the areas they focus on while those who don't want to bother with Arcs will still get 360 coverage, but not better results in the coverage areas.

[Zovs]

I can't believe anyone here is complaining about WITW or WITE2 lol compared to this game those games are a breeze.

[RangerJoe]

You assume everyone wants it fixed so they will have to do the tedious work of setting up hundreds of search arcs. Not so.

The issue is that Naval search isn't functioning "as designed". The game is supposed to offer a 360 degree option in which all quadrants are searched, but that is supposed to involve "penalties". Currently there are no penalties.

I don't see any downside to fixing the problem. Search Arcs will work as they are designed and will provide higher chances of detection in the areas they focus on while those who don't want to bother with Arcs will still get 360 coverage, but not better results in the coverage areas.

One problem that I see will be the length of time doing the coding and then the testing to make sure that it does not mess something else up.

I have experienced where a bug was fixed and then months later the same or similar bug appeared. Due to coding for other things, what happened due to that bug reappeared. I mean, trains and railroad cars should not be able to retreat cross country where there is no railroad line!

[Arkham]

I find it amusing that I can reassign B17s attached to Far East USAAF to Soviet Far East Command and then move them to Australia