1128b - bugs and issues

[Sardaukar]

First TheElf and now Don Bowen and jwilkerson...

World is going to end this rate!

Geez, I hope not!

And Chickenboy...you are pushing it!

[ABG]

Hi all,

I'm curently playing Scenario 04 Ironman against the computer and I'm noticing a few odd things here and there and figured I'd share them. Not sure if they're bugs with the Beta per se or just scenario errors, so sorry if there's a better thread for these.

1: 22nd Chinese Base Force reinforces to 100 engineers instead of 100 support devices. No clue why, the in game TOE says it's supposed to go to 100 support. I don't really know my way around the editor, but searching the LCU number returns a blank. In fact, it seems like the 22nd Chinese Base Force shouldn't exist! Or at least I'm looking in the wrong place for it.

Edit: just realised I was looking at the old ironman scenario in the editor, not the one from my new install. I've found the 22nd CBF now but can't see what the problem is. According to the editor it should go to 100 support devices too.

22nd Chinese Base Force bug.jpg (62.42 KiB) Viewed 1540 times

2: There appears to be two identical entries for the 75mm GMC, with the first in this picture being used by the Provisional GMC unit you get in the Philipines and the second being used... somewhere. I assume in US tank Batalions but can't check because of mine currently have their assigned 3 devices. Is this working as intended to represent improvised vehicles compared to purpose built ones or is it an oversight from some earlier change?

75mm GMC duplication bug.jpg (106.96 KiB) Viewed 1540 times

3: This is a fun one. I've just reached June 1st 1942 in my game. While doing my monthly pilot management, I'm shocked to see the 19TH BG/28TH BS has arrived on the East Coast with 10 B29-25 Superforts! Looking at the editor I don't really know why it's done that but, tbh, I don't really understand what most things in the editor mean. The unit is supposed to have a delay of 9999 so shouldn't be active at all.

19BG_28TH BS early superforts.jpg (194.42 KiB) Viewed 1540 times

I'll post more as they crop up.

As a side note, I thought I would hate the disband TF popup but I've actually found it doesn't really impact me much, in fact it's even occasionally been useful and caught a misclick here and there. It would be nice if it was clickable and, ideally, an optional accessibility option but I appreciate that might not be possibile given the scope of the update.

Edit: removed the screenshot of the wrong scenario in the editor

[BBfanboy]

ABG, AFAIK the .1128 version does not include the Ironman scenarios so if you are playing the Ironman scenario you must load that scenario in the Editor to see that Chinese unit.

I think the "Provisional" in the game refers to units that have been temporarily created and are not part of the normal OOB for the Army. To be a permanent unit that exists after the war it would likely need Congressional approval in the budget. The first GMC halftracks are likely for the Philippine units only. The second ones will be sent to units when their TOE requires them. I think the Motorized Infantry Divisions get a few.

There are improvised devices in the game and they are called "Improv" for short. Check the armoured vehicles that first come into the Aussie armoured units. Basically they take a sturdy truck or tracked vehicle chassis and weld armour plates into a box shape with viewing slits and a couple of doors. Not sure what guns can be carried but they would get a support frame of some kind and ammo storage.

The B-29s are an anomaly that may only happen in Ironman 3 - they tried to give the Allies a few toys to play with while the IJ forces got all kinds of ahistorical goodies. The 9999 code means the arrival is random and you must have hit the jackpot!

[RangerJoe]

The B-29s were an error that I reported a while ago and it has not yet been fixed.

The 75 GMC was used before the M-10. For ease during the game, the tank destroyer units come in with the M-10 instead of starting with the GMC. As far as the appearance of identical weapons/devices, they have different upgrade paths so they need different numbers in the game identifying them.

[PaxMondo]

... The 9999 code means the arrival is random and you must have hit the jackpot!

Are we sure about this?

I have long believed that the 9999 date code meant it would NEVER show. It was a way to re-use ship, device, and aircraft files to create new scenarios more easily. You didn't have to delete anything, just change the arrival date to 9999 and that is all that was needed.

We need some confirmation on this one ....

[Nazcatraz]

I’d like to share another player's frustration with the forced Y/N keyboard prompt when disbanding TFs:



If the devs decide to move forward with this without any changes, this will only be the beginning of many cases of player frustration in the future. I’m sure plenty of players discovering this game in 2028, 2030, 2032, etc. (assuming there won’t be a WITP2) will have the same reaction as these guys.

IMO, since making this Y/N prompt optional would probably be too much work, the best solution would be to let players click directly on the Y/N prompt itself or just get rid of it entirely when disbanding TFs, like how we're used to. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I want to share another example of player confusion regarding the forced keyboard input disband button. This just happened today in one of the WITP Discord servers. Again, this is just one example of many future instances of confusion if no changes are made to this forced keyboard input, which currently lacks any explanation in the prompt itself.

[RangerJoe]

I’d like to share another player's frustration with the forced Y/N keyboard prompt when disbanding TFs:



If the devs decide to move forward with this without any changes, this will only be the beginning of many cases of player frustration in the future. I’m sure plenty of players discovering this game in 2028, 2030, 2032, etc. (assuming there won’t be a WITP2) will have the same reaction as these guys.

IMO, since making this Y/N prompt optional would probably be too much work, the best solution would be to let players click directly on the Y/N prompt itself or just get rid of it entirely when disbanding TFs, like how we're used to. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I want to share another example of player confusion regarding the forced keyboard input disband button. This just happened today in one of the WITP Discord servers. Again, this is just one example of many future instances of confusion if no changes are made to this forced keyboard input, which currently lacks any explanation in the prompt itself.

They have been informed of what they need to do.

I think that the time to have discussed having this changed has long passed by except for a possible "Press Y or N" on the prompt. But that would actually detail a picture change and not a coding change. It is possible that someone could make one and then pass it around.

[ABG]

Thanks for the replies to my last post, I've another "not sure if it's a beta issue or can even be resolved" issue

The AI (Japanese) has landed multiple divisions at Colombo where I've gathered all mobile units on Ceylon. I've noticed that the AI has a habit of only attacking with one or two LCUs at a time, trashing them, while other units sit with loads of AV that could have been used to take the base.

I assume that there's some code that says "if above so much disruption/fatigue, don't attack" and the units standing around are too disrupted/fatigued from the landing to be used yet. Could the final patch add a check to make the AI attack with all it's units together instead of one at a time?

[RangerJoe]

Thanks for the replies to my last post, I've another "not sure if it's a beta issue or can even be resolved" issue

The AI (Japanese) has landed multiple divisions at Colombo where I've gathered all mobile units on Ceylon. I've noticed that the AI has a habit of only attacking with one or two LCUs at a time, trashing them, while other units sit with loads of AV that could have been used to take the base.

I assume that there's some code that says "if above so much disruption/fatigue, don't attack" and the units standing around are too disrupted/fatigued from the landing to be used yet. Could the final patch add a check to make the AI attack with all it's units together instead of one at a time?

Those attacks are scripts and will keep running until the mission is accomplished or the time is up for running the script. I do not know the parameters as to which units attack.

[PaxMondo]

Thanks for the replies to my last post, I've another "not sure if it's a beta issue or can even be resolved" issue

The AI (Japanese) has landed multiple divisions at Colombo where I've gathered all mobile units on Ceylon. I've noticed that the AI has a habit of only attacking with one or two LCUs at a time, trashing them, while other units sit with loads of AV that could have been used to take the base.

I assume that there's some code that says "if above so much disruption/fatigue, don't attack" and the units standing around are too disrupted/fatigued from the landing to be used yet. Could the final patch add a check to make the AI attack with all it's units together instead of one at a time?

Those attacks are scripts and will keep running until the mission is accomplished or the time is up for running the script. I do not know the parameters as to which units attack.

I would agree, likely script related. The author (ALL HAIL THE ANDY MAC!) likely didn't think those other units would be there, so they aren't included in the attack.

[Yaab]

A bumpy road up.

[Diliwitm]

Have the issues shown here been fixed? Some seems to be show stoppers.

I wonder what is the best version currently.

[RangerJoe]

Have the issues shown here been fixed? Some seems to be show stoppers.

I wonder what is the best version currently.

As far as I know, Matrix is testing the game. A few issues had been found and those were worked on.

[Diliwitm]

Now playing PBEM i am seeing some strange behavior, i have set a couple Zero units to not do CAP and only sweep, but they also did CAP. Then i have seen in save menu instead of March it said Maro.

[btd64]

Now playing PBEM i am seeing some strange behavior, i have set a couple Zero units to not do CAP and only sweep, but they also did CAP. Then i have seen in save menu instead of March it said Maro.

Can you post a picture of the zero squadron in question....GP

[BBfanboy]

Sweep cannot be done over your own AF IIRC, and when an enemy attack comes the game engine scrambles any fighter on the ground that is available. If you had the squadrons sweeping a nearby hex they could be back and refueled, therefore available to scramble.

[RangerJoe]

Sweep cannot be done over your own AF IIRC, and when an enemy attack comes the game engine scrambles any fighter on the ground that is available. If you had the squadrons sweeping a nearby hex they could be back and refueled, therefore available to scramble.

Actually you can sweep your own airfield but only if there are enemy land units at that base.

[BBfanboy]

Thanks RJ! If there is a wrinkle in game rules, you're the guy who knows it!

[RangerJoe]

Thanks RJ! If there is a wrinkle in game rules, you're the guy who knows it!

Thank you, but I read that in an AAR where a person was trying to sweep his own base and it would not work unless there were enemy units there.

Just don't call me Alfred. I wish that he was back.

Edited for:
I can remember some things very well but just don't ask me when my wife's birthday is!

[stuman]

"Just don't call me Alfred. I wish that he was back. "

No kidding. I always enjoyed reading his answers/explanations.