Okay..this might be some bad computing

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I think I found the cause of the uber Boise. Take a look at what I found in the OOB!



Looks like somebody goofed! [:D]

Made my night; thanks TA![:D]

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I don't know why the USN wanted all those expensive BBs, CAs, CVs, etc. All they
needed was 50 CL Boise clones and they could have sailed to Tokyo Bay and landed
a squad of Marines and ended the war before Christmas 1941. [:D]

They were well on their way to having 50 Clevelands. But I dont think it worked out for them. [:D]

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I think I found the cause of the uber Boise. Take a look at what I found in the OOB!



Looks like somebody goofed! [:D]

Tanker, Tanker, Tanker....there you go again with those OOB mistakes. The Boise mounted a type VII photon torpedo, with the modified phase inducer. And in double mounts, not tripples. The tripples would have interferred with the plasma flow conduits. Anyone with the least knowledge of ship construction knows that.

And why don't your armor ratings reflect the resequenced sheild modulators that were installed several years after construction?!

And what is this with 4x shuttlecraft. Anyone knows that she carried 2x River-class runabouts by this time.

God! You're hopeless..... [:D]

[Erik Rutins]

Has anyone duplicated these results in a game started with v1.50? This is definiltely not by design. All I can think of is that something in the process of updating the game to v1.50 seriously messed with the combat results. If not, if it can be duplicated in v1.50 then we'll find what broke.

Regards,

- Erik

[Nomad]

Erik, this was a game started using 1.5. We nly got to 12/15/41(?) or so. Mogami ran the turn and got the same results. I tried making a few changes to my air units orders to change the random number sequence with little effect( the surface combat was during the day).

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Has anyone duplicated these results in a game started with v1.50? This is definiltely not by design. All I can think of is that something in the process of updating the game to v1.50 seriously messed with the combat results. If not, if it can be duplicated in v1.50 then we'll find what broke.

Regards,

- Erik

This was started in 1.5


Nomad beat me to it.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I think I found the cause of the uber Boise. Take a look at what I found in the OOB!



Looks like somebody goofed! [:D]

Tanker, Tanker, Tanker....there you go again with those OOB mistakes. The Boise mounted a type VII photon torpedo, with the modified phase inducer. And in double mounts, not tripples. The tripples would have interferred with the plasma flow conduits. Anyone with the least knowledge of ship construction knows that.

And why don't your armor ratings reflect the resequenced sheild modulators that were installed several years after construction?!

And what is this with 4x shuttlecraft. Anyone knows that she carried 2x River-class runabouts by this time.

God! You're hopeless..... [:D]

LOL, Fine... my next "mistake" and she'll get Mk II Quantum Torpedoes. So waaaa [:D]

[Oleg Mastruko]

I think the bug here is TFs not breaking the engagement, not damage "per se".

Prior to this patch I've never seen so many ships (warships not APs) being hit so many times in a single engagement. 50, 100 hits and more?

With the way the game works, fire damage accumulates, so you don't have to penetrate to kill a BB - 100 non penetrating, fire inducing hits to superstructure will "kill" a BB. I won't coment as to how realistic this is, but that is how the game works, and it was like that ever since v1.0. It's just we never have seen an engagement with BB receiving 50 or 100 hits (did we?).

I think TF combat logic got bugged somehow, not the damage model or penetration model...

O.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I think the bug here is TFs not breaking the engagement, not damage "per se".

Prior to this patch I've never seen so many ships (warships not APs) being hit so many times in a single engagement. 50, 100 hits and more?

With the way the game works, fire damage accumulates, so you don't have to penetrate to kill a BB - 100 non penetrating, fire inducing hits to superstructure will "kill" a BB. I won't coment as to how realistic this is, but that is how the game works, and it was like that ever since v1.0. It's just we never have seen an engagement with BB receiving 50 or 100 hits (did we?).

I think TF combat logic got bugged somehow, not the damage model or penetration model...

O.

IF that is the case it doesnt bode well for a restart...or any of our current games....It may be time to put a general pause out there...


Has anyone else run into anything similar with their 1.5 games?

[bradfordkay]

Tanker, would you please stop getting your games mixed up? I'm now worried that War Plan Orange has been contaminated with data from Star Fleet Battles. [:'(]

[Tankerace]

Hehehehehehehehehee.

Just remember, if while playing you here "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile." I had nothing to do with it [:D]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Yeah, I dunno...still trying to figure out how 1 shell, maximum size being 6", sank the Chiyoda. Hmm...nope don't have it...

I saw on one result that three DD's had all sank on three shells or less too.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Yeah, I dunno...still trying to figure out how 1 shell, maximum size being 6", sank the Chiyoda. Hmm...nope don't have it...

I saw on one result that three DD's had all sank on three shells or less too.

While I admit its possible, it would be extremely rare for one shell to make a fatal hit. Especially such a small caliber shell...well in my opinion at least.

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, we will look into this. As we already have your save to duplicate it I assume more won't be required. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

OK, we only have the replay on this so far. Can one of the original players who experienced this send us the actual save file for the turn start? Please e-mail it to erikr@matrixgames.com with passwords for both sides. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

[Nikademus]

all that is required for a critical hit (i.e. mag explosion) is for the device to penetrate either the belt or deck armor Hit Location. (roll for critical hit)

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

OK, we only have the replay on this so far. Can one of the original players who experienced this send us the actual save file for the turn start? Please e-mail it to erikr@matrixgames.com with passwords for both sides. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik

Im at work now and can't forward it.

I sent my turn to mogami when the problem originally occured. Can you get him to fire it to you.

He also has my password.

[rroberson]

I'm kinda at a point where I want to suspend all my PBEM games...or revert back to 1.4. If this is a bug we will see it again..and really kills the joy of the game. If it is just a random happening...different story.

I do ask if anyone else runs across something similar to let me know...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

I'm kinda at a point where I want to suspend all my PBEM games...or revert back to 1.4. If this is a bug we will see it again..and really kills the joy of the game. If it is just a random happening...different story.

I do ask if anyone else runs across something similar to let me know...

I'm doing the following in my PBEM games ( all IJN under 1.5 )

A. Suspending planning for that Jutland like surface encounter with the USN fleet .

B. Keeping fingers crossed that this issue doesn't effect anything else ( with about 30 turns played in 4 PBEM since 1.5 came out - I have (EDIT: ) NOT noticed anything really different other than the ASW Air getting more attacks ).

C. Waiting for 1.5.1 which I suspect will be out very soon with a fix !

Plus - I'm not sure whether you can "revert back to 1.4" with ongoing games ... but let us know if you do that successfully ...we might need it after all !

[Erik Rutins]

If we can duplicate this at all, particularly with similar battles outside of your PBEM save, it will be fixed as quickly as possible, tested and sent out. I would also ask that if anyone else is seeing results like this against the AI or in a PBEM with a game started in stock v1.5, please let us know.

Regards,

- Erik