New Patch

[Nikademus]

Hey Guys -

Couple days ago I posted on the bug forum that a new patch is planned to correct the most critical bugs introduced or still prevailent from the last couple of patches. In order for this to be successful we need to identify and prioritize the most critical bugs and more importantly still, obtain saves that can reproduce these bugs.

So far, i've gotten zero responses and zero emails. We need your help in order to make this happen. I plan on going through the forum this weekend to try to get a feel for the situation but i'm just one guy.

Any saves you have or can produce, send them and a short summary of steps on how to produce the bug to: lansoar@hotmail.com

thx

[CatLord]

Nikademus, unfortunately I am in the middle of a PBEM game and currently using 2.30, because of the report other people have made about 2.41, and I really don't have the time to backup all, uninstall, test, reinstall (I just got a new baby home [:)]).

UV not being the most recent game, people are not coming here on a very regular basis. I believe the person to try to contact would be timtom as he was the one having all the problems with his Air squadron (aircrafts disappearing mostly).

Cheers,

Cat

[timtom]

I've already send the relevant files to U2, not having kept them myself. However, for my part, I can reproduce the disappearing C-47 bug just be booting up scn.7 or 9. (where they've appeared) and executing the first turn. On turn two a number of C-47's have gone AWOL. USS Maine has "successfully" reproduced this bug, so I suspect you can also.

The "leaking" of aircraft happen over time of course, but just looking at the reinforcement schedule for scn.7 & 9, it strikes me how some of the sqd's are rather low on aircraft (<50%). It get's much worse over time, though. I could recount my observations, but without the saves, I guess it's just a rumour, as Mr.Frag would say.

Anyways, thanks for your efforts, Nik, both here and with WitP. Pro bono, I take it.

[Nikademus]

no prob. Thx for the info. its a start

[Nikademus]

C-47 bug reproduced. Documented and saves created.

[jeffs]

I do not have specific examples but

A. If a Minesweeper is in mine warfare TF and is located a portand does not move, it seems not to sweep the port. It will sweep only if moved to another hex and then when it comes back to the port then it sweeps. There is no way to document this.

B. This might be a design decision, but if so it is very suspect. When an air squad flies, it seems that the worst pilots always go first. This is stupid. It should either be random or the most rested.

C. Mines do not hit TFs doing bombardment.

[Halsey]

For the MSW mission you need to have another home port set.
The TF doesn't like to sweep it's own home port.[;)]

Minefields are now considered closer to shore. They will really only affect invasion, and fast trans missions now.
Though every now and then another kind of TF may hit one.
Very rarely though.[;)]

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Minefields are now considered closer to shore. They will really only affect invasion, and fast trans missions now. Though every now and then another kind of TF may hit one. Very rarely though.[;)]

In that case I'm subject to an extraordinary amount of bad luck, as I just a three vessels in two TF's hit mines while passing through the Shortland hex. [:'(]

[Nomad]

Mines will hit every type of TF going through a hex. I had an allied sub hit a Jap mine in Allied controlled Tulagui. [:@]

[Gary Thomas]

I don't know if it is my ignorance, or a bug, but I have had an air group of 8 F4F-3s sitting at Noumea for 14 game turns, with 15 F4F-4s in the replacement pool. Shouldn't they have upgraded?

I also notice that the number of aircraft in airgroups tends to shrink over time, even when plenty of replacements and pilots are available.

On another matter, it is a bit annoying that when you transfer an air group to another base, the screen switches to the new base, so if you use the next group button the result is unexpected. So, to tranfer several air groups you have to constantly go back to the original base on the map.

Cheers

[jeffs]

You would need to have 24 F4F-4s to upgrade. They need a full allotment (and if it is an upgrade for a CV fighter group, 30 or 36 depending on the carrier. Once you have that, you then need to wait 0-3 turns for the normal replacement cycle.

[jeffs]

For the MSW mission you need to have another home port set.
The TF doesn't like to sweep it's own home port.

That seems bogus to me. They should automatically be sweeping or at least checking where they are.[:-]

[jeffs]

One more problem/thing I dislike.

If I bombard (TF or drop bombs) on an enemy port, they lose supplies...
Ok, no problem. They can do that to me....But if an enemy then lands on a port and before he takes it, I can not blow up his supply. This is bogus. Supply was very vulnerable at this stage. I hope there is a way this could be addressed.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Gary Thomas

I don't know if it is my ignorance, or a bug, but I have had an air group of 8 F4F-3s sitting at Noumea for 14 game turns.

I've had exactly the same bug in scn.7. The F4F-3 equipped sqd. (VMF 211 IIRC) dropped from 24 to 8 aircraft without participating in any combat or suffering any op. losses. It now seems to have stabilised at 8 aircraft - least it's been that way for 10-15 turns.

[Veer]

ORIGINAL: jeffs

One more problem/thing I dislike.

If I bombard (TF or drop bombs) on an enemy port, they lose supplies...
Ok, no problem. They can do that to me....But if an enemy then lands on a port and before he takes it, I can not blow up his supply. This is bogus. Supply was very vulnerable at this stage. I hope there is a way this could be addressed.

Well, this is not a bug but a design 'feature'. Not that I object to the supply routines being changed, but it seems this patch (the patch to end all patches) is only to fix bugs in the game, not to implement new features.

[jeffs]

Well, this is not a bug but a design 'feature'. Not that I object to the supply routines being changed, but it seems this patch (the patch to end all patches) is only to fix bugs in the game, not to implement new features.

Well we can always hope!![:'(]

[Miller]

Probably undo-able as not a bug as such, but any chance of making the F4F slighlty better so it does not take such heavy losses to Zero's, and Corsairs stats turned down slightly to give the Zero a chance?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Probably undo-able as not a bug as such, but any chance of making the F4F slighlty better so it does not take such heavy losses to Zero's, and Corsairs stats turned down slightly to give the Zero a chance?

Thx for all the input guys.

Just a word of caution though. Mike's time for this UV patch is extremely limited so we are trying to focus on the most critical bugs. As such, things like combat or production tweaks will probably not see the light of day vs something like the disapearing aircraft bug.

[Skyfire7631]

I have nothing to report, because I was waiting for a completly stable version (if such a beast exists in game world : don't worry I know, I'm a developper in RL [;)] ) to start playing UV again, and I was despairing to see it one day.

Apparently, it will happen, so I just want to thank all the teams and people involved in taking the time to patch an "old" game (don't have the time for WitP, so UV is my last chance for a "Pacific fix") [:)]

Regards.

[TAIL GUNNER]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Thx for all the input guys.

Just a word of caution though. Mike's time for this UV patch is extremely limited so we are trying to focus on the most critical bugs. As such, things like combat or production tweaks will probably not see the light of day vs something like the disapearing aircraft bug.

Ah well, I guess we'll just have to wait until they release the source code....and hope there'll still be some enterprising nerd around so he can give us some Tony replacements at least!

My Visual C++ program will be waiting.....

Chad