Out of Memory Error?

Soji · Post by **Soji** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:12 pm

I can run v2.3 on my P-III (850Mhz), Win 2000, Compaq (with 585k available to dos programs), but whenever I try to change the mission of my Allied CV based air groups, I get an "out of memory" error. I have no problem with my land based air only that on the CVs. Any suggestions? I really need to be able to train my carrier air groups.

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 1:14 am

Try this:
Right click on the PACWAR icon and choose settings. Under Memory tab set the XMS and EMS settings to none. (Translated from the German Windows Version)

Jeff Norton · Post by **Jeff Norton** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 1:26 am

There is another post from Dave Biggs (within this Forum) that had the same problems you are. You probally will have to edit your CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files (if you are running Win95/98) to free up more conventional memory.

I would tell you to do a search within this forum for some other posts that have given copies of good working CONFIG and AUTOEXEC files, but it seems that you can no longer do a search.

Paul, can you help out or explain why??

But, if you need reference, please feel free to email me and I will give you a text copy of mine that works fine. Just copy the parts that you don't have to your respective files and reboot. It should fix the "out of memory" message you are having.

Don't feel alone, it happens to a lot of people...

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 4:04 am

the following has worked every time for me under win2k and winXP

create a new autoexec.nt and config.nt with EVERYTHING commented out. put them in the fodler with the game files. On a desktop shortcut to the pac.exe file specify custom files for autoexec.nt and config.nt and point to the totally commented out versions iyou put n the game's folder.

happy playing..

Soji · Post by **Soji** » Sat Feb 02, 2002 2:08 am

What I don't understand is why I can change the mission for my LBA, but not my CV based air. I have this problem even when I try to view the planes on CVs in port. I have set both the XMS and EMS to none, with no aparent effect. I have created autoexec.nt and config.nt files with no contents in the appropriate folder. I don't understand the purpose of these files or how the shortcut on the desktop (to pac.exe) is affected by their contents. In other words, I still can't get this part of the program to work in Win 2K Professional on my Compaq P-III (850 Mhz) machine. Perhaps someone would be so kind as to provide additional guidance. Strategy Tip: Japan cannot win a protracted war, so they must be aggressive. I recommend a seaborne invasion of Singapore on 12/07/1941.

jmasselos · Post by **jmasselos** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 4:43 am

Jeff

Do you mind if I e-mail you to also obtain a copy of those Autoexec.bat and Config.sys files. I have tried many different configerations and none has worked!

Ta

Jim

Jeff Norton · Post by **Jeff Norton** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 7:02 am

Rick,

I am away from my home and do not have access to my personal computer. I've had a death in the family and am with my family now.

Once I return home, I'll send off the TEXT versions of the files you requested. I should be home on the 9th.

Sorry for the lack of response. I'll have the files to you as soon as I can.

Thanks,
-Jeff

Soji · Post by **Soji** » Fri Feb 08, 2002 5:48 pm

At last, I've got version 2.3 up and running. I couldn't have figured it out with all your help. Thank you all.

"In the end, all revolutions devour their own."

Rumpelmauser · Post by **Rumpelmauser** » Fri Feb 08, 2002 9:14 pm

Hi Akira

They problem you encountered is really old <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> .Use editconfig.sys with Dos mode and put a rem at the start of the lines,you put the order out of action through this and get the badly needed space.I think you will need the lines with Keyboard and Mouse,but you have to try,maybe you have to play with dos-mode to launch the game.

Lines will look like this after that:

Rem device=C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\display.sys con=(ega,,1)

If you want change it back,simply delete the rem at the start.

I hope this helps.

I am prefer not a landing at Singapur from the beginning,but after the bases in the west of malaysia are fallen.The British will retreat there and you have to resupply which takes you time.So capture them first and they dont can retreat.

Günter

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:03 pm

Hi, most house rules prohibit the landing on Singapore and Manila (huge coastal guns not in game but there in reality would make landings impratical) Also house rules do not allow bombardment missions for same reasons. The fastest I ever expanded as Japan was the entire Southern Resource Area, Mandaly and Nicobar Island, Northern Bases to Dutch Harbor(not DH it's self) All NG except Moresby/Mountain/Milne Bay everything down to Espirtu Santo, Fiji, Samoa all by 4/12/42 Score 37444 Japan 29681 Allies still a long way to go before a victory Japan had only lost 1 DD 2DE 17MCS 3TK 6AP and 4 SS
Allied loss 1CVL 6BB 3CA 7CL 2AV 15DD 1DE 4APD 2AO 65MCS 2TK 1SS 20AP.
In the next 6 weeks I captured the 3 remaining NG bases and Espirtu Santo. but this only added 800 points. (with the allies more then making that up by building their bases) I don't think Japan can get the game to end by victory point total without somehow getting the US Navy to come out and be destroyed. (and then destroy it without losing anything) I wonder how much Navy is equal to around 30k points?

Soji · Post by **Soji** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 4:10 am

What is the purpose of a war game, such as PacWar? Some would say it is to historically recreat a battle or campaign as accurately as possible. I would suggest that the purpose is to alter history using alternative strategies. If the game perfectly models operations in the Pacific Theatre, then the outcome should always be the same, defeat for Japan. Is this the purpose of "house rules"? I agree that the game does not include coastal artillery at bases, as it should (I would recommend the inclusion of coastal artillery in future versions of the game), but the game will never be perfect. Sure there's no coastal artillery guarding Singapore, but the IJN CV Kaga can't make it to Oahu on 12/07/1941 either (incidentally,thanks for the Tora, Tora, Tora scenario). The point I'm trying to make is that while striving for a more accurate game, in the interim, we should not be limited to historical moves/tactics. I would like to have the option of creating new LCUs (having 20000 squads in reserve is ridiculus) or air units or ships. I would like to be able to upgrade ships (replace useless 8" guns on CVs with increased Flak). By the way, is it historical for the IJN to have 25-50% less flak then an identical Allied TF? It always bothered me that the IJN needed at least twice the carriers to have any chance at reducing Allied carrier strength.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 6:00 am

House rules are meant to make up for things the game does not represent. Realistically, the Japanese could not bombard Singapore Island/Bataan due to the high number of coastal artillery. Technically the same was true about Wake Island, but since it can only be taken (and WAS taken) by amphibious assault, there is no other solution.

In the next version I am hoping to increase the value of such bases (ie. Singapore) so that the Allied Player would be stupid to allow its easy loss. Frankly, in my opinion, the East Indies has been severely underestimated in regards to resources value. Looking at many historical atlas', the East Indies were also known for their resources (ie. rubber, metals, etc.) as well as their oil, however, if you check all of the bases in the East Indies there are pitifully few bases with ANY resource whatsoever. Same with Malaya.

VP's are calculated by 3 categories.

1. Kills
2. Production
3. Control

Control VP's are figured out as follows...

(Airfield size + Port size + Oil size + Resource size) x 10 (Factories also increase VP levels, but you cannot capture factories!)

Singapore presently has, for example, 6 airbase, 8 port and 90 resources

value = 1040 points

This makes Singapore VERY valuable to the Japanese, and the Allies.

If Malaya is increased as well, the entire Peninsula might be worth around 3000 VP's.

Since Japan is NEVER EVER low in resources/supply, no matter how many/few bases of resources are out there, it will not mess up the game having more bases with higher levels of resource.

I will increase resource values for the East Indies, as well as Burma/India (It will finally give the Japanese a reason to take Burma!) so securing bases with resources will be more important than kill points. This will mean that it will not be impossible for the Japanese to win in 1944 with the kill multiplyer.

I will also add resources in the China theatre bases that still remain to make up for the bases that were removed in 2.4.

It is impossible to allow a player to create their own divisions/ships given the existing system. Personally, I think that wargames should not stray from historical production too much, or else they would no longer be war games, but empire building games (ie. like Civilization).

There were reasons certain ships/units/aircraft were used in history that cannot be adequately represented in this game. The P-39 was used in large numbers because primarily because it was produced before it was realized that it was so sub par. Any PacWarrior worth their salt will immediately change all P-39 factories to produce P-40's. Historically this would have thrown US production into chaos, but can be easily done in the game. The troop pool is SO large, much larger then it should be. Frankly, ALL nations should have a severe shortfall of infantry in 1944/45, not such a big surplus. However, production of infantry is not as easily meddled with as Artillery and AFV's are.

I never understood the limitation of IJN and Dutch flak by 25%, so what I did for the 2.3 version (if you notice!) is that I increased Japanese and Dutch AA values by 25% (or approximately so), so they will not have pitiful cover. The USN still has the greatest flak value.

Soji · Post by **Soji** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 1:44 am

Why is it that engineers can build up the port and airfields, but air or naval bombardment does not reduce the values? Also, it seems that attrition due to starvation/disease (particularly in the Phillipines) is not well modelled. It is true that readiness is lost, but troops are lost only during combat. It would be nice to see LCUs lose squads when unsupplied for several weeks.

I haven't gotten to play v2.3 much (I've played v 1.1x22 quite a bit) due to other comittments, but I do appreciate the effort that was taken to improve this game. You have all done a great job. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">