Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: LowCommand


OK, after the usual morning recon runs there about 19 raids. Then it starts doing recon again, maybe 6 or so, then it crashes.

I have found the problem. Bit tricky. The number of attacking planes in the FIRST raid is overflowing and causing some memory corruption.
Looking at it now.

[LowCommand]

Thanks, we appreciate what you do, the enormous effort that has gone into this game.

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: LowCommand


Thanks, we appreciate what you do, the enormous effort that has gone into this game.

+1. Cant say thanks enough.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: LowCommand


Thanks, we appreciate what you do, the enormous effort that has gone into this game.

+1. Cant say thanks enough.

+2.......Just look at the number of improvements and fixes in the original post..The list is getting longer than a roll of toilet paper!

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: LowCommand


Thanks, we appreciate what you do, the enormous effort that has gone into this game.

+1. Cant say thanks enough.

+2.......Just look at the number of improvements and fixes in the original post..The list is getting longer than a roll of toilet paper!

+3

[&o][&o][&o]

[rjopel]

I wish there was a way to downgrade land devices when you have a ton of the older model laying around and a divided division that you can't recombine because it will take FOREVER to upgrade the /b and /c fragments to 6pdr AT guns.

If I disbanded the seperated part could I buy back the unit and it show up with the larger gun in its MTOE? Or vice versa, disband the one with 6pdr and it have the smaller unit which is more common?

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Thanks alot for all the patches [:)]
I am suffering however from (freezes graphic and sound,need to restart computer if this happens) Any clue what might cause this ? Prior to the last beta patches my game was runing very stable.

[michaelm75au]

Are you using your preferred option switches (multiCPUxxxx, cpu#, etc)? The beta just installs a base shortcut which doesn't really take into count the properties of the PC.

I ran the current beta overnight on AIvAI with sounds and animations, and it was still going when I woke up (8 hours straight).

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Are you using your preferred option switches (multiCPUxxxx, cpu#, etc)? The beta just installs a base shortcut which doesn't really take into count the properties of the PC.

I ran the current beta overnight on AIvAI with sounds and animations, and it was still going when I woke up (8 hours straight).

Thank you very much, that seemed to solve it.

[witpqs]

Michael,

A suggestion for the LCUs screen (the one that shows multiple LCUs at a base or non-base hex): There is a 'show soft' and 'show hard' toggle. When 'soft' is selected, the right-most column shows the percent of the TOE that the unit has enabled (meaning not disabled squads). Can this be modified to show the same format as on the individual LCU screen? In other words, instead of showing "68", show "68/92" indicating that the LCU is at 92% of TOE overall and 68% of devices are enabled (not disabled).

Visually it looks like there is room available, but I know that alternate fonts take up more space.

[n01487477]

Michael -
Off the top of my head, I have some more challenging requests for you, if you are willing to indulge a dreamer:-
GAME CHANGES
[*]Change the ability of the Allies to have full factory information at their fingertips with the Strategic bombing interface. I believe this should be brought under the rules of FOW or another mechanism; whereby if the Allies are not within flyover range - the info is somewhat garbled (as it is with a mouseover).
[*]R&D algorithm more severe for realistic R&D and no freebie upgrdes along the path in that mode, maybe a percentage of factories become disabled.
[*]I'm going to try to cajole Floyd into included this in Tracker anyway - but in the air groups list - have them listed with each of their particular skill no's.
[*]Display showing all Ships - option for class name to be shown for all. (Tracker does this anyway)
EDITOR /GAME MECH
[*]Get the editor opened up to changing the multiplier variables for airframe,engines,Arm, Veh, Naval and Merchants. Maybe also pilots too.
[*]Allow fractions to be recognised for existing multipliers(editor).
[*]PP's to be made variable on date (editor controlled) or linked by percent to VP's. In the former a variability to play and the later option suggesting political will. An allied player bunkering down and waiting until '43 would have less to spend.
[*]The ability to setup auto-convoys (CS) in the editor.(minor req) Japan didn't start the war devoid of raw material convoys.[;)]

POTENTIAL BUG
[*]From my testing there is a bug with close action CV to CV battles with radar. I have other test data but Nemo121 put it so well about the original thread / battle I include his thoughts.

If you look at the two strikes you see the following:
1. Both fleets were 46 miles ( 1 hex apart ).
2. The Allies spotted the strike 120 miles away and had about 45 minutes to react before they were overhead.
3. The Japanese spotted teh strike 40 miles away and thus had about 15 minutes to react before they were overhead.

The difference in spotting was entirely due to radar being present on US ships and not on Japanese ships. There's nothing more to it than that. Actually though - and this was missed by all of the posters - the spotting of the Japanese strike at 120 miles is a bug. It could only have been spottted at 46 miles ( since TFs are supposed to occupy the mid-point of the hex for range calculations ).

Since the Allies had 3 times as long to intercept far more of their fighters did and they spent far longer attacking bombers. Your fighter, on the other hand, had almost no time to make firing passes and those they did make were absorbed by the fighters with very few passes disrupting the bomber stream.

Why? Radar.

Actually the result IS due to a bug but only insofar as the Allies should have only spotted the raid 40 miles out and only had 15 minutes to react. This meant you'd have suffered huge losses anyways but would have inflicted far more also.

Thanks for reading Michael.

[Karsten]

One maybe often asked question from a side entry
Are the patches complete?
i am using now version 1.0.4.1106i. Can i just execute the 1108p3 download or do i have to go step by step?

thank you
karsten

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Karsten

One maybe often asked question from a side entry
Are the patches complete?
i am using now version 1.0.4.1106i. Can i just execute the 1108p3 download or do i have to go step by step?

thank you
karsten

Complete? I hope not ... we'd like more [;)] But they are working and full of goodness.

No need for incremental, the latest is 1108r4. Just download, extract and run. It will create a new shortcut on the desktop.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Michael -
Off the top of my head, I have some more challenging requests for you, if you are willing to indulge a dreamer:-
GAME CHANGES
[*]Change the ability of the Allies to have full factory information at their fingertips with the Strategic bombing interface. I believe this should be brought under the rules of FOW or another mechanism; whereby if the Allies are not within flyover range - the info is somewhat garbled (as it is with a mouseover).
[*]R&D algorithm more severe for realistic R&D and no freebie upgrdes along the path in that mode, maybe a percentage of factories become disabled.
[*]I'm going to try to cajole Floyd into included this in Tracker anyway - but in the air groups list - have them listed with each of their particular skill no's.
[*]Display showing all Ships - option for class name to be shown for all. (Tracker does this anyway)
EDITOR /GAME MECH
[*]Get the editor opened up to changing the multiplier variables for airframe,engines,Arm, Veh, Naval and Merchants. Maybe also pilots too.
[*]Allow fractions to be recognised for existing multipliers(editor).
[*]PP's to be made variable on date (editor controlled) or linked by percent to VP's. In the former a variability to play and the later option suggesting political will. An allied player bunkering down and waiting until '43 would have less to spend.
[*]The ability to setup auto-convoys (CS) in the editor.(minor req) Japan didn't start the war devoid of raw material convoys.[;)]

POTENTIAL BUG
[*]From my testing there is a bug with close action CV to CV battles with radar. I have other test data but Nemo121 put it so well about the original thread / battle I include his thoughts.

If you look at the two strikes you see the following:
1. Both fleets were 46 miles ( 1 hex apart ).
2. The Allies spotted the strike 120 miles away and had about 45 minutes to react before they were overhead.
3. The Japanese spotted teh strike 40 miles away and thus had about 15 minutes to react before they were overhead.

The difference in spotting was entirely due to radar being present on US ships and not on Japanese ships. There's nothing more to it than that. Actually though - and this was missed by all of the posters - the spotting of the Japanese strike at 120 miles is a bug. It could only have been spottted at 46 miles ( since TFs are supposed to occupy the mid-point of the hex for range calculations ).

Since the Allies had 3 times as long to intercept far more of their fighters did and they spent far longer attacking bombers. Your fighter, on the other hand, had almost no time to make firing passes and those they did make were absorbed by the fighters with very few passes disrupting the bomber stream.

Why? Radar.

Actually the result IS due to a bug but only insofar as the Allies should have only spotted the raid 40 miles out and only had 15 minutes to react. This meant you'd have suffered huge losses anyways but would have inflicted far more also.

Thanks for reading Michael.

The Strategic Bombing issue and the close in radar issue are pretty big ones. Hopefully they can be addressed. I hate to use the "B" word on either one of them, but they are really close to that category. I'm pretty sure they are both WAD, but I think the unintended consequences are not exactly what was desired. [;)]

I like the idea of the variable PP's for modders. Would allow some very interesting scenarios. Setting it up like the replacement pilots screen in the editor would be sufficient for me as a starting point. Being able to add PP's based upon a trigger would be impressive. Ex: If allies lose PH, +1500 PP to IJ, +500 PP to allies (simulating shifting of forces from Atlantic by the allies losing an important base and providing incentive for IJ to take such a base). Like an AI script that would fire even if it is a PBEM game. However, the coding of this seems daunting to me.

Taking the variable PP concept one step further, move the additional units for "crossing the line" into an AI type file that could be modder edited. Being able to adjust those lines, adjust the units given, and create new ones would REALLY make for some impressive what-if scenario mods. You would be able to simulate better some alternate history ideas and react to the ebb and flow of the game. WOW.

The auto-convoy idea would take SO much of the time and effort out of the first turn for modders. Particularly for testing if nothing else.

I can see the potential value of having the multipliers in the editor ... but that is really high end modding. Out of my scope. Damian, John III, and others though would likely love this one.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: n01487477
POTENTIAL BUG
[*]From my testing there is a bug with close action CV to CV battles with radar. I have other test data but Nemo121 put it so well about the original thread / battle I include his thoughts.

If you look at the two strikes you see the following:
1. Both fleets were 46 miles ( 1 hex apart ).
2. The Allies spotted the strike 120 miles away and had about 45 minutes to react before they were overhead.
3. The Japanese spotted teh strike 40 miles away and thus had about 15 minutes to react before they were overhead.

The difference in spotting was entirely due to radar being present on US ships and not on Japanese ships. There's nothing more to it than that. Actually though - and this was missed by all of the posters - the spotting of the Japanese strike at 120 miles is a bug. It could only have been spottted at 46 miles ( since TFs are supposed to occupy the mid-point of the hex for range calculations ).

Since the Allies had 3 times as long to intercept far more of their fighters did and they spent far longer attacking bombers. Your fighter, on the other hand, had almost no time to make firing passes and those they did make were absorbed by the fighters with very few passes disrupting the bomber stream.

Why? Radar.

Actually the result IS due to a bug but only insofar as the Allies should have only spotted the raid 40 miles out and only had 15 minutes to react. This meant you'd have suffered huge losses anyways but would have inflicted far more also.

Thanks for reading Michael.

Sorry Damian, but I'm not Michael [;)]. But it's not really a bug either. What people need to realize is that notification scripts are simply notification scripts. The game goes to a list of scripts, picks one, and displays it. The radar scripts are for Det at long, medium, short range. There's a gazillion radars with range of 147, 66, 23; you ever see any of those numbers? No? Well then, maybe the pick-and-show script isn't doing what you think. Maybe it's just showing a standard long, medium, short, Det value that don't have much to do with the algorythmic calculations, except to run them with the long, med, short range response variables.

The game is an abstraction of many things. It certainly does not look at how far apart anything is, except in terms of hexes. And the scripts don't care about each individual hex placement. I think you are just going to have to live with this.

There's a gazillion interactions between the data and the game algorithm, and the scripts the the executable chooses to display, don't have much to do with what's going on, except in an abstract way. So please don't waste your time attempting to understand the system by reading notification scripts.

Just kinda fyi. [;)] Ciao. John

[ed] btw, I can give you a better appreciation as to what's going on by pm, if you wish.

[michaelm75au]

[1108r5]
Fixed Missing troop level in non-base hex [MEM]
Fixed Use Manchuko hex ownership to determine garrision [MEM]
Fixed Reinforcement LCU details not showing when clicked on Reinforcement Schedule [MEM]
Fixed Reinforcement arrival shows on enemy report [MEM]
Fixed Rebuilt unit not finding devices [MEM]
Fixed Destroyed LCU could get stuck on reinforcement queue if from a ship [MEM]
Tweak Show Atoll or island size on mouse over of base [MEM]
Tweak Industry FOW [MEM]

[Sardaukar]

[&o][&o][&o]

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

[1108r5]
Fixed Missing troop level in non-base hex [MEM]
Fixed Use Manchuko hex ownership to determine garrision [MEM]
Fixed Reinforcement LCU details not showing when clicked on Reinforcement Schedule [MEM]
Fixed Reinforcement arrival shows on enemy report [MEM]
Fixed Rebuilt unit not finding devices [MEM]
Fixed Destroyed LCU could get stuck on reinforcement queue if from a ship [MEM]
Tweak Show Atoll or island size on mouse over of base [MEM]
Tweak Industry FOW [MEM]

This particular change is something I really appreciate, as I was a little worried after reading the related thread, since I wasnt sure how it would affect ahistorical borders in Manchuria. The Industry FOW tweak is appreciated too.

Once again, thanks for all the great work. [&o]

[Gunner98]

Michael

Excellent stuff, really appreciate the work you've done here. I have noticed a couple things that could be tweaked - not sure if they are on your list or not but here goes:

- LCU move logic. Seems odd at times, I think it takes the short-sighted view of fastest way out of the current hex and not the quickest overall journey. E.g. Marching from Cairns (92,140) to Cooktown (92,137) the units tend to go NW along the main road to 91,139 then have to slog through the Jungle/Rough & Jungle the rest of the way. Taking the secondary road West and then North is much faster but you need to manually move them to 91,140 and then direct them to Cooktown.

- TF Fuel indications. When routing a long distance convoy - say a Tanker from LA to Sydney, you probably don't have enough fuel and the Fuel indicator will show red - good. Then when you route it through PH and assign 'Full refuel' and 'same return route' - it should now show green but it keeps the red. I believe that it changes to Green on the following turn (or worst case when it refuels for the first time in PH - not sure). Is there a way of pushing the fuel calculation and hence turn the indicator to green when your planning the route? Not a biggie in any way.

-Waypoint fuel toggle. Really minor one here. Many of the toggles in the game have a 'Left click' or 'Right click' difference, i.e. the options go up or down the list depending on which click you do. The Waypoint refuel option does not, you need to cycle through the list - there is only 4 options so its not onerous but a consistency issue.

Thanks again for all your super work.

B

[dbmsts]

1108r5]
Fixed Missing troop level in non-base hex [MEM]
Fixed Use Manchuko hex ownership to determine garrision [MEM]
Fixed Reinforcement LCU details not showing when clicked on Reinforcement Schedule [MEM]
Fixed Reinforcement arrival shows on enemy report [MEM]
Fixed Rebuilt unit not finding devices [MEM]
Fixed Destroyed LCU could get stuck on reinforcement queue if from a ship [MEM]
Tweak Show Atoll or island size on mouse over of base [MEM]
Tweak Industry FOW [MEM]

where's the link for the download?