Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: CobraAus
have you tried placing the base at 1,2 instead of 2,2 putting the 2 bases 1 hex further apart
(thinking thinking there has to be away around this)

Unfortunately there is a bug that prevents bases from being placed in the first hex column (1,X). Try it for yourself if you like: the base can be added but it does not appear on the map. This is also the reason why Addu Atoll is not in the first hex column (making it closer to India than it really was).

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Andrew re middle east Base defense

have you considered just putting a very large static base force there to prevent the possibility of kapanese invasion

cheers

Yes I have considered that, using large CD guns to make it static. In fact it may be a good idea for it to be static even if it is not artifically huge, as I don't think the Allied player should be able to strip the Middle East base of its units, which are meant to represent their forces in the ME and Africa.

For those testing the alpha mod with my 'special' map. I have fixed the problem that was preventing LCUs and ships from leaving the Middle East base, and I have uploaded a copy here:

Map data file fix

After downloading the zip file, unzip it and place the file (pwhex.dat) into the folder where WitP is installed. You don't need to start a new game. To 'release' the units imprisoned at the ME base just exit from WitP, start it again and load your saved test game.

By the way - I am not really helping to test the scenario at the moment. Too busy with personal things, and also what little free time I currently have is being spent on the upcoming version 3 of my map mod. I am adding a few fixes and improvements to my map, and I hope to have it ready by the time the combined mod scenario is ready for release (or 'beta'?). Version 3 will come in two versions - the 'normal' map, which is the updated version 2 map, and an 'add-on' that adds the Middle East and Panama for the combined mod. The add-on will be a separate download.

Andrew

I have fixed the problem

what was the fix

Cobra Aus

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

I have fixed the problem

what was the fix

Cobra Aus

I had set up the hexsides of the Middle East base hex so that they were 'blocked' for the adjoining hexes, but not blocked for the hex itself. This never happens normally as all hexsides usually match. However even though the hexsides were only blocked one way, it still prevented ALL movement out of as well as into the hex. I have changed the hexsides from blocked to whatever they should really be (land/ocean).

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

I have fixed the problem

what was the fix

Cobra Aus

I had set up the hexsides of the Middle East base hex so that they were 'blocked' for the adjoining hexes, but not blocked for the hex itself. This never happens normally as all hexsides usually match. However even though the hexsides were only blocked one way, it still prevented ALL movement out of as well as into the hex. I have changed the hexsides from blocked to whatever they should really be (land/ocean).

Main Middle East base is still land locked using new PWhex.bat Aden has no problem clear my head for me the problem you had it was with MME base and not Aden wasn't it - did you point link to correct PWhex.dat ??

Cobra Aus

ORIGINAL: CobraAus
Main Middle East base is still land locked using new PWhex.bat Aden has no problem clear my head for me the problem you had it was with MME base and not Aden wasn't it - did you point link to correct PWhex.dat ??

Cobra Aus

Well, I thought so until I read your message.[8|]

I uploaded the wrong file - it had the hexside fixes but not the hex fix. I have uploaded what I HOPE is the right file this time. CobraAus, perhaps you could download it, test it, and let us know if it seems OK:

Map data file fix

Same note as before still applies:
After downloading the zip file, unzip it and place the file (pwhex.dat) into the folder where WitP is installed. You don't need to start a new game. To 'release' the units imprisoned at the ME base just exit from WitP, start it again and load your saved test game.

Sorry for the stuff-up.
Andrew

CobraAus, perhaps you could download it, test it, and let us know if it seems OK:

tested and now ok good job

Cobra Aus

I've been thinking (may have posted already but can't remember, been getting stoned on wood stain and finishes doing my buddies kitchen reno) about how to deal with the overly efficient ability of aircraft maintenance in WITP. Don was thinking of upping the 15th USAAF unit at Panama as he thinks it's inadequate and this sparked the thought.

What about reducing the total aviation support levels so that the shortage of av support replaces need for/lack of coding change so aircraft are more difficult to keep servicable?

Thoughts?

I wouldn't lower the already low amount of 30 for most base forces. But, I think that lowering the AV support in those larger units (270 AV) would go a long way to achieving what you want.

But, in the long run, I think you'd just see fewer air bases (most players will just stack base forces to get the desired level of AV support.)

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. (leave the normal base forces alone, but lower the other ones)

As the allies, I view the base force as designed to support 2-3 squadrons (basically 1/2 group) and the larger units (Air Regt, for instance) designed to support an Air Wing. But then again, I limit stacking AAF bases to two max unless there's an HQ in the hex.

When y'all release the second alpha to Spooky's site, could you attach a note listing any specifics that the testers are supposed to look for.

example:
1) when did hong kong fall?
2a) how many subs were sunk per month in your game?
2b) do you have sub doctrine on or off?
3a) how many ships were lost in the pearl attack
3b) how many were damaged, red? orange? yellow?
etc, etc

something like that could help get specific results on key issues rather than vague opinions on the mod overall. I know I for one was a little lost as what I was supposed to be looking for.

ORIGINAL: bstarr

When y'all release the second alpha to Spooky's site, could you attach a note listing any specifics that the testers are supposed to look for.

example:
1) when did hong kong fall?
2a) how many subs were sunk per month in your game?
2b) do you have sub doctrine on or off?
3a) how many ships were lost in the pearl attack
3b) how many were damaged, red? orange? yellow?
etc, etc

something like that could help get specific results on key issues rather than vague opinions on the mod overall. I know I for one was a little lost as what I was supposed to be looking for.

As this is still an alpha, we are largely interested in "game stoppers" - things that go boom in the computer and prevent proper playing of the game. However:

Hong Kong fell on December 25th, 1941. Two battleships and the target ship Utah were permanently sunk at Pearl Harbor. Two more battleships were sunk, one run aground and burned out, and three destroyers virtually destroyed (all in drydock). All of these, however, were salvaged and returned to service during the war. Minelayer Oglala was also sunk at her moorings (later raised) and two light cruisers were torpedoed (Helena and Raleigh – the latter almost sank).

Very little other damage was done to the fleet. Three battleships were available for duty almost immediately – Pennsylvania had been hit while in drydock but not seriously and Maryland and Tennessee were the inboard ships in nests of two battleships each – and thus could not be torpedoed. The majority of the cruisers and destroyers and all of the submarines were intact (saving those already under repair).

I do not have submarine losses in the front of my brain but they were rather light during the first few months. I’ll pass on this one and let one of the sub-qualified people answer it.

I'm looking more for an overall feel for ASW. It's hard to judge what things should be historically if we can't pace ops historically, but we can tell if a weapon system is too accurate. When you see a DC fall in the game now, you are pretty sure it's going to hit. I'm hoping that the number of anti sub attacks reduces (ships that actually drop DCs in animation) and that the accuracy of these DCs really!! goes down (maybe to 20% as opposed to 75+% right now). Look for any weird results from armor on subs (Nikademus says some DC types will penetrate, some won't, depends on device slot as opposed to damage yield?...I don't know...I'd suspect that the lower yield ones do less damage).

actually what I was talking about was making a list of questions similar to the one above and send it with the game to the players, asking what happened in their game. That way if we have 90% of the testers answering that HK fell on December 9th in their game, we know something's amiss and even have exact data to work with rather than vague comments.

ORIGINAL: bstarr

actually what I was talking about was making a list of questions similar to the one above and send it with the game to the players, asking what happened in their game. That way if we have 90% of the testers answering that HK fell on December 9th in their game, we know something's amiss and even have exact data to work with rather than vague comments.

What you are asking for here, Sir, is professional software testing. I have done this, and I hated it - I retired largely so I would not have to do it again. However, if you would like to take on the task ...

Don

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: bstarr

actually what I was talking about was making a list of questions similar to the one above and send it with the game to the players, asking what happened in their game. That way if we have 90% of the testers answering that HK fell on December 9th in their game, we know something's amiss and even have exact data to work with rather than vague comments.

What you are asking for here, Sir, is professional software testing. I have done this, and I hated it - I retired largely so I would not have to do it again. However, if you would like to take on the task ...

Don

Jez, I do good to turn on my computer. Last week I needed to download a CD off the internet . . . My wife had to do it for me.

ORIGINAL: bstarr

actually what I was talking about was making a list of questions similar to the one above and send it with the game to the players, asking what happened in their game. That way if we have 90% of the testers answering that HK fell on December 9th in their game, we know something's amiss and even have exact data to work with rather than vague comments.

For this to be of any value (getting HK to last until about 25 Dec, 42), we would have to make sure that only those Japanese units were used and bombard for same number of days (6 straight days) before comencing attacks. The fact that Kowloon (on Canton/mainland side) does not have Allied troops is one contributing factor to early demise. Another is the weird inclusion of tactical engineer bonuses in a combat model which is beyond abstract even on the operational level (we can't do squat about this). Vague possibility that river hexside adds to defence is yet another.

One of the main arguements by the games fanatic ([;)]) supporters/defenders is that how can the game be crapped on for lack of historical feel when players use ahistorical gameplay? Well, if the game allows players to use ahistorical gameplay by providing the ahistorical means to do so, then the game can be crapped on. The land combat model is just such a case and is the main reason for HK falling within a few days instead of weeks.

Ron,
I see what you mean - it would be impossible to have a truly accurate questionaire unless we told the testers exactly how we wanted them to play, but, even if we did that, we'd lose all accuracy as soon as Joe Gamer took the mod and played as he wished.
bs

Oh I was posting feedback in the thread that said "feedback" ... but maybe you guys are really posting it here ... anyway ... I'm not going to redo my post ... but I will say that since you've set Hong Kong fortification level to start at 50 !!! I expect it will hold out until Christmas !