Matrix Games Forums

And here is another one (and BTW it's the USAAF 122, not USN as I wrote before ...)

ORIGINAL: Rainer

And here is another one (and BTW it's the USAAF 122, not USN as I wrote before ...)

Hmmm... this doesn't appear to be the same bug... is this stock? i don't recognize the CPS-1 radar.

In the bug that LowCommand showed, it is pretty obvious that the unit total load cost should be close to zero, but they are large (9999+)... in the examples you show, i suspect the unit load cost might come to something near what the computer has calculated.

Sorry I'm late replying, I'm retired, but they ask me to come back occasionally. The main portion of both these units are alive and well. I have tried recombining 3rd DAF. It recombined just fine, but when I tried to move it again, blip - it re-fragmented. This bug isn't a game breaker, just a mild annoyance. Here is 3rd DAF, complete, after recombination, attempted movement and recombination again.

Sorry I posted a screen capture of the wrong unit. The correct jpg is below.

WOOOOOOOOOOPS! Sorry, BELOW is the Main portion of USAAF unit, with the bug in !!progress!![&:][&:][&:][&:][&:][&:]

ONE MORE TIME SORRY [&:] Maybe I shouldn't be in such a rush, I don't DO this often.






As you can see, most of the unit is on the AK's with just the buggy bit still on "land." It took me a little while to find this save.

Stock, latest version (1.806).
The load costs for all ship types are prohibitive.
34,000 load points to load on APs? That's more than a whole USMC division.

I probably should have send a screenshot of the 117 USN Base Force. Here it's probably clearer to see (88 heads and some guns need 30,000 load points for AP).

And here the TOE for the 117th. The big guns (155) shouldn't be there to begin with.
It's a bug.
But one of the milder species.

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Stock, latest version (1.806).
The load costs for all ship types are prohibitive.
34,000 load points to load on APs? That's more than a whole USMC division.

I probably should have send a screenshot of the 117 USN Base Force. Here it's probably clearer to see (88 heads and some guns need 30,000 load points for AP).

OK - now THIS is looking to be the same or similar bug...[:D]

EDIT: Not sure why the load cost number is off so much... it has been noted in the past that the numbers as not terribly accurate, but this is ridiculous! i also note that the strength calculations show the unit to be at 79/100 stength - which should mean all the squads in the TOE are present (but 21% disabled)... certainly, that is WAY off here, but the game might be including some of the units still on ships, (i think). Perhaps the game is including the units on ships for purposes for calculation of load costs, although it shouldn't do that.

The bug shouldn't effect gameplay TOO much - you should be able to load individual squads and guns and transport them... when you get down to the last bit, though, you might end up with something like only the Commanding Officer present with a load cost of 9999...[X(] [&:]

Supposedly, the fragment with the most intact Support Squads will become the parent (it may take a turn to switch), which makes me think that LowCommand's problem still has to do with attrition (since the parent here has NO support squads)... but Rainer's screenshot interestingly shows a parent unit with NO support squads as well...

i am wondering if perhaps something similar is going on, i.e., that the unit shown in the screenshot became parent after the original parent was eliminated (either from attrition or combat.) Perhaps when this happens, something peculiar is happening due to the lack of support units... the only examples i've looked at in detail in the past had units with at least some support squads present.

So, Rainer - did the parent unit for the 117th USN BF get eliminated previously? [&:]

And here the TOE for the 117th. The big guns (155) shouldn't be there to begin with.
It's a bug.
But one of the milder species.

Maybe not - the TOE that is displayed in game is the original TOE... if a unit upgrades to new guns, etc., it generally is NOT reflected in the TOE that the game displays. This is a pain, but not (necessarily) a bug (since it is working as designed.)

In this case, i think the unit upgraded to 155 mm guns from 5" CD guns.

The only way to really know what the TOE is at any given time (except for perhaps the very beginning of the game) is to look at the unit with the Scenario Editor (i think). If someone has another way, let me know.

ORIGINAL: LowCommand

Stock scenario 41B Dec 41 to Mar 46 against the AI game date Sep 14, 1944.

Scenario 16? Its possible there is a database error on the size of one of the components of the unit. I know there are other flakey things about 16 like IJA transports upgrading to Tabbys for example. I have never gotten a scenario 16 past autumn 42.

Thanks for your ongoing interest, really appreciated [:)]

The 117th is divided since many months - probably somewhere in 1942. One part (parent as in last screenshot) is sitting since then at Shortland doing nothing, the other part (child, see attached screenshot) is at Green Island, providing aviation support. None on ships, none destroyed.
Note the current game date is August 44, which means the units have not been touched by me since many months.

It turns out that I at least one more unit with the bug, 126 USAAF. And yes, the parent unit has 1 gun and 30 troops and the fragment is alive and well. That's why I got all confused and sent the wrong screen captures. To recap, I have at least 3 units with the bug, 3rd DAF, 122 USAAF, and 126 USAAF. I may experiment and see if this happens if the same unit is first loaded on an AP. Still, it is only a minor glitch. Now, if it had happened early, that could be another matter. There were times in early 42 when base units were more precious than combat units.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Scenario 16? Its possible there is a database error on the size of one of the components of the unit. I know there are other flakey things about 16 like IJA transports upgrading to Tabbys for example. I have never gotten a scenario 16 past autumn 42.

I played a stock scenario 16 PBEM to the bitter end (March 1946 or whatever).

However, I was Japan, so if there were any anomalies in the load costs I might not have noticed them.

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Thanks for your ongoing interest, really appreciated [:)]

The 117th is divided since many months - probably somewhere in 1942. One part (parent as in last screenshot) is sitting since then at Shortland doing nothing, the other part (child, see attached screenshot) is at Green Island, providing aviation support. None on ships, none destroyed.
Note the current game date is August 44, which means the units have not been touched by me since many months.

OK - something definitely weird going on here - this is a fragment, yet it has more support squads then the "parent" shown in the previous screen shot:


This isn't supposed to happen, so there is definitely some sort of bug going on... and since apparently the parent wasn't eliminated, that sort of shoots that theory down.

Dang, Bob, you were up really early this morning.  [X(]

Bob, I think we all agree that this is mildly annoying, but not really a show stopper.
That is, as long as there are no side effects we don't know about yet.

If you have a pile where you store those "have to check this when I've got some spare time" I recommend you put it there.
I understand WitP will see some patches in the future, may be some devs will take an interest (AFTER they managed to cope with AE). [;)]

And once again, thanks for your support and interest.

I think I can help, but you'll have to take my word for it as I can't replicate the unit display.
Here's what happened.

No. 104 RAF Base Force in India when loading left a remnant that wouldn't load, just as described above.
The remnant initially showed as displayed above but later on the unit display showed that it contained:
(0) x 1 14in/45 41YT Gun
(Japanese naval gun)
I think this was when the remnant was moving overland to rejoin its parent unit.
(I giggled at the thought of a base force mounting such a trophy at the entrance to the airfield.)

HTH

ORIGINAL: AnGeliCo

I think I can help, but you'll have to take my word for it as I can't replicate the unit display.
Here's what happened.

No. 104 RAF Base Force in India when loading left a remnant that wouldn't load, just as described above.
The remnant initially showed as displayed above but later on the unit display showed that it contained:
(0) x 1 14in/45 41YT Gun
(Japanese naval gun)
I think this was when the remnant was moving overland to rejoin its parent unit.
(I giggled at the thought of a base force mounting such a trophy at the entrance to the airfield.)

HTH

[:D]

This sounds like a corruption of a game file more than anything else that springs to mind... of course, i suppose the other problems could be due to corruption of game files as well.

I found this in the v1.8.0.2 patch notes

The text "Static" is displayed on the individual land unit screen for units that have static devices (load cost
9999).
I understand that to mean that static devices have a load cost of 9999.

And in v1.8.0.1 (Not fully relevant but perhaps a pointer)
6. LCU fragments improperly receiving reinforcements.
During turn processing of Land Units with multiple fragments, the system could temporarily lose track of
the proper unit(s) that should receive reinforcements. This could result in cut off or unsupplied fragments
being improperly reinforced.
Fix: Prevented focus shift away from the proper unit.


No.104 RAF base force history from relevant save files
So it looks like a surviving cadre having completed "The Long March" (which probably took over
60 turns to complete) would have very few elements left on returning to supply. Could a similar
issue to v1.8.0.1 (above) occasionally be affecting the reinforcement when units rebuild?