I have a question to compatibility with old version. Do I use my old saved games and pbem games with new patch ???
Matto
What To Expect in the Patch
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Compatibility ???
Excuse my English ... I hope is better then Your Czech ... 
My MatrixGames: WitP, WitP AE, WPO, JTCS, P&S, CoGEE, ATG, GoA, B.Academy, C-GW, OoB all DLCs, all SC, FoG2/E, most AGEOD games ...
My MatrixGames: WitP, WitP AE, WPO, JTCS, P&S, CoGEE, ATG, GoA, B.Academy, C-GW, OoB all DLCs, all SC, FoG2/E, most AGEOD games ...
good news
The changes incorporated in the patch will definitely improve the game which already has me hooked. Thanks Matrix and 2by3 for tweaking an already superb product!
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
As one who likes the current mine warfare routine, I’m wondering how the changes will impact the game. Currently I mine enemy ports. Now you are saying that my mines will have a significantly increased chance of hitting my own ships. That means that I will have to send in a minesweeper first whenever I want to invade. That means sticking around with carrier support while the minesweeper does his job. I prefer to hit with the invasion force and get out as quickly as I can. Also, if the invasion fails, I’ve just cleared the enemy’s port of all of my mines.
How much of an increase will my ships have of hitting their own mines after the patch? If I dump 200 mines in a hex what are the chances of hitting one?
Yamamoto
How much of an increase will my ships have of hitting their own mines after the patch? If I dump 200 mines in a hex what are the chances of hitting one?
Yamamoto
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
From what I understand the AA penalty was a "step function" that kicked in at 15 ships that made ships added to that total count less than "full value", so what happens now is a more level decrease from 10 to 15 in this penalty. As I under stand it the penalty is "total teh AA firepower of teh task force and if it has 10 or fewr ships its that total, if 11 ships its reduced a little, 12 ships reduced a little more - the penalty not being bigger than the addition f teh ship, but reflective of the fact that every ship could not engage every target as the task force got large. So yes, at some point adding ships to a very large task force added no real increase in total firepower because an attacking air group could not be engaged by it if it attacked from the opposite side of the formation . So in effect it "wasn't there". Trying to model the exact geometry of teh formationand what ships can bear would not yield a significantly different result than by not increasing the AA strength very much after you have lots of ships.
The diminishing returns was accepted, as the player can as the cost for massing force. But you should not get to just assume that every ship in the task force applies its full AA firepower against every attack, that is obviously impossible. This game doesn't allow for "simultaneous time on top multi-axis attakcs", that japanese Kamikazes tried to perform late in the war. WITP will likely have some accounting in its kamikaze rules.
As I understand the mining rules,
1) You will have to load mines at Noumea or Truk. There were not hordes of mine techs and you could just load them from anywhere. This will help keep mining in or near enemy base hexes as was historically done as you won't have time to lay 10's of thousands of mines everywhere.
2) There was a Japanese deep water mine. There were also floating mines that sank after a short time or exploded. Mine fields in deep hexes are only 10% as effective and that paltry capability is halved each day until they vanish the third day after being laid. Reflects that at least the Japs TRIED to mine on occasion in deep water, you will likely have the same lack of success they did. With the loading of mines restricted to the depot locations, I can't see many folks using this for 4 days very limited effect.
3)There is a VERY VERY small chance you can hit mines you lay defensively. ONce you capture a base, you are assumed to discover the "secret plan" for the minefield (since all the ships had to have it...) and it becomes friendly to you (and remains friendly to the enemy). WHen you mine his bases, and them capture the base, since such offensive fields are laid with an eye to speed and not care, you have to treat them like an enemy minefield and sweep them.
3) A hot key will cause a small s to appear in shallow hexes.
The diminishing returns was accepted, as the player can as the cost for massing force. But you should not get to just assume that every ship in the task force applies its full AA firepower against every attack, that is obviously impossible. This game doesn't allow for "simultaneous time on top multi-axis attakcs", that japanese Kamikazes tried to perform late in the war. WITP will likely have some accounting in its kamikaze rules.
As I understand the mining rules,
1) You will have to load mines at Noumea or Truk. There were not hordes of mine techs and you could just load them from anywhere. This will help keep mining in or near enemy base hexes as was historically done as you won't have time to lay 10's of thousands of mines everywhere.
2) There was a Japanese deep water mine. There were also floating mines that sank after a short time or exploded. Mine fields in deep hexes are only 10% as effective and that paltry capability is halved each day until they vanish the third day after being laid. Reflects that at least the Japs TRIED to mine on occasion in deep water, you will likely have the same lack of success they did. With the loading of mines restricted to the depot locations, I can't see many folks using this for 4 days very limited effect.
3)There is a VERY VERY small chance you can hit mines you lay defensively. ONce you capture a base, you are assumed to discover the "secret plan" for the minefield (since all the ships had to have it...) and it becomes friendly to you (and remains friendly to the enemy). WHen you mine his bases, and them capture the base, since such offensive fields are laid with an eye to speed and not care, you have to treat them like an enemy minefield and sweep them.
3) A hot key will cause a small s to appear in shallow hexes.
All the changes sound logical and goodness. Can't wait. However, couple of questions :
1. Will games in progress be able to be continued with the patched version? If not, consider embedded, seamless workaround code to allow this.
2. ASW by aircraft. Juliet7bravo conducted an extensive test with the editor on the relative effectivness of aircraft against subs, particularly allied aircraft. I think you should read his thread.
While I consider that the opinions of some people that aircraft should be killing subs at an increasing rate to be way overblown (especially in a game that measures time in one day increments) I do think his test shows a flaw in the implementation of ASW and naval missions for patrol aircraft. Anyway, right now, its almost impossible right now to kill a sub with ASW patrols. In my game I've had Hudsons and other non-patrol aircraft on ASW for 4 months and never gotton a hit or a kill from them. It could be because I sunk all the Jap subs with destroyers, I don't know. Just look into it at a code level, I think there might be a problem with loadout or attack algorithims, as juliet described in his thread.
1. Will games in progress be able to be continued with the patched version? If not, consider embedded, seamless workaround code to allow this.
2. ASW by aircraft. Juliet7bravo conducted an extensive test with the editor on the relative effectivness of aircraft against subs, particularly allied aircraft. I think you should read his thread.
While I consider that the opinions of some people that aircraft should be killing subs at an increasing rate to be way overblown (especially in a game that measures time in one day increments) I do think his test shows a flaw in the implementation of ASW and naval missions for patrol aircraft. Anyway, right now, its almost impossible right now to kill a sub with ASW patrols. In my game I've had Hudsons and other non-patrol aircraft on ASW for 4 months and never gotton a hit or a kill from them. It could be because I sunk all the Jap subs with destroyers, I don't know. Just look into it at a code level, I think there might be a problem with loadout or attack algorithims, as juliet described in his thread.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. 
-
Joel Billings
- Posts: 33689
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Santa Rosa, CA
- Contact:
Based on the testing by Juliet7bravo (nice job), I mentioned the concern regarding ASW aircraft to Gary. He has just confirmed that there is in fact a bug in the code that prevents aircraft with torpedoes from loading out with bombs when on ASW or Naval Search missions (he intended for bombs to be carried). Since I don't know exactly where the first patch stands in the testing process, I can't say if Gary's proposed fix will get into the first patch or in a later patch, but it has been reported to Mike and David so I'm sure they'll get it in as soon as they can.
By the way, based on a question I saw in a previous thread, I used the book The Lost Patrol to come up with the following numbers regarding US subs lost in all theaters from 12/7/41 - 12/31/43:
Operational/Friendly Fire Losses - 6
Sunk by Enemy Surface Ships - 6
Sunk by Enemy Sub - 1
Sunk by Enemy Aircraft - 1
Sunk by Combination of Enemy Aircraft and Surface Ships - 4 (in these cases the plane spotted the sub and surface ships finished it off)
No Known Reason - 7 (almost all of these were assumed to be from minefields or surface ships, not aircraft, but no one knows for sure)
As you can see, not many sunk by Japanese aircraft. I would guess Japanese sub losses to US aircraft was much higher.
By the way, based on a question I saw in a previous thread, I used the book The Lost Patrol to come up with the following numbers regarding US subs lost in all theaters from 12/7/41 - 12/31/43:
Operational/Friendly Fire Losses - 6
Sunk by Enemy Surface Ships - 6
Sunk by Enemy Sub - 1
Sunk by Enemy Aircraft - 1
Sunk by Combination of Enemy Aircraft and Surface Ships - 4 (in these cases the plane spotted the sub and surface ships finished it off)
No Known Reason - 7 (almost all of these were assumed to be from minefields or surface ships, not aircraft, but no one knows for sure)
As you can see, not many sunk by Japanese aircraft. I would guess Japanese sub losses to US aircraft was much higher.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Great news (on the patch) and it's specifics
cant wait to try it out. Just as with SP:WAW, Matrix and crew deliver and deliver quickly after user feedback. If only certain other gaming companies were as responsive.
Kudos too on tweaking the AA situation. IIRC this was a long-standing complaint from back in the PacWar days when players would constantly build 20 ship TF's (with the majority composed of crusier and AA cruisers) to maximize Flak firepower and inflate it to unbelievable preportions.....so much so that an IJN player would be lucky to get two or three actual "shots" at their targets with all the rest either being hit or shot down.
cant wait to try it out. Just as with SP:WAW, Matrix and crew deliver and deliver quickly after user feedback. If only certain other gaming companies were as responsive.
Kudos too on tweaking the AA situation. IIRC this was a long-standing complaint from back in the PacWar days when players would constantly build 20 ship TF's (with the majority composed of crusier and AA cruisers) to maximize Flak firepower and inflate it to unbelievable preportions.....so much so that an IJN player would be lucky to get two or three actual "shots" at their targets with all the rest either being hit or shot down.
-
rhohltjr
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Patch Patch whos got da patch.
I hope the first patch will deal with that dang 'fatal click o death' /Originally posted by Nikademus
Great news (on the patch) and it's specifics
cant wait to try it out. Just as with SP:WAW, Matrix and crew deliver and deliver quickly after user feedback. If only certain other gaming companies were as responsive.
'click to CTD' that some of us are having.
Lemmee see, there used to be that game co., same one that did
PacWar IIRC, that used to be pretty good at backing up their work with patches,... SSI yeah. Course they had the 2x3 crew there then.
My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Submarines
Just a suggestion. When one leaves subs under AI control, they wander all over the place and perform things like wolfpack tactics and such and when one places them under human control, they have to be watched extremely closely for endurance and ammo issues, and I've found they rarely attack unless put in choke points that are very shallow and well defended. It seems that there is too little or too much control.
What about doing what was done during wartime (at least for the allies this was done)? Assign subs patrol areas which have a multiple hex area and within which subs must remain for their patrol or until sent elsewhere. This way the AI reacts to contacts and returns when deemed fit, and does not cross into other sub patrol areas (something which USN doctrine adhered to until late 1944). Might be a happy middleground with both types of gamers, it would be for me.
What about doing what was done during wartime (at least for the allies this was done)? Assign subs patrol areas which have a multiple hex area and within which subs must remain for their patrol or until sent elsewhere. This way the AI reacts to contacts and returns when deemed fit, and does not cross into other sub patrol areas (something which USN doctrine adhered to until late 1944). Might be a happy middleground with both types of gamers, it would be for me.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
-
juliet7bravo
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am
Glad the ASW is getting looked at.
Japanese should most definitely get a severe handicap for AC on ASW patrol. Them not even having an ASW option wouldn't be too far out of line.
IJN lost something like 128 subs out of 174, and that includes training/obsolete subs as well. My database isn't configured to break ships down by method of loss, but the majority were sunk by DD's and DE's. Without getting wrapped up in it, doubt if it was more than 4-6 subs lost in all of '42 to LBA. Which is what my bomb armed PB's were doing in game, roughly 1 kill per month on shallow water subs, with maybe another 1-2 non-fatal hits...so once they get the correct loadout they should be fine.
One thing sticks out, stemming from ASW testing...I think UK ships included at scenario start (long campaign) should get somewhat higher experience levels than they have...they've been at war much longer. Same with any USN ships included that were part of Asiatic Fleet, they've already had their OJT the hard way.
Mine warfare...the IJN is handicapped by not having a high speed DMS class in game to keep up with SC/Bomb TF's. The Matsuki class DD's were also rated as DM/DMS prior to conversion. Why not rate some of the ones not converted* to APD's as high speed DMS's instead of retaining them as DD's?
*Note: Seems to be some confusion over between Watts/Jentschura whether they were all converted to APD's or not in '41/'42?
Japanese should most definitely get a severe handicap for AC on ASW patrol. Them not even having an ASW option wouldn't be too far out of line.
IJN lost something like 128 subs out of 174, and that includes training/obsolete subs as well. My database isn't configured to break ships down by method of loss, but the majority were sunk by DD's and DE's. Without getting wrapped up in it, doubt if it was more than 4-6 subs lost in all of '42 to LBA. Which is what my bomb armed PB's were doing in game, roughly 1 kill per month on shallow water subs, with maybe another 1-2 non-fatal hits...so once they get the correct loadout they should be fine.
One thing sticks out, stemming from ASW testing...I think UK ships included at scenario start (long campaign) should get somewhat higher experience levels than they have...they've been at war much longer. Same with any USN ships included that were part of Asiatic Fleet, they've already had their OJT the hard way.
Mine warfare...the IJN is handicapped by not having a high speed DMS class in game to keep up with SC/Bomb TF's. The Matsuki class DD's were also rated as DM/DMS prior to conversion. Why not rate some of the ones not converted* to APD's as high speed DMS's instead of retaining them as DD's?
*Note: Seems to be some confusion over between Watts/Jentschura whether they were all converted to APD's or not in '41/'42?
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
can't say for sure, likely not by this weekend, but less than two weekends form now? Depends... We obviously hope sooner than later, but we have been burned too many times saying monday that 'the patch will out Friday'...to make such an announcment.
When we have a firm date, it will likely be "come get it now".
When we have a firm date, it will likely be "come get it now".
Mines to be made useless?
Will mines be made useless by the patch?
New Mine Rules:?
++++++++++++++++
1) You will have to load mines at Noumea or Truk.
++++++++++++++++
The distance for minelayers/subs will be so great for the Japs that they will be useless, because if you try to refuel a minelayer/Sub at a port it unload the mines!
How about making the new mine rules optional or add mines as a new supply type or a new Eng support unit to support mine operations at forward bases. So if you move your Mine Support Engineers to a new base, your will be able to load minelayers/subs from that base.
Also please add some data about mines to the database. There is no mine data in the online unit database.
New Mine Rules:?
++++++++++++++++
1) You will have to load mines at Noumea or Truk.
++++++++++++++++
The distance for minelayers/subs will be so great for the Japs that they will be useless, because if you try to refuel a minelayer/Sub at a port it unload the mines!
How about making the new mine rules optional or add mines as a new supply type or a new Eng support unit to support mine operations at forward bases. So if you move your Mine Support Engineers to a new base, your will be able to load minelayers/subs from that base.
Also please add some data about mines to the database. There is no mine data in the online unit database.
Re: ACtivate Mouse-roller!!!
Matrix-Staff, can you answer this one aswell, plz?Originally posted by vils
Add Support for Mouse-roller!
Please do, i am totally addicted to it.
Should be extremely easy, no?
Thanx, Vils
Take Command! - Lewis E. Lyle
-
juliet7bravo
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am
"Also please add some data about mines to the database. There is no mine data in the online unit database."
Japanese moored contact mines;
Type 3: Air mine, 110-175 lb charge (haven't tried figuring out how to use it, or if it's possible)
Type 88: Sub mine, 400 lb charge
Type 93: Ship mine, 220 lb charge
USN mines;
Mk 6: Either; Moored mine, K-pistol, 300 lb charge (up to 3000 ft depth!) or (more likely given the time frame) the Mk 6 "drift mine" launched from a ships DC racks with a 365 lb charge.
Mk 10: Sub mine, moored contact mine, 500 lb charge
Mk 12: Sub mine, 1100-1250 lb charge (contact?) used by the Argonaut in game ( I think maybe they got the Mk 10 and Mk 12 mixed up...Campbell says the Argonaut used Mk 10 and Mk 11 mines)
Mk 16: Moored mine, K-pistol, 600 lb charge (up to 3000 ft)
Mk 18: Ship Mine, Magnetic, 1350 lb charge
The "Mine Guy" could probably explain them better and more accurately, unless you can step on them or stick'em on the sides of ships, I don't know squat about mines.
Japanese moored contact mines;
Type 3: Air mine, 110-175 lb charge (haven't tried figuring out how to use it, or if it's possible)
Type 88: Sub mine, 400 lb charge
Type 93: Ship mine, 220 lb charge
USN mines;
Mk 6: Either; Moored mine, K-pistol, 300 lb charge (up to 3000 ft depth!) or (more likely given the time frame) the Mk 6 "drift mine" launched from a ships DC racks with a 365 lb charge.
Mk 10: Sub mine, moored contact mine, 500 lb charge
Mk 12: Sub mine, 1100-1250 lb charge (contact?) used by the Argonaut in game ( I think maybe they got the Mk 10 and Mk 12 mixed up...Campbell says the Argonaut used Mk 10 and Mk 11 mines)
Mk 16: Moored mine, K-pistol, 600 lb charge (up to 3000 ft)
Mk 18: Ship Mine, Magnetic, 1350 lb charge
The "Mine Guy" could probably explain them better and more accurately, unless you can step on them or stick'em on the sides of ships, I don't know squat about mines.
-
Pkunzipper
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:27 pm
Re: Mines to be made useless?
You have to escor your ML with 1-2 DD, so they can re-fuel them at seaOriginally posted by pad152
Will mines be made useless by the patch?
New Mine Rules:?
++++++++++++++++
1) You will have to load mines at Noumea or Truk.
++++++++++++++++
The distance for minelayers/subs will be so great for the Japs that they will be useless, because if you try to refuel a minelayer/Sub at a port it unload the mines!
-
juliet7bravo
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am
When you're doing the "new data base", is there any chance of getting any of the following units included (pretty please) for future scenario building?
(1) Matsuki APD class, 34 knot and about 100-125t capacity...the "extra" one listed in the DB with the APD's doesn't have any cargo capacity. Would be very useful for Tokyo Express missions.
(2) Matsuki class DD re-rated as a DMS (historically they were rated/equipped for minelaying and minesweeping, and only 6 were converted to APD's) and would fill a game need for an high speed IJN DMS. Of course, with the new mine rules might not need one.
(3) 100t 6-9 knot extremely small AK (Allied or both sides)
(4) 250-500t 9 knot very small AK (both sides)
(5) 100t 6 knot "sail boat" AK (both sides) (Just asking, what the heck)
(6) Armoured Diahatsu barge (for the "gunboat" variant)
(7) Yokosuka E14Y1 Glen floatplane for the subs. Could be an E8N Dave renamed and an existing float plane graphic, stats would be about the same.
(8) PBY-5A with ASV radar as an upgrade to the PBY
(9) "Black Cat" PBY variant capable of night naval attack
That would pretty much cover every future eventuality I think, including earlier period scenarios...
(1) Matsuki APD class, 34 knot and about 100-125t capacity...the "extra" one listed in the DB with the APD's doesn't have any cargo capacity. Would be very useful for Tokyo Express missions.
(2) Matsuki class DD re-rated as a DMS (historically they were rated/equipped for minelaying and minesweeping, and only 6 were converted to APD's) and would fill a game need for an high speed IJN DMS. Of course, with the new mine rules might not need one.
(3) 100t 6-9 knot extremely small AK (Allied or both sides)
(4) 250-500t 9 knot very small AK (both sides)
(5) 100t 6 knot "sail boat" AK (both sides) (Just asking, what the heck)
(6) Armoured Diahatsu barge (for the "gunboat" variant)
(7) Yokosuka E14Y1 Glen floatplane for the subs. Could be an E8N Dave renamed and an existing float plane graphic, stats would be about the same.
(8) PBY-5A with ASV radar as an upgrade to the PBY
(9) "Black Cat" PBY variant capable of night naval attack
That would pretty much cover every future eventuality I think, including earlier period scenarios...
List Display
Hi Folks, just a quickie. If easy to fix it would be nice if the
lists - such as show all bases did not revert back to the top of the list after clicking on a location etc from the list.
This is my first post so I would like to say hi to everyone and thank you for an exceptional game - after studying the rules for 2 weeks I suppose I better try and play a scenario for fun soon. (Although I was surprised to find that I had won as Allies in the Coral sea scenario when all I did was mess about with refueling for 2 weeks!)
lists - such as show all bases did not revert back to the top of the list after clicking on a location etc from the list.
This is my first post so I would like to say hi to everyone and thank you for an exceptional game - after studying the rules for 2 weeks I suppose I better try and play a scenario for fun soon. (Although I was surprised to find that I had won as Allies in the Coral sea scenario when all I did was mess about with refueling for 2 weeks!)
So drink to the Black Cat PBY, damnedest old plane in all God's sky,
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
BB-gun for'd and a slingshot aft, Hundred twenty knots when in a forced draft.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Re: List Display
Hey, this is actually a great suggestion!!!Originally posted by jive1
Hi Folks, just a quickie. If easy to fix it would be nice if the
lists - such as show all bases did not revert back to the top of the list after clicking on a location etc from the list.
SNIP
Hartmann