New Beta fix #338

[Cavalry Corp]

just out of interest how do we know if planes miss for BAD WEATHER????

[Knyvet]

Why are you assuming that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is because of radar??? I see nothing in the report indicating that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is radar.

ORIGINAL: Puhis

There really was a bug with radar detection. Now beta patch have fixed that.

That bug does have some impact of millersan's battle. Still, he's fighting a battle that's not going to end well for Japan, because he just doesn't have enough fighters.

Even with this 160 NM absurd detection range it's still possible to fight succesful carrier battle as Japan. This is an example from my latest PBEM turn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Vanikoro at 122,145

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 60 minutes

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Knyvet

Why are you assuming that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is because of radar??? I see nothing in the report indicating that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is radar.

Well, mysteriously after beta patch fixed radar detection range, detections have dropped substantially... See Miller's example: detection range is much more reasonable, even though raid is much bigger

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

I complaned radar detection ranges long time a ago. There was a bug (they mixed yards, miles, nautical miles), and it's now fixed. I'm happy.


EDIT: In my example battle range was just 2 hexes, so allies detected japanese raid while they were still spotting planes on deck...

[frank1970]

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

and would you realize that while he (or whoever) found a bug, it has nothing to do with the low hitrate of bombers set to 20000ft? Finding a bug is one thing, saying it is the reason why bombers didn't hit something, when something like close to 100% made it through Cap anyway is something different.

quote: US SBD's hitting at 35% and vals at 3.7%

has nothing to do with radar but a pure player's faulty setting. Guess I'm well known enough that I'm the last one defending something if the game is bringing up something really flawed, but in this case it was a players fault and the couple of bomb hits from Vals level bombing from 20000ft are unrealistic enough so instead of complaining about the low hit rate of the Vals, one should complain in a way like this: "I screwed up my settings and the game came up with a ridicoulos result in that 3 Vals scored a bomb hit on an enemy carrier while level bombing from 20000ft - it's a dive bomber, so how could it hit?"

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Knyvet

Why are you assuming that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is because of radar??? I see nothing in the report indicating that the only reason for the 160 NM detection is radar.

Well, mysteriously after beta patch fixed radar detection range, detections have dropped substantially... See Miller's example: detection range is much more reasonable, even though raid is much bigger

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

I complaned radar detection ranges long time a ago. There was a bug (they mixed yards, miles, nautical miles), and it's now fixed. I'm happy.


EDIT: In my example battle range was just 2 hexes, so allies detected japanese raid while they were still spotting planes on deck...

but wasn't it also said that no matter how close the two opposing carrier fleets are, it still can happen that radar spots them further away than the carriers are actually apart from each other? Range of radar, a die roll = result. If radar range > distance between fleets + positive die roll then raid is spotted further out than the carriers are away.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

Sir,

Millersan did not find any bug, nor was any radar bug corrected in the last beta patch.

The radar bug was identified and corrected in beta patch 1108p4, released on 16 July 2011.
The current beta patch is 1108r6e, released on 1 January 2012.

The combat results experienced by Millersan are, in fact, related entirely to his style of play, and not due to any game bugs.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: millersan
So...tell everyone you know about this fix. Without it the game is a waste of time.

Hi Millersan,

I am a regular "forum rat" and hadn't heard about this bug before, so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I don't play under any of the beta patches and have not experienced what you are describing. I can assure you that it is not always a problem with carrier / carrier battles on non-beta patched games. I've played several PBEMs (GC and scenerios) involving carrier / carrier battles and not seen this as a problem in those games.

I would certainly not classify my thousands of hours with this phenemonal game engine as a waste of time without the beta patch. I believe your conclusion to be a bit premature, with all due respect.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Frank

Gentlemen,

would you please be so kind as to realize, that Millersan really found a bug and that it was corrected in the last beat-patch?

This is not a question of style or a question of who designed what, but simply a fact.

Thanks

Sir,

Millersan did not find any bug, nor was any radar bug corrected in the last beta patch.

The radar bug was identified and corrected in beta patch 1108p4, released on 16 July 2011.
The current beta patch is 1108r6e, released on 1 January 2012.

The combat results experienced by Millersan are, in fact, related entirely to his style of play, and not due to any game bugs.

Sir,

this might be true with a high propability.
Else it is true, that a radar bug was corrected (maybe he, like me doesn´t read each and every detail in the list of changes per patch). I am quite sure, that the "bad feeling" Millersan might have had becuase of his unlucky choice of carrier tactics, was reduced by his finding, that there might at least a bug have affected his bad results.

Kind regards.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

10,000 - 14,000 feet.

Which is rediculous, as the US Dive Bombers at Midway (perhaps the most successful dive bombing attach of the war) attacked from 17,000 feet. [8|]

[WITPPL]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I don't know of any such bug, or it being fixed in the Beta. Perhaps I missed it.

You mentioned Vals getting 3.7% hit rate and SBDs getting 35% hit rate - I think people explained the Val issue pretty well. SBDs do hit well sometimes, but if you think it's a problem that they did then you could post all the relevant details, like pilot skills, etc.

Check out my report here:

tm.asp?m=3006014&mpage=1&key=&#3006014

[guytipton41]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

If things go poorly, it's the game's fault.

Where is the combat report data of this "even up CV fight"?, unless you're talking about the one in the "This is just wack..." thread. Most problems users experience can be traced to the misunderstanding and misapplication of resources in the game, as in the example shown in the "wack" thread, setting your DBs to a level bombing altitude.

Surely you must have figured that out by now - the "wack" thread is nearly a week old. Why are you posting about this issue again?

Hi Folks,

After I posted the 'wack' thread - millersan and I reran the combat six more times with various parameters changed - especially the Val altitude. We changed the number of TF, the range, %CAP (USN 20% CAP in one case) and CAP altitude. With the released version of the software the results were lopsided to very lopsided in every case. Six trials do not a statistical basis make, but they are a good leading indicator. We didn't keep good records of the trials, but with respect to IJN and USN pilots these are the game start pilots. (Which I assume are elite for the IJN).

Then we downloaded the Dec '12 beta and ran it again a few more times and the results are still pro-USN but much more balanced. It appears that letting the defense spending a hour setting up makes a significant difference.

Cheers,
Guy

Ps. The rough and tumble of internet posting maybe second nature to netziens, but some folks making a post to this forum might be making their 1st post ever. We don't want to scare off potential victims... I mean opponents.

[witpqs]

Guys, I know you are seeing the results you are seeing, but others just aren't. Players have many, many results under the official releases (meaning non-Beta) that are not in any way consistently lopsided. Quite often the IJN absolutely kicks butt. The notions that the latest official release out there (which is 1106i IIRC) is somehow warped toward the Allies and that the Beta changes that - those notions are just not true.

What are the reasons that you are seeing what you are seeing? I don't know. But a huge weight of examples/experiences from other players contradicts the conclusions that (if I understand correctly) you are reaching.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: guytipton41

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

If things go poorly, it's the game's fault.

Where is the combat report data of this "even up CV fight"?, unless you're talking about the one in the "This is just wack..." thread. Most problems users experience can be traced to the misunderstanding and misapplication of resources in the game, as in the example shown in the "wack" thread, setting your DBs to a level bombing altitude.

Surely you must have figured that out by now - the "wack" thread is nearly a week old. Why are you posting about this issue again?

Hi Folks,

After I posted the 'wack' thread - millersan and I reran the combat six more times with various parameters changed - especially the Val altitude. We changed the number of TF, the range, %CAP (USN 20% CAP in one case) and CAP altitude. With the released version of the software the results were lopsided to very lopsided in every case. Six trials do not a statistical basis make, but they are a good leading indicator. We didn't keep good records of the trials, but with respect to IJN and USN pilots these are the game start pilots. (Which I assume are elite for the IJN).

Then we downloaded the Dec '12 beta and ran it again a few more times and the results are still pro-USN but much more balanced. It appears that letting the defense spending a hour setting up makes a significant difference.

Cheers,
Guy

Ps. The rough and tumble of internet posting maybe second nature to netziens, but some folks making a post to this forum might be making their 1st post ever. We don't want to scare off potential victims... I mean opponents.

If you two guys see the initial IJN super hero pilots achieving always only a 3.5% hit rate in their Vals AND you set them to an altitude that makes them dive bombing then you are not playing WITP AE. Not speaking of a different patch version, speaking of a different game.

No test on Earth will ever show the same results you seem to be quoting. Thousands of combat reports on the forum and 3.5% hit rate is just not what they show. 35% perhaps, 3.5% no.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: guytipton41

After I posted the 'wack' thread - millersan and I reran the combat six more times with various parameters changed - especially the Val altitude. We changed the number of TF, the range, %CAP (USN 20% CAP in one case) and CAP altitude. With the released version of the software the results were lopsided to very lopsided in every case. Six trials do not a statistical basis make, but they are a good leading indicator. We didn't keep good records of the trials, but with respect to IJN and USN pilots these are the game start pilots. (Which I assume are elite for the IJN).

Then we downloaded the Dec '12 beta and ran it again a few more times and the results are still pro-USN but much more balanced. It appears that letting the defense spending a hour setting up makes a significant difference.

I think you are partly right, that radar bug gives US CAP too much time to react. I've seen that too. I think it can be an issue, espesially early game when Japan don't have radar. Beta patch have fixed that now.

However, in your example the main problem of IJN is lack of fighters. Early in 1942, 4 KB carriers have just 70 fighters, which is not enough for both CAP and escort.

Look at my example (post # 18), I was using same patch as you. USN had the same 160 NM, 60 minutes warning time, but the battle went really well for IJN. You have to have enough escort fighters to protect bombers.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

That does not mean much without knowing parameters. You can see from multitude of AARs that A2A works reasonably well in 80-90% of cases.

There are several ways to "screw up" and 60% of those can be traced to "problem between chair & keyboard, 40% for bad dice rolls". For example, having Vals to fly over 15k is classic way..since then they level bomb and rarely hit anything.

Over 14k now, if this hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet. At some point of the beta divebombing altitude was changed.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

That does not mean much without knowing parameters. You can see from multitude of AARs that A2A works reasonably well in 80-90% of cases.

There are several ways to "screw up" and 60% of those can be traced to "problem between chair & keyboard, 40% for bad dice rolls". For example, having Vals to fly over 15k is classic way..since then they level bomb and rarely hit anything.

Over 14k now, if this hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet. At some point of the beta divebombing altitude was changed.

Raid massively overnumbering CAP is another biggie. I am not saying there may not be problems, just that CAP just cannot deal massive raids overnumbering CAP.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

10,000 - 14,000 feet.

Which is rediculous, as the US Dive Bombers at Midway (perhaps the most successful dive bombing attach of the war) attacked from 17,000 feet. [8|]

Of course, most of us are well aware of this. But there is no switch that allows either the computer commander or the human player to make objective decisions about when and whether to use a certain bombing tactic at all altitudes. So by using an altitude bands the designers effectively created that switch for us. It is just the limitations of a the game. We all know that in the Pacific a flight of fighters could have flown to the target at 20,000 feet and then dropped down to 100 feet to strafe. But was not possible to program that into the game along with the other duties fighters perform at 20k. You just have to live with it. It is not such a big deal.