Port and AF Build Size Refresher

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.

With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.

Weird, I have absolutely no problem building a port in Baker, and I don’t remember tinkering that hex with PWHEXE editor.[&:]

Well, it takes some time, as with any SPS 0 base, but it gets built up.

I even just checked the old Quiet China files, which I haven’t updated since installing the game, and Baker’s Port building option is available, so it’s not a matter of using some fixed database.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.

With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.

Weird, I have absolutely no problem building a port in Baker, and I don’t remember tinkering that hex with PWHEXE editor.[&:]

Well, it takes some time, as with any SPS 0 base, but it gets built up.

I even just checked the old Quiet China files, which I haven’t updated since installing the game, and Baker’s Port building option is available, so it’s not a matter of using some fixed database.

Ranger, like me, has the option to expand port "greyed out". The little button is absent.

What map are you using?

[Ian R]

[GetAssista]

Stock scenarios should have all bases buildable to +3 according to the rules, no exceptions. Mine stocks surely do for Baker

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ian R

This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred

Which scenario are we talking about here? Is this a bug in Stock Scenario 1 that can be corrected in the editor?

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred

Not someone, something under the hood.

Here is the scenario location data in the editor of my game in progress - it is a type 01 port.




Here is the base screen two days in, same game - still a type 01 port





Here is the base screen under temporary IJ ownership in June 1943 - something has reset the base type to primary airfield.

[Ian R]

I just opened as few archived saves to find the timing - the alteration from 'base' to airfield happened on the turn resolution of 23 December 1941.

Both Norfolk Is and Baker Is changed status, and both were still in allied hands at the time.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I just opened as few archived saves to find the timing - the alteration from 'base' to airfield happened on the turn resolution of 23 December 1941.

Both Norfolk Is and Baker Is changed status, and both were still in allied hands at the time.

So it is a bug then? Wonder if anyone knows how you would fix it? I'm starting a new game using AndyMacs Updated Scenario 1 and I wonder if it has the same issue?

[Ian R]

Have a look on 24 December 1941 and see if it (or Norfolk Is) has changed type.

Ambassador is saying he has never had the problem, so it's all very mysterious at the moment.

[Ambassador]

Using stock map, and AFAIK an unmodified PWHEXE file, and AndyMac’s updated Scen 1 & 2. Last beta patch.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Have a look on 24 December 1941 and see if it (or Norfolk Is) has changed type.

Ambassador is saying he has never had the problem, so it's all very mysterious at the moment.

I don’t remember ever having had the problem, but playing as the Allies I usually do not worry about Baker, neither defending nor invading it (only bomb it occasionally, later in the campaign). There are plenty of better bases.

I’ve checked December 7th start in several scenarios though, and they all allow Port construction.

I’ve just run a H2H test, fast forwarding to Dec 26th on a Scen 1 (well, modified to slot 54 to more easily calling back all invasion fleets - no other modifications). Both Baker and Norfolk have the option to start Port building.

By the way, both are still « bases » and have not changed to « primary airfield ».

The pwhexe.dat file still has a last modified date of 09-09-10.

[dwesolick]

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.

The mystery deepens.

@dwesolick - I am using the game to test/change things in my mod. Have you ever had occasion to implement a scenario data base amendment in your ongoing game?

[Nomad]

I think there is a bug in the program. I am playing a PBEM of BTS-H. I have every turn we played. Starbuck Island started
as a Base. Sometime around April 15, 1942 it changed to an airfield. This was not a data error, or a map error, the program
changed it and I have no idea why.

[dwesolick]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I'm at Oct 43 in my Ironman game against the AI. I've built up Baker to a level 2 port and level 2 airfield. Haven't touched Howland but the port is showing buildable there.

The mystery deepens.

@dwesolick - I am using the game to test/change things in my mod. Have you ever had occasion to implement a scenario data base amendment in your ongoing game?

Lord no. I wouldn't even know how to. I think we have a "ghost" in the system! [X(]

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Not someone, something under the hood.

Here is the scenario location data in the editor of my game in progress - it is a type 01 port.

Some thought just occurred to my mind. Your Scen 31 (which is it by the way ? BTS ?) apparently has a Baker Eng Bn scheduled to appear 411225. I suppose it’s a Japanese unit, given the ID number ? Due to the proximity of the date to the change of status, could it have an influence ? Could you post a screenshot of that unit’s database entry in the Editor ?

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Using stock map, and AFAIK an unmodified PWHEXE file, and AndyMac’s updated Scen 1 & 2. Last beta patch.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Have a look on 24 December 1941 and see if it (or Norfolk Is) has changed type.

Ambassador is saying he has never had the problem, so it's all very mysterious at the moment.

I don’t remember ever having had the problem, but playing as the Allies I usually do not worry about Baker, neither defending nor invading it (only bomb it occasionally, later in the campaign). There are plenty of better bases.

I’ve checked December 7th start in several scenarios though, and they all allow Port construction.

I’ve just run a H2H test, fast forwarding to Dec 26th on a Scen 1 (well, modified to slot 54 to more easily calling back all invasion fleets - no other modifications). Both Baker and Norfolk have the option to start Port building.

By the way, both are still « bases » and have not changed to « primary airfield ».

The pwhexe.dat file still has a last modified date of 09-09-10.

You just made me realize that I have probably modified the PWHEXE.DAT file over the years trying different scenarios and maps and now that I am starting AndyMacs new updated scenario 1... I need to make sure it is back to stock version. Looks like I updated mine last in 2013 when I believe I was using DaBabes Lite Extended Map. Oops forgot about this.

I'm assuming it is ok to swap out the PWHEXE.DAT files while you are in the middle of setting up turn one? It now says PWHEXE.DAT file differs when I load my first turn set up...

[Kull]

I haven't seen this bug either, but it's interesting. From a mod perspective, it would be a great way to ensure that certain locations aren't built up as ports. Not every island or coastal hex should be capable of developing a size 3 port (or more).

Out of curiosity I ran a few tests with a variety of Baker Island settings, and it turns out you can also limit the ability to build airfields, but it's a bit tricky. Using the editor, go to the Baker Island location record and set the "Type" to "06-Secondary Airfield" and the "Port" to "1" (keeping the "Airfield" also at 1). Save it as a new scenario and when you start the new campaign, Baker Island has now become a "US Navy Port" and the ability to build airfields is now greyed out:

[RangerJoe]

There is one advantage to not building any airfield at all, it can't be bombed plus the float planes and flying boats won't be hit on the port strikes.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is one advantage to not building any airfield at all, it can't be bombed plus the float planes and flying boats won't be hit on the port strikes.

Good point - in fact if you make the same change posted above, except setting "Airfield" to "0", that makes it impossible to build an airfield there. It's zero forever.