Moved to another Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hi

The Problem what I mentioned appear after a unit recombine. Than I see this. In my safe game u can see also units (1st Div. And 8th Div) which had recombine earlier. But this unit did not take support replacements. But I am not sure id this unit did not take support replacements because of an other bug or because of insufficient of support unit in the replacement pool.

I did not see this happened for a unit which comes as whole unit or start as a combined unit. But I have also to admit that I did not pay much attention [;)]

Omat

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've seen similar things to what Omat has captured above, but from the Allied side.  Sorry, I have not been diligent to capture before and after turns when it happens, but I will watch carefully for it in the future.  BTW, I'm seeing it very rarely, but on patch 1106g, so I don't think it's something introduced in the beta patch levels.

This is the problem where what (and in which slot) of the LCU's devices differ between the TOE and actual.
The TOE list is long but the actual device list short and out of order.

I have tried to align the devices before doing upgrades or replacements in order that the right number of devices is kept.
Looks like I stll haven't got it 100%[:@]

It has added those missing devices back into the pool. Which is good (not lost) but not what I intended.
More work needed and I think I see where I went wrong.

[Omat]

Hi Michael

It is nice to see that I can help a little bit. I have full confidence at your skills and I have to admit that I like the way how you are talking open and above board about game design and also problems very much. That’s an attribute which rarely..but also uncommonly honored.
So keep good working! There is light at the end of the tunnel. [:)]

Omat

ORIGINAL: michaelm

This is the problem where what (and in which slot) of the LCU's devices differ between the TOE and actual.
The TOE list is long but the actual device list short and out of order.

I have tried to align the devices before doing upgrades or replacements in order that the right number of devices is kept.
Looks like I stll haven't got it 100%[:@]

It has added those missing devices back into the pool. Which is good (not lost) but not what I intended.
More work needed and I think I see where I went wrong.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've seen similar things to what Omat has captured above, but from the Allied side.  Sorry, I have not been diligent to capture before and after turns when it happens, but I will watch carefully for it in the future.  BTW, I'm seeing it very rarely, but on patch 1106g, so I don't think it's something introduced in the beta patch levels.

One reason for trying to align devices to TOE is that funny things can happen to the number of devices in an unit if device order is too wacky. One problem I use to notice in very early games is that the number of devices tended to reach the TOE level of the device in the same slot, not necessarily for the same device though. Thus an unit could suddenly become under-supported because the TOE slot level was small, and the where the support device was in the TOE, the number of non-support device become very large.[:D]

[beppi]

I have currently a problem with unit movement in 1108c in a currently ongoing PBEM. Yes i know that this is not the most recent beta patch but we where forced to upgrade as we had crashes during the turn resolution which where fixed with 1108c and as there is an advice not to use the newer beta patches we did not upgrade to the latest.

When i try to move my units out of an hex with enemy units in there. I uses a division to move and follow for all other units (set all to follow). All units accumulate their movement identical but as soon as the original division leaves the hex all following units are rest to 0 movement and no follow.

I tried this two times already (once with all at combat mode and once with all at reserve mode) and both time it failed.

I will attach a save game where all units are one turn resolution prior to leaving the hex.
In my case it is Shwebo and i try to leave to the NE exit which is currently under control by the allied side. Problem is that if i am not able to return in a good order the units which lag behind can and might be crushed.

We do not want to update to the latest beta patch currently as it is not advised.

[m10bob]

Sorry...Bringing rejuvenated units back into the game is still a non-happening thing for me if marked "independent" and I am unable to assign them to a valid command..
 
(Several posts above, I confessed my inability to locate the "saves" to send...It's been a while.)

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sorry...Bringing rejuvenated units back into the game is still a non-happening thing for me if marked "independent" and I am unable to assign them to a valid command..

(Several posts above, I confessed my inability to locate the "saves" to send...It's been a while.)

Saves are in
C:\Matrix Games\War In The Pacific Admiral's Edition\SAVE or where ever game was installed.

Zip up the file and attach as the zip file.

[m10bob]

Thank you Michael.......[:)]

[Cavalry Corp]

Can I ask what the + means next to units OOB , is that new ?

Cav

[Omat]

Hello

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Can I ask what the + means next to units OOB , is that new ?

Cav

Yes it is new michaelm wrote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The markers indicate that devices can be added (+) and devices can be upgraded (=)

If you want read page 1 and 2 of this thread

Omat

[Cavalry Corp]

OK thanks - I hope all this stuff works its way into a nice new pdf manual as there is so much to learn...

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: drw61

Michael,

Some observations on purchasing back destroyed LCUs. (Using 1108k)

The 4th Marine Reg (5524, located at SF in the save) comes back without its withdraw date of 440801.

This is intentional. If you are going you reform the unit, it is a "new unit".
Forcing a withdraw could make rebuilding a unit totally meaningless as by the time it gets fully built, it goes 'poof' and get withdrawn.
Bring back destroyed units breaks the 'historical' withdrawn reason from my voew point.

Looks like a major potential loophole has been created.

Taking into account your concern, wouldn't a better solution be to not allow destroyed units to be eligible for resurrection if they were scheduled to go "poof".

Alfred

While looking at something else, I noticed that the withdraw date of LCUs was cleared sometimes, and not others, when it was destroyed.
This makes the discussion about retaining the withdrawal date of rebuilt destroyed units a bit moot, as it might be or might not be, there.

Firstly, I am making the withdraw information stay with destroyed LCUs for consistency.
Secondly, as it is there, if the destroyed LCU's withdraw type is permanent (ie goes poof), then it can't be reformed.
Of course, this only applies if 'Unit withdraw' option is on.[:D]

I think that the original issue here was that I allowed sub-units (/A/B/C) to be reformed from the list. Which meant that recombing the subunits into the parent unit could cause the parent to lose it's withdraw info and thus NOT be withdrawn as scheduled. So I carried over the withdraw date.
But as I have dropped the ability to reform sub-unit and allowed parent units to be rebuilt from the remaining subunits still in play, the parent no longer loses its withdraw date.

[michaelm75au]

Changed: LCU rebuild requires same Op Mode and March parameters for all subunits [MEM]
Changed: LCU withdraw date was being cleared in some cases and not others when killed; fixed so that destroyed LCUs can't be reformed if due to withdraw [MEM]

Having multiple op modes and march distances can cause loopholes and funny results with parent unit. If unsure if March is causing issue, just set a march command and then cancel the move. This will clear out the march distance and direction.
If withdraws is on, then units which have been marked for withdrawal wont be available for reforming. I was toying with the idea of only restricting this to permanently disbanded/withdrawn LCUs, but they all seem to be that way.

[BJStone]

Hi Michael,

In regards to the patch you are working on - would games in previous versions (I'm currently using the "i" version) be able to patch up to it or would it require a restart to implemt changes in the final version of the 1108j patch?

I'm playing the AI and having a great time. I was thinking of doing a PBEM game but I'm more then willing to wait a month or three to start a game with all of the latest updates/fixes if that's what it takes.

Thanks again for all ofthe great support you provide. This is such a great game!



Regards,

BJ

[Rexor]

This is awesome. One question: What version should the game show after installing this?

WAIT! Scratch that. I just figured it out....[8|]

[Cribtop]

I second BJ Stone's question as Cuttlefish and I are anxiously awaiting the patch to start a PBEM.

[michaelm75au]

This patch is just code so applying it does not need a restart.
There may be some things that might take affect after the patch.

The latest changes are an example.
If a sub-unit was moved at sometime before the patch, the march direction was never cleared once it reached its destination. Now it will be.
This means that earlier split units might not be able to combine due to different march directions. The workaround is to give them same marching orders and then cancel the move. The new code would clear the direction and allow the units to recombine.

[Cribtop]

Thanks for the info and keep up the good work!

[ny59giants]

Maybe I missed it in the list of changes, but are we able to train for LowN if I have a air unit set at 2,000 feet rather than gaining experience in NavB?? I have multiple air units with their ASW experience near or at 70 and would like to get their LowN experience up so they can actually hit the subs when they find them.

Thanks michaelm [&o]

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Maybe I missed it in the list of changes, but are we able to train for LowN if I have a air unit set at 2,000 feet rather than gaining experience in NavB?? I have multiple air units with their ASW experience near or at 70 and would like to get their LowN experience up so they can actually hit the subs when they find them.

Thanks michaelm [&o]

Low level bomb training is 1000' with a Naval or Land bombing as the main training mission.
If you use 100' in training, it becomes a Strafe skill mission instead.
If an attack bomber, the low bombing training level is 1000' - 5000'.

IIRC, the altitudes for combat missions as I previously stated.

[ny59giants]

Low level bomb training is 1000' with a Naval or Land bombing as the main training mission.
If you use 100' in training, it becomes a Strafe skill mission instead.
If an attack bomber, the low bombing training level is 1000' - 5000'.

IIRC, the altitudes for combat missions as I previously stated.

I know about the altitude setting of 100' for Strafing experience for my fighters.

If I am to use Helen Ia as Japan or a Kingfisher as the Allies for ASW Patrol, then I need to gain experience in ASW (to be able to find subs) and then I use LowN to actually attack them. Right??

Is LowN skill only applied if the aircraft is set for 1000'? Is there an upper range for LowN or stated another way, when does level bomber (or FP) go from using LowN to NavB skill when attacking??

I have been setting my ASW dedicated aircraft to 2000' and thought (maybe incorrectly) that they would use LowN skill to attack from this altitude.

Thanks for you assistance!!