Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: fushun

Some changes are definitely shifting game balance in favor of human player in a game vs AI. Stockpiling base feature and purchasing destroyed units, to name a couple. Unless AI scripts were tweaked accordingly.

I would disagree.

Stockpiling is to help the economics of the game work as intended. The AI ignores these limitations anyway.

Destroyed units being bought back by PP's just removed some silly mechanics (pulling a small portion of a unit). Everyone was doing it as a matter of course. This just acknowledges that and provides a game mechanism to accomplish the same thing. As it was being done before, no impact to an AI game.

PS: If you think they do hurt the AI, just increase the difficulty level. If that isn't enough, load up an Ironman scenario. [;)]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Thank you for the response michaelm..Now, I gotta wonder...WHO would form a TF and forget to tell it where to go??...LOL

I have nothing to say. Nothing! (slides quietly out of room)

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: fushun

Some changes are definitely shifting game balance in favor of human player in a game vs AI. Stockpiling base feature and purchasing destroyed units, to name a couple. Unless AI scripts were tweaked accordingly.

I would disagree.

Stockpiling is to help the economics of the game work as intended. The AI ignores these limitations anyway.

Destroyed units being bought back by PP's just removed some silly mechanics (pulling a small portion of a unit). Everyone was doing it as a matter of course. This just acknowledges that and provides a game mechanism to accomplish the same thing. As it was being done before, no impact to an AI game.

PS: If you think they do hurt the AI, just increase the difficulty level. If that isn't enough, load up an Ironman scenario. [;)]

AI as it is don't drains bases dry before abandoning, it is not capable of stockpiling in preparation for a siege. Stockpiling made these tricks easily done by human player.

PP purchasing is not an equivalent of saving fragments, because latter is not always possible. Take surrendered units, or sunk carrier destroyed airgroups. More often it was a lucky survived xAK, then a plan. Now, for example, you can purchase back destroyed CA FP air groups for training, and AI don't. You can revive, prepare to 100% and train Indian brigades, surrendered in Singers. AI can't purchese back no surrendered island garrisones. Game breaking feature, really.

Difficulty level defined only by the quantity of forces/resources available for AI is a joke, even if it is a gaming industry standard. Nobody wants to play against an idiot opponent no matter how much more units he has.[:D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Thank you for the response michaelm..Now, I gotta wonder...WHO would form a TF and forget to tell it where to go??...LOL

I have nothing to say. Nothing! (slides quietly out of room)

[&o][:D]

Michaelm: Once again, great work with these patches. With the latest two patches I've been getting bombardment results like this:


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 16, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Palembang at 48,91
 
Japanese aircraft
      no flights
 
Japanese aircraft losses
      F1M2 Pete: 11 damaged
      G4M3a Betty: 115 damaged
      G4M3a Betty: 2 destroyed on ground
      Ki-67-Ib Peggy: 126 damaged
      Ki-67-Ib Peggy: 2 destroyed on ground
      Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 52 damaged
      Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 3 destroyed on ground
      A6M8 Zero: 115 damaged
      A6M8 Zero: 2 destroyed on ground
 
Allied Ships
      CA Cumberland
      CA Suffolk
      CA London
      CA Shropshire
      CL Newfoundland
      CL Kenya
      DD Pathfinder
      DD Quickmatch
      DD Quiberon
      DD Edsall
      DD Haraden
 
Japanese ground losses:
      146 casualties reported
         Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
         Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
 
 
 
Airbase hits 69
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 96
 
CA Cumberland firing at Palembang
CA Suffolk firing at Palembang
CA London firing at Palembang
CA Shropshire firing at Palembang
CL Newfoundland firing at Palembang
CL Kenya firing at Palembang
DD Pathfinder firing at Palembang
DD Quickmatch firing at Palembang
DD Quiberon firing at Palembang
DD Edsall firing at Palembang
DD Haraden firing at Palembang 

To me that seems a lot of damaged aircraft. I don't recall seeing so many (or any?) aircraft damaged in previous bombardments of the same location, so either bombardments are more effective or they are just being reported better. Is this a feature or a bug? Oh, and I haven't been updating with each patch, so I'm not sure which one this started with.

Cheers,
CC

Nothing changed in last several betas - mainly bug fix or interface tweaks.
Unless this, which would just make them show up in the report. No change to actual combat, just reporting:
Changed Enabled reporting of non-air attack aircraft losses [MEM]

Wow, thanks for the quick response. OK, looks like we are getting better information.

Cheers,
CC

I have noticed that a new number is now appearing in some of my TF's. I understand the first two numbers, but what does the third number, in parenthesis, imply? And why is it only seen in some Task Forces?

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Save attached.
Also please check BB Mutsu at Kobe.
She has been in dock for two months with the same 15 engine and still shows 115 days to repair. Not seeing any progress.

Hi
I couldn't download this.
Could you please attach as a zip extension?

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

I have noticed that a new number is now appearing in some of my TF's. I understand the first two numbers, but what does the third number, in parenthesis, imply? And why is it only seen in some Task Forces?

If I understand correctly, it is the distance to the destination only. The second number is the distance there and back. If they are the same number, then it does not show the third one.

@MichaelM

Found typo in base list screen. "Reset Add Suppy"

The first two numbers have always been there. They are ranges in hexes:
#1 Endurance of the TF
#2 Mission range (to destination and back to home port)

The third number is new and may not appear. It is usually range (in hexes) to destination. In this example it is three hexes from the TF's current location to it's destination and another three back to the home port. It the TFs current destination is also it's home port, the second and third numbers are the same and the third number is not shown.

Mission range and Range-to-Destination can be red if TF is short on endurance. In some cases Range To Destination can be green and mission range red, which indicates the TF has enough fuel to reach it's destination but not enough to return to home port (without refueling).

Note that these ranges do not take into account any combat ops, reaction, or underway refueling.

There are some special sub-cases:

1. TFs set to Follow another TF, TFs set to Meet a TF and Follow it, and TFs set to Meet a TF and Merge with it will show range to the followed/met TF's destination and home port.
2. TFs set to Meet another TF under all other circumstances will show range to meeting point and then to TFs home port.
3. TFs set to Patrol will show range to complete the curent patrol racecourse and then to home port (from the end of the race course). Note the Patrol TF mission ranges always were calculated from end-of-race course.

Double post removed. The forum is so slow I thought the first one was lost!

If I understand correctly, it is the distance to the destination only. The second number is the distance there and back. If they are the same number, then it does not show the third one.

thanks michael. i should have figured that out!

I have done a few changes that might be interesting.
Fixed Non-transport TF are trying to un/load [MEM]
Tweaked On Army screen for HQs show ship/air/ground assigned buttons [MEM]
Tweaked Suppress Japanese industry icons for Allied player as not relevant [MEM]
Tweaked Suppressed port icon in lower base panel if not applicable [MEM]
Tweaked Port repairs to consider port damage - was only checking in some cases [MEM]
Tweaked Show island stacking limit on mouse over [MEM]
Tweaked Added codes to HQs on unit lists( c Corps, y Army, m Amph, n Naval, a Air) [MEM]

ORIGINAL: michaelm


I have done a few changes that might be interesting.
Fixed Non-transport TF are trying to un/load [MEM]
Tweaked On Army screen for HQs show ship/air/ground assigned buttons [MEM]
Tweaked Suppress Japanese industry icons for Allied player as not relevant [MEM]
Tweaked Suppressed port icon in lower base panel if not applicable [MEM]
Tweaked Port repairs to consider port damage - was only checking in some cases [MEM]

Sweet!! mid-week updates!!

'THANKS!

[&o][&o][&o]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

I have noticed that a new number is now appearing in some of my TF's. I understand the first two numbers, but what does the third number, in parenthesis, imply? And why is it only seen in some Task Forces?

If I understand correctly, it is the distance to the destination only. The second number is the distance there and back. If they are the same number, then it does not show the third one.

[&o][:)]

I'm having two systematic problems with the beta:

1. I can't seem to adjust for proper wide screen. With this setting, "C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Beta2\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -w -fd -px1280 -py800
I get widescreen with the industries line cut off when I click on a base. If I monkey with the py setting, I can get the bottom line with no widesreen.

2. My autosave function no longer works and I don't know how to reactivate it. It still makes the pre-turn save, just not the 000 autosave file.

I'm using Beta 1108p5 at present.

hi michaelm,

in all combat reports, incl. in-game results screens as well as order-phase review of the 'combat reports' (C hotkey) i don't get a complete report in the 'modifiers' section. a typical report will say:

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

where the Attacker line is usually always blank, this occurs in all the official releases, as well as in all the betas.

so i'd like to suggest that this blankness be replaced by phrases such as "no modifiers" or "modifiers hidden by Fog of War" as appropriate, when other modifiers can't be reported.

& that these amended 'modifiers' report should be included for LCU & Naval Bombardment attacks.

best regards & thanks for all the betas!

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

I'm having two systematic problems with the beta:

1. I can't seem to adjust for proper wide screen. With this setting, "C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Beta2\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -w -fd -px1280 -py800
I get widescreen with the industries line cut off when I click on a base. If I monkey with the py setting, I can get the bottom line with no widesreen.

2. My autosave function no longer works and I don't know how to reactivate it. It still makes the pre-turn save, just not the 000 autosave file.

I'm using Beta 1108p5 at present.

Is there a reason you are telling it to run both windowed and full-screen at the same time? (-w tells it to run in a window. -fd tells it to run fullscreen with daily autosaves.)