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

[michaelm75au]

The location in the Taskforce list didn't account for the possibility that the destination was the base docked at. Re-arranged the order of tests to account for docked TFs.

The flak indicator is on but I can't see exactly where it is being turned on, but I'll try to track it back.
Yep, found it. The flak indicator is being updated even if there wasn't any flak in hex. Oversight around since start.

[asdicus]

Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

Sorry.
I did take a look and it appears that the enemy fields are active, but generally will active new TFs entering the hex. Once a TF sits in the hex, the chance of encountering the mines lessen each turn. I suppose this would represent ships anchoring in fairly safe waters after awhile.

Nothing has changed in this regard in the last set of patches, if anything the length of the "un-safe" turns in the hex has been slightly increased.

[asdicus]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

Sorry.
I did take a look and it appears that the enemy fields are active, but generally will active new TFs entering the hex. Once a TF sits in the hex, the chance of encountering the mines lessen each turn. I suppose this would represent ships anchoring in fairly safe waters after awhile.

Nothing has changed in this regard in the last set of patches, if anything the length of the "un-safe" turns in the hex has been slightly increased.

Thank-you for your prompt and detailed reply.

If it ok with you I would like to keep an eye on this. In my pbm the japs are soon going to invade some heavily mined dutch bases and I am hoping to see at least some minesweeping required and also perhaps a few hits. I must be very unlucky with my minefields because I cannot recall seeing a jap ship hit a defensively laid mine for ages but in very old patches I am sure I got hits.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: treespider

MichaelM wrote:

On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I like it.

On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it. [:(]
This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.[8|]

And more results like this one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof? [&o]

Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: treespider



I like it.

On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it. [:(]
This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.[8|]

And more results like this one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof? [&o]

Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D]

Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

[Nomad]

I'm sorry.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669[/i]

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof? [&o]

Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D]

Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

Exactly.

And here's another example from today's PBEM turn.

Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 23


Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 228

252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped? [&:]
I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one...

And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy.
Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more... [;)]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Pay no attention to Ark... He is just going through a bad time...[:D]

Even with that many bombers I have never gotten that many hits.

Exactly.

And here's another example from today's PBEM turn.

Morning Air attack on Port Blair , at 46,58

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 23


Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 228

252 hits out of 230 bombs dropped? [&:]
I believe, Ross (crsutton) can confirm, this is a real one...

And now, let's talk about increasing the availability of the main AFB toy.
Sorry, but I can't see the reason behind spanking my JFB a** even more... [;)]

Not to hi-jack this thread ...so perhaps this discussion should be taken elsewhere...I'll start a new thread...

[Theages]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Theages

Using version k8 und alternate font.
There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers.

Thought I had checked alt font.
Ah welll. So hard to find space nowadays.

Would it be possible to add the max draw value as a permanent info on the base screen?

I found another minor issue present since mouse over information of the fulfullment of garrison requirements has been introduced.
The mouse-over of a base shows if the garrison requirements are met. This does not seem consistent with the results shown eg. on the base screen. It seems that if the AV at the base is more than about 90% of the garrison requirement, the mouse-over shows the requirement is met, whereas the base or LCU screen shows red numbers indicating that eg. 91 is indeed a smaller number than 100 and therefore the requirements are not met.

[Bradley7735]

Hi Michael,

I have a small request. Can you change the wording of task forces that are at sea, but in a port hex? Currently they say "At sea at xyz location." I would like you to change it to "xyz location, at sea"

This is so they show up alphabetically in the same location when viewing all task forces. See my pic below.
(fyi, I made the screen shot using the last official patch, not the beta. The beta shows "at sea" task forces as "moving to". I believe you fixed this from my last post.

Thanks, Brad

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: asdicus

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Michaelm have you had any chance to look at my savegame file re possible inactive defensive minefields ? I can't understand why the mines are not triggering enemy minesweeping or hitting any landing shipping.

Sorry.
I did take a look and it appears that the enemy fields are active, but generally will active new TFs entering the hex. Once a TF sits in the hex, the chance of encountering the mines lessen each turn. I suppose this would represent ships anchoring in fairly safe waters after awhile.

Nothing has changed in this regard in the last set of patches, if anything the length of the "un-safe" turns in the hex has been slightly increased.

Thank-you for your prompt and detailed reply.

If it ok with you I would like to keep an eye on this. In my pbm the japs are soon going to invade some heavily mined dutch bases and I am hoping to see at least some minesweeping required and also perhaps a few hits. I must be very unlucky with my minefields because I cannot recall seeing a jap ship hit a defensively laid mine for ages but in very old patches I am sure I got hits.

FYI, I placed a defensive minefield at Ambom in early Jan 42. The AI just landed there. An xAK hit 2 mines, and a PB hit 1 mine. (according to FOW anyway)

You might need a significant number of mines to see hits. The hit percentage is very low (and realistic imo). I'd hate to see a larger number of hits from mines. There's enough to make you respect them, but not enough to make it "mines in the pacific"

[trhinz]

I'm running Scenario 1 with the April 16th beta. Six turns in, I'm not sure that resource movement is working correctly. No resources at all have been transfered to Port Hedland from Corunna Downs nor to Padang from Sawahloento.

[asdicus]

Using 1108k8 beta as the allies in my pbm game.

When you click on an airgroup details and then click the 'back' button the list presented is not the list of airgroups at the airbase but the all land based air units list. Screenshot attached - airbase is Aden - clicked on 'back button' result is list of all land based air units. This problem only seemed to start with the recent beta patches.

[witpqs]

Can messages like:

"Search <airplane model> destroyed by CAP"

have

"at <hex#>"

added to them like other messages have? So they would look like:

"Search <airplane model> destroyed by CAP at <hex#>"

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Can messages like:

"Search <airplane model> destroyed by CAP"

have

"at <hex#>"

added to them like other messages have? So they would look like:

"Search <airplane model> destroyed by CAP at <hex#>"

Or a 50-50 chance of adding "at <hex #>"....perhaps search plane was destroyed before it could relay its coordinates.

[Bongo]

Having the same problem as well with the April 16 beta.

[witp1951]

I'm on build k8 playing with stockpiling devices. I set SNLF squads to Y to stockpile and have been checking the results. I began with 27 in the pool and 134 used. After 2 weeks of 2 day turns, I still have 27 in the pool with 302 used. Is this WAD and if so, how can this option help me?

[beppi]

ORIGINAL: witp1951

I'm on build k8 playing with stockpiling devices. I set SNLF squads to Y to stockpile and have been checking the results. I began with 27 in the pool and 134 used. After 2 weeks of 2 day turns, I still have 27 in the pool with 302 used. Is this WAD and if so, how can this option help me?

Are you sure that the option is supposed to work for all squads/devices which are built automatically as japan ? This option is more or less to incease the pool for everything which arrives at a fixed rate. In addition it could be possible that the used squads where just upgrades (i am not a japan expert so no clue if there can be any upgrades for that type of unit.) I am quite sure that michaelm will provide as always a good answer [;)]

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: witp1951

I'm on build k8 playing with stockpiling devices. I set SNLF squads to Y to stockpile and have been checking the results. I began with 27 in the pool and 134 used. After 2 weeks of 2 day turns, I still have 27 in the pool with 302 used. Is this WAD and if so, how can this option help me?

Japan builds devices as required for replacements and upgrades.
Stockpiling should treat Japanese devices as a 'no build' situation.

If you have a save, pls post here.