Kamikazes - Some Strange & Some Downright Odd Observations

[Andy Mac]

Ironman has been updated. I dread to think what Ironman would do to a player withg this number of Kamikazes !!!

p.s. guys I am more than happy if folks playing the Jap AI want to send me a turn to spend 20 minutes taking a peak at the japanese side and fixing anything that looks iffy.

Sometimes the Ai does dumb things that a 20 minute housekeeping by a neutral can fix I am willing to do that (it helps me as well because I get to pick up those dumb AI things from multiple player saves and i get to see how sneaky you are all !!!)

So if anyone wants me to take a peak at the japanese side and fix anything I looks a bit iffy I am happpy to do so just send me a save and I will take a look at the ususal suspects

a.mcphie@btinternet.com

Its worth doing spring cleaning like this maybe once per year. The game will paly out fine without it but it can help reduce the niggle factor a little so I am happy to help

Win /Win I get a look at how sneaky you are and you get a free quick review

[Andy Mac]

p.s. as a result of this kind of save from the one Che sent me I found a nice little improvement so it does work

[John Lansford]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Kamikazes sank nothing larger than a CVE, so you're "they sank a lot of ships" applies only to ships smaller than an escort carrier.  Lethal to DD's and DE's, certainly.  Should they be lethal to CV's and BB's, absolutely not.

they shouldn´t be lethal to CVs? Now what would an Essex class look like if four or five Grace loaded up with bombs splash into one? I guess I would call that lethal. But of course you first have to get five hits and that´s the problem. But getting the five hits with a bombing attack is even harder.

The OP was reporting single kamikaze hits sinking fleet carriers. That's what I was commenting on. Certainly if you get enough hits, any ship can be sunk by any attack.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: che200

Bsq I think you have a bug in your game. Andy in my game there is a bug that if the japanese have a succesful kamikaze attack and the aliies have a naval attack in the same turn the allied planes do kamikaze naval attacks in the animation screen. I think it is FOW as when i check the actual casualties they differ, if i reload the turn it does not happen again. It only hppene to me with CV planes.

Seen this too, except my first air attack was against an airfield in China.
All the Chinese B-25's kazied in on the airfield.[:D]

So it seems to bug the first Allied airstrike, no matter what kind of bombing mission it is.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

That is interesting ( and for you frustrating that you are having to deal with it ). So half the time the bug occurs, and half the time it doesn't ?

And thanks bsq for taking the time to post, rerun, etc. It helps all of us.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

So if anyone wants me to take a peak at the japanese side and fix anything I looks a bit iffy I am happpy to do so just send me a save and I will take a look at the ususal suspects

a.mcphie@btinternet.com

Its worth doing spring cleaning like this maybe once per year. The game will paly out fine without it but it can help reduce the niggle factor a little so I am happy to help

Win /Win I get a look at how sneaky you are and you get a free quick review

Wow! THAT is unheard of for a developer to make an offer like that.

Andy I'm only up to about early Jan in my Hakko Ichiu match against Jap AI, so it is probably still too soon to bother you with a turn. But I will definitely take you up on this is I get far enough along that the AI seems to be on a one-track mindset!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

As others have said, I think you have a bug, or bugs in your game. Aside from the kami attack results, take a look at the first Tokyo Superfort raid results. How do the ALLIES suffer over 136,000 casualties from an air attack on Tokyo? How do 34 Superforts cause almost 90,000 Japanese casualities?

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

As others have said, I think you have a bug, or bugs in your game. Aside from the kami attack results, take a look at the first Tokyo Superfort raid results. How do the ALLIES suffer over 136,000 casualties from an air attack on Tokyo? How do 34 Superforts cause almost 90,000 Japanese casualities?

Bullwinkle, I must be missing soemthing. To what are you referring ?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bsq

Not taking offence, just posting the facts as my game unfolded. I have sent the saves to Andy Mac.

The after action stuff above was not the worst. The last save I generated (I ran this 6 times - 3 times with odd results, 3 times just a DD sunk (more realistic)...) saw the whole of the FCTF wiped out, thats 8CV, 4CVL, 1 BB, 2 CB, 3CA, 6CL and numerous DDs.

None of them had any more damage than one or system points (like you see after a TF has been at sea for a week or so).

The two parts to the posting are seperate runs, the combat reports for the 2nd summary would have stretched to 5 or 6 pages, so I have attached the 'worst' one here...

As others have said, I think you have a bug, or bugs in your game. Aside from the kami attack results, take a look at the first Tokyo Superfort raid results. How do the ALLIES suffer over 136,000 casualties from an air attack on Tokyo? How do 34 Superforts cause almost 90,000 Japanese casualities?

Bullwinkle, I must be missing soemthing. To what are you referring ?

This. It's far down the report, after the naval attacks and several small land actions. Tell me if I'm reading this wrong, but it looks pretty strange to me.
I put the interesting bits in BOLD.
_____________________________________________________
Morning Air attack on Tokyo , at 114,60

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 50 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M8 Zero x 22
J2M5 Jack x 3
N1K2-J George x 1
N1K5-J George x 3
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 2
Ki-45 KAIc Nick x 1
Ki-61-II KAI Tony x 8
Ki-84a Frank x 2
Ki-84r Frank x 6



Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 26
B-29B Superfort x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zero: 1 destroyed
N1K5-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 5 destroyed, 10 damaged
B-29B Superfort: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
89133 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 0 (0 destroyed, 0 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
136314 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 0 (0 destroyed, 0 disabled)


Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
1 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
1 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 18 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 18 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 18 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
1 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-29B Superfort bombing from 15000 feet *
City Attack: 18 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Kashima Ku S-1 with A6M2-N Rufe (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 50 minutes
Tsukuba Ku K-1 with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
Tsukuba Ku K-2 with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
Yatabe Ku K-1 with A6M8 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Raid is overhead
801 Ku S-1 with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
S-304 Hikotai with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 13000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
312 Ku S-1 with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
S-306 Hikotai with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 2 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 46 minutes
S-307 Hikotai with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 60 minutes
S-315 Hikotai with A6M8 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
S-317 Hikotai with A6M8 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(2 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
S-701 Hikotai with N1K2-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 55 minutes
55th Sentai with Ki-61-II KAI Tony (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
104th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
Yokosuka Ku S-1 with A6M8 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 7000
Raid is overhead
S-401 Hikotai with N1K5-J George (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 18000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 46 minutes
S-602 Hikotai with J2M5 Jack (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 60 minutes
4th Sentai Det A with Ki-45 KAIc Nick (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
13th Sentai with Ki-84r Frank (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
19th Sentai with Ki-61-II KAI Tony (0 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 27 minutes

Aihara B. gives his life for the Emperor by ramming a B-29-25 Superfort
Nagashima G. gives his life for the Emperor by ramming a B-29-25 Superfort


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[chesmart]

Had the same bug as well pre-patch unfortunately i did not keep a save but wen i checked the units in the hex casualties where differant. They were from a normal attack circa 500 casualties mostly disabled.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


No excuses , if this is W.A.D. then this game is garbage.

Just so we are clear, I stated if this is working as designed then this game is garbage.


Strongly worded and I apologize but I'm still irritated about my forces in China not respawning and other issues that led to my game ending and costing me many hours of gameplay. Now I have to start over which may not be a bad thing if issues are corrected. I apologize if I have offended you Andy, and to any on the development team who felt I was over the top in my criticism.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: che200

Had the same bug as well pre-patch unfortunately i did not keep a save but wen i checked the units in the hex casualties where differant. They were from a normal attack circa 500 casualties mostly disabled.

My point isn't that the Japanese casualties are wildly inflated. I'm sure they are, FOW, etc. A pain, but explainable.

My point was the Allied casualties, of any number, in a raid on Tokyo. What are they, POWs? Why does the code even go to a place where Allied casualties in ANY NUMBER can be reported in this strike? I'm not sure it does, which is why I wonder if this game in particular is bugged.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: che200

Had the same bug as well pre-patch unfortunately i did not keep a save but wen i checked the units in the hex casualties where differant. They were from a normal attack circa 500 casualties mostly disabled.

My point isn't that the Japanese casualties are wildly inflated. I'm sure they are, FOW, etc. A pain, but explainable.

My point was the Allied casualties, of any number, in a raid on Tokyo. What are they, POWs? Why does the code even go to a place where Allied casualties in ANY NUMBER can be reported in this strike? I'm not sure it does, which is why I wonder if this game in particular is bugged.

I think that this is a stack overflow error that has been seen before. Look at the numbers after the casualty figures ie 0 Destroyed and 0 Disabled. These are just screwy numbers the maths throws out when the CPU is confronted with something it cannot handle. I think we are lucky, it most software I have worked with it would be an unhandled exception at the very least and a CTD in most cases or perhaps a BSD (God forbid). At least AE just reports it with a virtual 'shoulder shrug' and then moves on...

More worrying is that this raid was one of several generated from airfields holding almost 600 B-29s and I got less than 100 to fly. More stones are needed to make these 'Seagulls' fly...

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: che200

Had the same bug as well pre-patch unfortunately i did not keep a save but wen i checked the units in the hex casualties where differant. They were from a normal attack circa 500 casualties mostly disabled.

My point isn't that the Japanese casualties are wildly inflated. I'm sure they are, FOW, etc. A pain, but explainable.

My point was the Allied casualties, of any number, in a raid on Tokyo. What are they, POWs? Why does the code even go to a place where Allied casualties in ANY NUMBER can be reported in this strike? I'm not sure it does, which is why I wonder if this game in particular is bugged.

I see now. Thanks for answering, more oddness indeed.

[chesmart]

I agree with Bsq the bug will be easily quashed. You were quite right in reporting it is something i should have done but unfortunately most of the times i access the forums i use my iphone and it is not the best to type with. Guys I have reached 10/44 and I am taking this game as a test run for my real game. Sorry for not reporting this bug before and a few others which i had. I have been playing witp RHS and got used to bugs cropping up as normal.

[ChezDaJez]

One point concerning development... The early war period received the vast majority of play testing during development and the late war period not so much. This was mainly do to the numerous restarts required after patching game-stopping bugs and other issues... and there were many. The devs produced new builds about every other week on average. Each build had a number of bugs fixed that had been identified in previous builds. These all had to be tested plus all the suggested game improvements that were gleaned from the forum had to be looked at and then a determination made as to whether it could actually be done.

Restarts averaged about every other week during development (and several times more often than that). And while there were many playtesters busting their butt to identify new bugs, much of the playtesting occurred in sandboxes or against the AI due to the necessity of identifying as many bugs as fast as possible. PBEM testing is much slower but was also used.

So, are there going to be bugs? Absolutely, especially the later in the war it gets. There simply wasn't enough time to playtest the game all the way to the end without incurring unacceptable delays. Even if there were time, bugs would pop up as players did things that were unexpected.

The devs will squash every bug that is within their power to do so. It'll take a little time as new bugs are identified and new game improvements are included. They have shown you guys unparalleled support and will continue to do so, of that I am sure. We can at least show them a little respect by not shouting about how borked we think the game is every time we encounter something that doesn't looked right.

Guys, just remember that the dev team is doing their absolute best to squash all reported bugs. The majority of bug squashers don't get paid for their work... they are all volunteers and their goal is to make the game as complete and bug-free as possible. So please don't heap any abuse on them. We can't afford to lose a single one of them if we want this game to grow.

And one last plea...

It's dang hard for them to reproduce any bugs without before and after save game files. Be as complete as you can with the description of your bug and send the save game files to the devs via the tech support thread. Posting a combat report seldom provides any useful clues as to how that report was derived.

Preaching off....

Chez

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bsq

I think that this is a stack overflow error that has been seen before. Look at the numbers after the casualty figures ie 0 Destroyed and 0 Disabled. These are just screwy numbers the maths throws out when the CPU is confronted with something it cannot handle. I think we are lucky, it most software I have worked with it would be an unhandled exception at the very least and a CTD in most cases or perhaps a BSD (God forbid). At least AE just reports it with a virtual 'shoulder shrug' and then moves on...

I had assumed they were civilian cacualties. The Destroyed and Disabled numbers are by squad, and are always military.
And, while I'm not a very good programmer, I doubt a stack overflow error would also trigger the text output to preface the Allied casualty report. Why was there ANY math done in an Allied casualty calculation module that allowed a potential stack overflow?

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bsq

I think that this is a stack overflow error that has been seen before. Look at the numbers after the casualty figures ie 0 Destroyed and 0 Disabled. These are just screwy numbers the maths throws out when the CPU is confronted with something it cannot handle. I think we are lucky, it most software I have worked with it would be an unhandled exception at the very least and a CTD in most cases or perhaps a BSD (God forbid). At least AE just reports it with a virtual 'shoulder shrug' and then moves on...

I had assumed they were civilian cacualties. The Destroyed and Disabled numbers are by squad, and are always military.
And, while I'm not a very good programmer, I doubt a stack overflow error would also trigger the text output to preface the Allied casualty report. Why was there ANY math done in an Allied casualty calculation module that allowed a potential stack overflow?

The same has been observed when the combat has been air vs naval with no troops being carried. The numbers seen vary wildy, but are always greater than 65536, hence appearing (to me) to be a mathematical error in the code somewhere. Civillians are only abstracted in the game as population numbers at certain locations where they have a conseqence to production and the like. When these are lost (to strategic bombing) they are only ever expressed in small numbers (up to the value of the population for that particular hex).

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

One point concerning development... The early war period received the vast majority of play testing during development and the late war period not so much. This was mainly do to the numerous restarts required after patching game-stopping bugs and other issues... and there were many. The devs produced new builds about every other week on average. Each build had a number of bugs fixed that had been identified in previous builds. These all had to be tested plus all the suggested game improvements that were gleaned from the forum had to be looked at and then a determination made as to whether it could actually be done.

Restarts averaged about every other week during development (and several times more often than that). And while there were many playtesters busting their butt to identify new bugs, much of the playtesting occurred in sandboxes or against the AI due to the necessity of identifying as many bugs as fast as possible. PBEM testing is much slower but was also used.

So, are there going to be bugs? Absolutely, especially the later in the war it gets. There simply wasn't enough time to playtest the game all the way to the end without incurring unacceptable delays. Even if there were time, bugs would pop up as players did things that were unexpected.

The devs will squash every bug that is within their power to do so. It'll take a little time as new bugs are identified and new game improvements are included. They have shown you guys unparalleled support and will continue to do so, of that I am sure. We can at least show them a little respect by not shouting about how borked we think the game is every time we encounter something that doesn't looked right.

Guys, just remember that the dev team is doing their absolute best to squash all reported bugs. The majority of bug squashers don't get paid for their work... they are all volunteers and their goal is to make the game as complete and bug-free as possible. So please don't heap any abuse on them. We can't afford to lose a single one of them if we want this game to grow.

And one last plea...

It's dang hard for them to reproduce any bugs without before and after save game files. Be as complete as you can with the description of your bug and send the save game files to the devs via the tech support thread. Posting a combat report seldom provides any useful clues as to how that report was derived.

Preaching off....

Chez

Chez

My email to Andy Mac included the before and 3 separate afters where I was able to reproduce the fault. Once identified this took around 1/2 an hour to generate. Clearly the before is most useful as it allows you to re-run the turn to see if you can reproduce the fault/issue. The after just shows what happened and not necessarily how.

I also realised that I was likely getting into relatively uncharted territory. I have no doubt that a game as complex as this cannot be tested to destruction in every eventuality and that most show stoppers would have occurred early in the game, therefore that's where most testing would be done. After all this is what patching is all about. It's not unplayable, I just have to watch for whacky results and hope that they don't occur just as I crack another problem (leaving me with the quandry 'do I let that stand?'). If you see a result that is out of character and so off the level, then save the turn, revert to the pre-turn, save again and then re-run to see what happens. If it's repeatable then you have your before and after to post to the Devs.

Bob

[Raverdave]

WTF is WAD ? [&:]