A list of core game bugs left in WITP:AE

[michaelm75au]

What about the planes onboard tenders disbanded in port not using endurance from the tender? Would they normally use endurance if the ship was in a TF, but don't while disbanded in port (and should they)?

Endurance is used during the turn being played out. This would be cleared when the next turn starts so not sure how you would know if it was using endurance or not.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

A save showing the issue would be most welcome to understand the issue.

You don't need a save this is repeatable from the off in any scenario but if I've got something wrong I'll admit it but I still think there's bug.

This all started because Lokasenna post 'I believe the ones onboard might operate while it is disbanded in port (or they might not).' Why 'might not?' when we all know they do!

So simple test it game. Start any sceanario, I used #1 Head to head. Set all aircraft on both side to stand down except FP on a few on ships which I set to 100% search max range and none that were on disbanded ships apparently fly. See the pic as an example afet 5 days of the pilot stats (fat and mis). Those in TF did according to pilot stats. I was not expecting this so repeated it using even more FP, different scenarios, with or without supply, even Allied FP. Same result. FP do not fly if ships are disbanded according to pilot stats.

[Chris21wen]

Not a rigorous test as has been pointed out but it does indicated that ships disbanded don't fly until I checked a CS at Babeldoab. On turn one it starts in a TF loaded with troops. I put the CS in their own TF, docked, unloaded and disband and set the FP to fly. They did that turn, which I expected, but they kept flying?

I now moved the CS in Hiroshima to Amami Oshima, via Nagasaki and then back to Hiroshima. When disbanded in Nagaski they did not fly, in Amami they did and once back to Hiroshima they did not. Can't say if this is constant as I stopped there.

I repeat this is all based on pilot stats. Generally after each turn pilots that flew, would show 2-4 fat and 2 mis and this was pretty constant throughout so running for days on end is pointless once you know.

Here's the ones at Babeldaob.

[Yaab]

Bump

[RangerJoe]

One thing that I would request, how about having IJN midget submarine carrier TFs set on patrol (forgetting to change them to "sub patrol") return to base when they are low on fuel? They do not currently do so.

[Gratch1111]

Bug no 4
So if I set naval search and arcs it wont detect subs?

I assume that if I set ASW patrol and ASW arcs it still detects subs?

[btd64]

Bug no 4
So if I set naval search and arcs it wont detect subs?

I assume that if I set ASW patrol and ASW arcs it still detects subs?

My search arcs find subs....GP

[Alpha77]

How many of the these issues are fixed in the new patch

[RangerJoe]

In the download, there is a .pdf of 69 pages listed as "v1127BetaWhatsNew.pdf" so look there. I don't want to try and attach it here.

[Yaab]

Scen001, beta patch 1

An old bug resurfaces but in a different iteration.

An Allied TF of one DD and one xAK meets a Jap patrol ship. A short surface combat ensues. The Allied xAK has exp 15/15 at the start of the battle. After a very short combat, in which the xAK fires its main gun a few times, both TFs break off contact and the xAK's exp jumps to a whopping exp 51/15. This behavior replicates an earlier bug in which exp of xAKs jumped to exp 51 after firing their AA guns. This bug was corrected by michaelm.

I have a picture.

[RangerJoe]

Maybe they are very quick learners?

[Yaab]

Bump

[BBfanboy]

Bump

Why the bump Yaab? Are you saying that experience gain problem still exists?

[Yaab]

Just a general bump. Haven't played the new patch yet.