WITP version 1.40 Out Soon

[LittleJoe]

Yes!

*Phew* [:D]

[siRkid]

Please be aware that unless programmer receives a repeatable save, issue is not a bug... it is a rumor.

Ahh I will use this from now on.[:D][:D]

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: bgibs

What about the set all buttons in carrier groups? This has been broken since day one, is it still on the list?

Still on list:

Bug No - Save Required - Drongo - Problem (with TF air groups only) - the "Set all" button is not working when used to specifically select all air units equipped with a particular model of aircraft in a TF.

To see the problem:
1) Select scenario 15 as a H2H game.
2) In the Japanese turn, go to TF1 (the KB) and select any of the fighter air units equipped with A6M2s on board the CVs.
3) Change the selected fighter air unit's mission to port attack.
4) Click the "Set All A6M2 Zeros in this TF" button.
5) Cycle through the air units of the TF and you will see that the other A6M2 air units still have their original missions.
6) Return to the original A6M2 air unit and click the "Set All Fighters in this TF" button.
7) Cycle through again and this time you will see that all the other A6M2 air units now have port attack as their mission. This will also work with both of the "Set All.....in this hex" buttons. Only the "Set All (aircraft model) in this TF" is not working.
Reported still a problem in 1.30 by - Drongo

[siRkid]

BYW if everyone reported bug like above we could get a lot more fixed.[;)]

[siRkid]

Man... in two years this is the most I've seen Mike post in any one thread. [;)]

[tsimmonds]

5) The base orders screen now has a button which evokes a screen with all bases belonging to the same headquarters as the selected base.
6) The ground unit orders screen now has a button which evokes a screen with all ground units belonging to the same headquarters as the selected ground unit.
7) The air group orders screen now has a button which evokes a screen with all air groups belonging to the same headquarters as the selected group.

Very nice indeed! And thanks especially for your fast turnaround on 1.40.

[Peter Fisla]

Well thanks for showing us the code mate I would like to respond to this - I very much appologize but I can't help it - I have to ask:

Why to use a function bool CarrierAircraft() and check for a specific plane on specific position in the database when you could have a flag (carrier_capable) in the databse for aircraft ? Meaning you could have a plane on position[888] all you really care about it's the flag say

if (planes[x].carrier_capable)
{
.....
}
else
{
.....
}

Again I applogize for my silly question I would love to work on WitP code...free of course....I love this game.

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

You are correct. Should be slot 76. Here is the code:

//----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bool CarrierAircraft(short int tac)
{
if(tac<25)
return(true);

if(tac>75 && tac<102)
return(true);

return(false);
}

My "C" is better than my English.

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

13) Aircraft slots 8, 14 and 24 and 75 have been changed to carrier capable for the Japanese.

I wonder if this should be 76 and not 75. In V1.3 Scenario 15 and 16, aircraft 75 is the Ki-54 Hickory. Slot 76 is empty (as are 14 and 24).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Just finished coding version 1.40. Should be out in a week or so? Another patch may come in a month or so?

Thanks Mike! [&o][&o][&o]

10) The option to make night aerial attacks against ground units has been removed from the interface and computer opponent’s repertoire.
11) The accuracy of NIGHT aerial attacks against cities, ports and airfields has been dramatically reduced.

_GREAT_ !!!

BTW, now we have to test this in practice and, possibly, look into daylight bombing as well (to remove cases when 100+ B-29 sink 50+ ships when doing port attack in daylight)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

.... Meaning you could have a plane on position[888] ...

Sounds like this gentleman has figured a way to get around the logjam in the allied
aircraft database. In other words such a method would likely mean that us (few)
folks that would like to see more very late war allied carrier capable slots/aircraft
would have the current restriction removed. (No more slots available now).

Oh yeah, You dev / bug skwashers continue to amaze me. Thanks.

[Halsey]

I remember when the input was made last spring to make all port attacks like PH. It was shot down, even though it only happened twice during the war.[;)]

This rule works both ways. Either side benefits from it greatly. Making any ship in port, and in range of aircraft in danger of being attacked. The bottom line, as I was told, don't put ships in port within range of enemy airpower.[;)]

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

When we first started, the database contained very little. We spent 6 months taking hard coded items and adding them to the database, to make it easier on the end user scenario authors. Could have spent another year. Had to call it, somewhere. And, of course, the more we added to the database, the harder it would be to make a scenario.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla
...Why to use a function bool CarrierAircraft() and check for a specific plane on specific position in the database when you could have a flag (carrier_capable) in the databse for aircraft...

[Admiral Scott]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Patch being released now, as it fixes some leader loss issues. Note that all leader problems were fixed for all repeatable saves recieved. That does not mean all leader issues were fixed. Although quite a bit of bullet proofing was done, there may still be issues. If any more repeatable saves are received with issues of leader loss, they will be addressed in next patch. Please be aware that unless programmer receives a repeatable save, issue is not a bug... it is a rumor.

Thanks for Your Patience...

Michael Wood

Mike, first you said the patch would be out in a week or so, then last night you posted that the patch was being released now. Is it coming today or in a week?

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

6) When issuing movement orders to ground units, some hexes were forbidden, that should have been allowed. Fixed.

Is this the bug where you cannot move into enemy territory when you have him surrounded? You get to 59 of 60 miles and then the unit just won’t march that last mile?

I wasn't sure that was only with regard to "some hexes" but rather certain conditions that wouldn't allow that move. I see this all the time with encirclements in China. You cannot move into his hex to finish him off until he moves away and escapes the trap.

Worr, out

[worr]

Any word on the parachute supply bug?

Kid has a game file with that bug in action...at least on my front end. I've seen it before too. Or is this just on the list for a future update?

Worr, out

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

6) When issuing movement orders to ground units, some hexes were forbidden, that should have been allowed. Fixed.

Is this the bug where you cannot move into enemy territory when you have him surrounded? You get to 59 of 60 miles and then the unit just won’t march that last mile?

I wasn't sure that was only with regard to "some hexes" but rather certain conditions that wouldn't allow that move. I see this all the time with encirclements in China. You cannot move into his hex to finish him off until he moves away and escapes the trap.

Worr, out

Should be fixed

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: worr

Any word on the parachute supply bug?

Kid has a game file with that bug in action...at least on my front end. I've seen it before too. Or is this just on the list for a future update?

Worr, out

Its on the list

[worr]

Great!

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

I sent it to the production department, last night. They have to put the version number on, prepare it for download and other stuff (I don't know what all, you know, production stuff). I am not sure where it is in their que. So, I said a week or so? Who knows, maybe today or next week?

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Patch being released now, as it fixes some leader loss issues. Note that all leader problems were fixed for all repeatable saves recieved. That does not mean all leader issues were fixed. Although quite a bit of bullet proofing was done, there may still be issues. If any more repeatable saves are received with issues of leader loss, they will be addressed in next patch. Please be aware that unless programmer receives a repeatable save, issue is not a bug... it is a rumor.

Thanks for Your Patience...

Michael Wood

Mike, first you said the patch would be out in a week or so, then last night you posted that the patch was being released now. Is it coming today or in a week?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

What I fixed was the problem in setting the march objective hex. I did nothing to the code that moves units. Might be fixed. Might not. Didn't know it was broken.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Kid

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

6) When issuing movement orders to ground units, some hexes were forbidden, that should have been allowed. Fixed.

Is this the bug where you cannot move into enemy territory when you have him surrounded? You get to 59 of 60 miles and then the unit just won’t march that last mile?

I wasn't sure that was only with regard to "some hexes" but rather certain conditions that wouldn't allow that move. I see this all the time with encirclements in China. You cannot move into his hex to finish him off until he moves away and escapes the trap.

Worr, out

Should be fixed

[Sonny]

Great stuff Mike. Thanks so much.[&o][&o]