Matrix Games Forums

Why is it a rail move for air to go between Cristobal to Balboa? Its 37 miles... Didnt used to have to rail it.

Manual p.98-99 mentions that Cristobal-Balboa is a normal land movement. Distance is 45 miles, both bases are connected by rail and road.

Any air group, which has disabled aircraft at hand, will have those aircraft moved by rail if the air group's destination is linked by rail.

Were all your aircraft ready and put on rail? That shouldn't happen.

The new map changed some things.

Yaab wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2023 11:46 am Manual p.98-99 mentions that Cristobal-Balboa is a normal land movement. Distance is 45 miles, both bases are connected by rail and road.

Any air group, which has disabled aircraft at hand, will have those aircraft moved by rail if the air group's destination is linked by rail.

Were all your aircraft ready and put on rail? That shouldn't happen.

The air units were moved from Eastern US to Cristobal (as they cant move directly to Balboa, why I cant even guess). They arrive in Cristobal in mostly repaired condition after 14 days (usually 2-3 aircraft damaged, the rest serviceable). Carriers are waiting in Balboa for these Marine aircraft. Cant fly them to the carriers OR the airbase, have to ship them by rail, disband the carriers, load the planes on the carriers, and then reform the carrier groups, wasting a day game time and a lot of Mickey Mousing around disbanding and reforming carriers.

I dont usually play allies. But when I do, I usually move EVERYTHING (land, air, and naval forces) to Panama to avoid Jap sub patrols off the US west coast (because as the Jap player THATS where the bulk of MY subs are). And I hate losing ground/air units to subs...

The way the game is right now, there is no air transfer option in the Cristobal base. ANY air movement is by rail or to a docked ship (I would guess that means even if the carriers were in Cristobal I would have to disband them to load the planes). This is NOT the way it used to be.

btd64 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 11:17 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 10:43 pm

btd64 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 9:23 pm Meaneye, If you're so upset about the game, Don't play it. Move on to something else....GP

Maybe he needs to start writing what he wants and then code it all but without using any information from this game nor any previous games.

Agreed....GP

Actually I did do that. Just before WitP (original) came out. Differences between MINE and this:
1) Every land hex on the map was a base. I have a map of the pacific from 1944 I used as a basis.
2) Ground units were FAR more realistic (I have no idea where GG got the idea for the ground stuff in this game, but frankly its a joke)
2a) Ground units not moving dig in, and the longer they sit the deeper they dig - you know like how they REALLY do.
2b) Ground supply was food/ammo/arty. Not just generic "supply" and was assigned from higher HQs.
2c) Ground unit combat was at the bn scale with defending units occupying a set amount of space and attacking units occupying a set amount of space (I have all the data somewhere, just see no need to look it up right now). I used a factor system instead of counting individual squads/guns, ect.
2d) Ground units didnt lose ALL their "unorganized" equipment when retreating (no clue where this idea came from but its the main reason the ground combat system in this game is such a joke).
3) Air units actually "flew missions" similar to GGs "Fighter command" or "USAAF". The raids could be spotted and intercepted enroute to their targets unlike THIS game that just air in the target hex intercepts with a chance that random air from nearby also mixes in. This game has no reason for radar picket ships and the like, you know, like they REALLY had.
4) Naval combat was based on a miniatures battle game called "Seapower".
4a) Ships could engage as many targets as fire direction stations on the ship, meaning capital ships secondaries could for example engage destroyers while the main guns engaged cruisers for example.
4b) Torpedo attacks were NOT directed at individual ships but rather at an area (you know, like "realistic").
4c) Ammo on the ships were tracked by shell type. AP, HE, AA, ect.
5) Supply reinforcements replacements were handled through HQs.
5a) supply was allocated from the general pool to an area HQ and from there to army/corps HQs, to div HQs, to regimental HQs ect. Was all done off map except in areas where enemy air forces contested air control.
5b)replacements and reinforcements were handled the same way. It would take so long to move from 1 command to another depending on distance.
5c) Subs were abstracted and would damage/destroy these rear area movements based on a number of factors.

Ect so on and so forth. I could go on for days and pages...

My background:
I was a medic on active duty for 4 years from 74 to 78. 3 years of that training rangers/special forces.
1 was a medic for 1 year and an infantryman in an active reserve unit for 5 years (I had to switch my MOS from 91B to 11B to stay with the unit after I reenlisted). This unit was the last straight leg infantry unit in the US Army btw.
My father was in the 96th infantry division (Leyte and Okinawa) so I have a pretty good handle on the ground stuff they went through. I have books printed by the 96th division that I doubt are available anywhere else that tells very in depth stoires.
I was a computer programmer for 10 years including a year at a company contracted to JPL in the early 80s. Some of my software flew on the space shuttles.
I was a computer science major and a history minor in college.

I love when people under estimate me and my abilities...

Reasons I didnt finish it:
1) not enough horsepower in the home computers at the time. I could run it on a mainframe. Now a days would be no problem.
2) Im not an artist.
3) WitP came out and I didnt see a need to continue. I was going to start it up again a few years later, and AE was announced and I was asked to help on it, so I figured I would have some input on changes that way.
4) After AE was out, frankly I was burned out and didnt care anymore.

I still have ALL my data and I could very well be a project lead on it...

Meaneye wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:26 pm

btd64 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 11:17 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 10:43 pm

Maybe he needs to start writing what he wants and then code it all but without using any information from this game nor any previous games.

Agreed....GP

Actually I did do that. Just before WitP (original) came out. Differences between MINE and this:
1) Every land hex on the map was a base.
2) Ground units were FAR more realistic (I have no idea where GG got the idea for the ground stuff in this game, but frankly its a joke)
2a) Ground units not moving dig in, and the longer they sit the deeper they dig - you know like they they REALLY do.
2b) Ground supply was food/ammo/arty. Not just generic "supply" and was assigned from higher HQs.
2c) Ground unit combat was at the bn scale with defending units occupying a set amount of space and attacking units occupying a set amount of space (I have all the data somewhere, just see no need to look it up right now). I used a factor system instead of counting individual squads/guns, ect.
2d) Ground units didnt lose ALL their "unorganized" equipment when retreating (no clue where this idea came from but its the main reason the ground combat system in this game is such a joke).
3) Air units actually "flew missions" similar to GGs "Fighter command" or "USAAF". The raids could be spotted and intercepted enroute to their targets unlike THIS game that just air in the target hex intercepts with a chance that random air from nearby also mixes in.
4) Naval combat was based on a miniatures battle game called "Seapower".
4a) Ships could engage as many targets as fire direction stations on the ship, meaning capital ships secondaries could for example engage destroyers while the main guns engaged cruisers for example.
4b) Torpedo attacks were NOT directed at individual ships but rather at an area (you know, like "realistic").
4c) Ammo on the ships were tracked by shell type. AP, HE, AA, ect.

Ect so on and so forth. I could go on for days and pages...

My background:
I was a medic on active duty for 4 years from 74 to 78. 3 years of that training rangers/special forces.
1 was a medic for 1 year and an infantryman in an active reserve unit for 5 years (I had to switch my MOS from 91B to 11B to stay with the unit after I reenlisted). This unit was the last straight leg infantry unit in the US Army btw.
My father was in the 96th infantry division (Leyte and Okinawa) so I have a pretty good handle on the ground stuff they went through. I have books printed by the 96th division that I doubt are available anywhere else that tells very in depth stoires.
I was a computer programmer for 10 years including a year at a company contracted to JPL in the early 80s. Some of my software flew on the space shuttles.
I was a computer science major and a history minor in college.

I love when people under estimate me and my abilities...

Reasons I didnt finish it:
1) not enough horsepower in the home computers at the time. I could run it on a mainframe. Now a days would be no problem.
2) Im not an artist.
3) WitP came out and I didnt see a need to continue. I was going to start it up again a few years later, and AE was announced and I was asked to help on it, so I figured I would have some input on changes that way.
4) After AE was out, frankly I was burned out and didnt care anymore.

I still have ALL my data and I could very well be a project lead on it...

Just WOW on some of those things. So why not finish that game and quit complaining about this one because it won't change anything other than to annoy people - or is that your intention?

Most of my research was pre-internet where I had to spend endless hours in libraries, buy books, talk to people that were there. In 1 instance there was an airshow here in Minneapolis (Eden Prairie actually) where they had 5 Marine air medal of honor recipients (Joe Voss, James Swet, and 3 others). I spent a fair amount of time talking to James Swet about how they actually went about the missions, the processes, ect. After about a half hour or so he recommended Barret Tillmans books, so I went out and bought a few of those. Very enlightening. At the beginning of the war, each carrier had its own way of doing things. At Midway for example, 1 carrier launched its planes, they formed up over the carrier, and then went out together (which was post-Midway practice). But some carriers would send out the VFs, VTs, and VBs separate with the plan of meeting up at the target. Thats why that battle was so confused.

I also talked to a guy that had an uncle that was a bombardier on a B-17 at Midway that told me he got a Navy Cross for sinking a Jap cruiser that sank in seconds after it was hit. Was news to me, so I looked it up (and it really took some digging) and he was indeed awarded a Navy Cross. But between the time the medal was approved and a submarine returned to Pearl the story came out that the B-17 had attacked a US sub and the sub dived. The bombs had damaged the radio, so they couldnt contact anyone until they got back to Pearl for repairs. So the medal was awarded but the story was kept quiet on what really happened.

Part of my library, map, and research notes:
Now a days with the internet the research part is so much easier. Maps are simply pulling up google earth. 1 thing I would add now that I didnt have then was the compartmentalization of the ships themselves and track the damage to the ship that way instead of the percentage of damage that I had originally used...

I had looked up all the weather data also, and had the map divided up into 26 "weather zones". I knew the monthly rainfall totals for those areas by month and came up with a random weather routine based on that for each zone. Again, now with the internet, I would probably set it up to track the weather based on real world weather patterns.

Is there any unofficial patch that needs to be applied after using this beta patch?

Luc,

Its a little confusing there are 11.26 A and B, and this "Beta", don't worry about the Beta or try to install it, its not fixed yet, just stick with 26 B. That is the latest. Eventually the Beta will be released but its been in "beta" for over a year.

So just install the basic game and apply the patch in the download section (11.26 B) and come back here next year in Jan or so whenever they do finish up this beta update thing.

Zovs wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:16 am Luc,

Its a little confusing there are 11.26 A and B, and this "Beta", don't worry about the Beta or try to install it, its not fixed yet, just stick with 26 B. That is the latest. Eventually the Beta will be released but its been in "beta" for over a year.

So just install the basic game and apply the patch in the download section (11.26 B) and come back here next year in Jan or so whenever they do finish up this beta update thing.

Thank you for letting me know, Don.
I need to roll back as I already installed this v1127 public beta.

Where is 11.26 B? I only see 11.26 A on the file downloads page.

Delaware wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 7:18 pm Where is 11.26 B? I only see 11.26 A on the file downloads page.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4&t=226197

Another new bug.

TF was heading to Capetown. I changed the destination to Mombasa (left home port as Capetown). Hit "Return to Capetown" on the TF screen and go this. Saved the game and reloaded to see if that would clear it and no go.

Meaneye wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 12:53 am Another new bug.

TF was heading to Capetown. I changed the destination to Mombasa (left home port as Capetown). Hit "Return to Capetown" on the TF screen and go this. Saved the game and reloaded to see if that would clear it and no go.

bug.png

Nope, not new. That has been known for awhile.

Meaneye wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 12:53 am Another new bug.

TF was heading to Capetown. I changed the destination to Mombasa (left home port as Capetown). Hit "Return to Capetown" on the TF screen and go this. Saved the game and reloaded to see if that would clear it and no go.

bug.png

That message is a new one to me and it suggests that coding has been updated to PREVENT players from doing what you tried to do. The game engine cannot count hexes between on-map and off-map areas as there are no continuous hexes to follow. It is set up to put the TFs into a holding box and calculate the date of arrival at off-map location (or first on-map hex when going the other way). If you try to reroute the TF while it is in the holding box, waiting for the arrival date to happen, you give the game engine a calculation it cannot make because of insufficient data. In the current game version (not the 1127 Beta) your TF can disappear, get stuck in an un-navigable hex like 0,0 , get teleported to strange locations or routed from one side of the map to the other.

The new coding is doing what it is meant to do - save you from confusing the game engine. You will have to wait for the TF to get to Cape Town before you send it to Mombasa.

Except if you look at the screen shot, that TF is ON THE MAP.... Are you saying that ON MAP TFs, once ordered to head to an off map base are locked in to that until they get there? LOL, ok....

Going back to a non-beta version then.

Meaneye wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2023 7:37 am Except if you look at the screen shot, that TF is ON THE MAP.... Are you saying that ON MAP TFs, once ordered to head to an off map base are locked in to that until they get there? LOL, ok....

Going back to a non-beta version then.

Except that the TF is OFF the map according to the TF screen. So if anything, that is a DISPLAY error but only if the TF symbol that is shown on the map is the actual TF in question.

RangerJoe wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2023 10:45 am

Meaneye wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2023 7:37 am Except if you look at the screen shot, that TF is ON THE MAP.... Are you saying that ON MAP TFs, once ordered to head to an off map base are locked in to that until they get there? LOL, ok....

Going back to a non-beta version then.

Except that the TF is OFF the map according to the TF screen. So if anything, that is a DISPLAY error but only if the TF symbol that is shown on the map is the actual TF in question.

I agree with RJ - the display can be wrong. That happens fairly often when I give an Off Map TF orders to sail to a point On Map and it has already finished loading or unloading so it is eligible to go straight into the holding box. Instead of the icon showing up in the holding box it appears in the darkened strip along the edge of the map, at the point it will come On-Map when it's travel time elapses. A bug, but not a harmful one if you don't try to change anything.

This Beta patch broke my game.

Abadan is frozen, the map skewed. I hope that this can be fixed; otherwise reinstalling without this questionable "update".

BBfanboy wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2023 12:11 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2023 10:45 am

Meaneye wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2023 7:37 am Except if you look at the screen shot, that TF is ON THE MAP.... Are you saying that ON MAP TFs, once ordered to head to an off map base are locked in to that until they get there? LOL, ok....

Going back to a non-beta version then.

Except that the TF is OFF the map according to the TF screen. So if anything, that is a DISPLAY error but only if the TF symbol that is shown on the map is the actual TF in question.

I agree with RJ - the display can be wrong. That happens fairly often when I give an Off Map TF orders to sail to a point On Map and it has already finished loading or unloading so it is eligible to go straight into the holding box. Instead of the icon showing up in the holding box it appears in the darkened strip along the edge of the map, at the point it will come On-Map when it's travel time elapses. A bug, but not a harmful one if you don't try to change anything.

It isnt wrong though. I formed a new TF with it and did what I tried to do. Where it shows on the MAP is where it is. If the TF were indeed "off map" there would NOT be the option to form a new TF. Yet the option is there, and it works, which PROVES its on map...

Seriously, this game had some major problems prior to this beta, but after... I have CS TFs that wont stay CS TFs, I have air groups reassigning their own missions, I have off map TFs returning to the bases they left from, and I have no clue how its happening. I cant repeat them. Production facilities becoming movable units, the list goes on and on. The new bases have the AI doing somersaults tripping over itself. And all this since this "beta" came out.

Good luck with your beta kids. Its broken beyond fixing, but you wont accept that Im sure.