Once again there is a hint from some that I invent the information from nothing.
Read post #8 dated 12 Sept 2009 from JWE in this thread.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2237174&mpage=1&key=rearm�
It is one of the six key dates I provided in post #22 when either Don Bowen or JWE provided significant details.
Mainly in 2009 but also extending into 2010-11, there were numerous complaints from players that rearming did not work. In the great majority of cases the fault lay not with the code but with the player not understanding the basics. A few minor bugs were quashed at the time and everything then seemed to be in order. Which is why I still suspect the problem is not so much with the rearming code
per se but in some other action which in turn might negatively impact upon rearming. The range of external areas which might be adversely impacting upon 1945 underway rearming include:
(a) consumption of OP due to refuelling first from AE bunkers in a Replenishment TF. Even if it is only 250 OP that might still mean the remaining 750 is insufficient for transferring 16in ammo. Remember we have never been told the OP expenditure rate for any transaction
(b) the code could be "freezing" after taking fuel from a Replenishment TF ie before 1 Jan 1945 there is no at sea rearming, only refuelling or aircraft transfer and the new action of rearming is not being cleanly undertaken/opened
(c) not using WITPLoad to edit the test scenario might be the cause of the problem. WITPLoad provides scenario designers with more "data fields" to tailor their scenario. With that program ships can start with partial loads and it is my understanding that the devs use that program
Now putting aside the above, in response to one player complaint, Don Bowen did let out that there was a huge logic hole. He neither identified what it was nor whether it had been plugged, the clear inference being that no one had triggered it and they thought it would be difficult to trigger it. Before anyone complains about this apparent turning a blind eye to the problem, spare a thought for the complexity of rearming.
The "rearm cost" of a weapon is not always 2x the effect value. For some weapon systems it is the load cost. You can't make the rearm cost for all weapon systems be the load cost as naval guns have a load cost of 9999. When JWE, bound as always to his NDA, refered to the "biggest" or the "biggie" in Sept 2009 he didn't specifically state that it was the weapon system in slot 1 but logically that is the case for in the official scenarios the biggest weapon systems start in slot #1 and decrease in size down the slots . It would unnecessarily complicate the code to search for the "biggest" which is measured using different metrics. Much easier for the scenario designer to carefully place the weapon systems in order and the code simply has to look down the slot order.
It is a fact of life that testing of 1945 code components by the devs was always much more difficult than testing the code for 1942 operations. There is always a greater possibility that something is not WAD if it can only happen late in the war. A simple example of this is the fact that they overlooked updating the kamikaze trigger range to take into account the new 40nm hexes of WITP:AE.
Whilst I suspect there is something which we are overlooking, enough work has been undertaken to suggest that there is a
prima facie issue here that perhaps something is not WAD and therefore michaelm would not be wasting his time if he looked at the code. We need to not overload michaelm with false bug reports where the error clearly lies with the operator. That doesn't appear to be the case here. But don't necessarily expect a quick reply as I suspect michaelm might have to liase with Don Bowen first.
Alfred
