Bugs and stuff from v. 2.2

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 2:06 am

Hi, could everyone post everything that they see as a bug up to and including patch 2.2?

Just so we don't have to go looking around a bunch of different threads.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 3:18 am

Hi these are things I have observed
1. oil not picked up by routine convoy in places it should be (mainland Japan) this has been the case I believe in all versions (I always just make 2 convoys and do it my self-do these convoys take PP's from Combined fleet?)

2. Subs based out of Darwin always have distance from base too high (I put a sub 1 hex away and it said range was 61) I have built Darwin to max port/airbase and loaded it with supply with no effect on this.

3. In regards to China. I would just make IJA units immobile (Players are always leaving bases empty to mass LCU's and attack if there is no way to have an empty base revert to Allied control I would make it impossible to leave them empty)

4. I guess this is not a bug but has anyone noticed how good Wellingtons and B-17's are against ships? I can find no historical instance of a B-17 hitting a ship but it happens every week in Pac War. (I admit I use the Wellingtons in naval interdiction, but only cause they are the best allied plane for it in the game)

5. There seem to be several "Bermuda Triangles" one near Tonga another up on northern coast of Borneo , and one by Port Blair (others I 'm sure) TF's get stuck for a month at a time in some of these.

6. Replenish TF's are still screwy

You guys are doing a great job!!!! (when are we going to fight?)

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

chanman · Post by **chanman** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 8:19 am

Hi Major Tom,

I am copying this list from one of my other posts so you don't have to hunt through the other threads for it.

"The newer bugs that I see in this forum are:
1. the new F6F factory in slot 100 doesn't work
2. carriers not showing up with full airgroups (or any airgroups)
3. air combat taskforce replenishing problems
4. artillery (over)production issues
5. problems manually upgrading squadron equipment

Note that I am attempting to flag only new bugs. The use of rockets by the game I do not consider a bug so much as the AI making some decisions that don't necessarily match my intent."

I believe that you have already and responded to these, but I am putting them here just in case. You might add to the list the apparently long known Palembang bug, some other people have been kind of vehement about it in other threads. I haven't noticed, probably because I play allied and make a major effort to recapture Medan and Palembang with the Brits in the short time they still have carriers in 1942.

I really enjoy this game and look forward to any improvements in the obc or bug fixes. PacWar has outlasted many many other programs on my harddrive.

Chanman

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 10:00 pm

Just to let you know what can and cannot be done, due to the limitations of the code, not our time. Even if we had years the following probably could not be done, along with some certifications of what can be done so as not to be totally gloomy!

I am pretty sure that the Palembang bug was intended by Grigsby to simulate the impossibility of getting oil production to realistically survivalbe levels, but, v2.2 did correct that to make it possible.

It is impossible to make IJA units in China more immoble than they are, unless you remove all lines of land travel, which would not be too realistic. If you are playing against the AI, just don't move your units around (CEA or Nat.China), or, if you are in a PBEM make a 'house rule'.

The F6F thing is just a simlple OBC fix and has already been done.

Some CVE's are supposed to not have air groups. Also, there is a debate raging wether or not CV and CVL's should start with a full compliment.

One thing that has not been mentioned yet was the Replenishment cheat. I do not think that this is possible to stop. Restricting Replenishment convoy's to have only AO, TK, and DD class ships will only stop automatically and manually created TF's from having AP's in them. However, when you transfer ships from one TF to another TF any barrier is automatically ignored (ie. you can put CV's in Surface TF's through the TF transfer, even though when you created the Surface TF it would not let you put CV's in the TF). The real worry about this cheat is in PBEM games, wether your opponent is trustworthy enough to not use it. However, if they are cheating, I am pretty sure they would be using an editor over that of a simple replenishment bug. The editor is just as impossible to trace as the replenishment bug.

Most of the rest seems to be in the realm of possibility for a fix. So keep posting and we will see what is possible to do within the limits of the code.

Blackhorse · Post by **Blackhorse** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 3:17 am

Some observed bugs:

Japanese Lily II production does not go into the pool.

The Japanese can produce an Allied Dive Bomber.

The IJAs 30th Infantry Division appears as a reinforcement on the island of Nauru.

Aomori oil, Sapporo and Zhenjiang resources are never picked up by routine convoys.

Irritating Non-bug bugs:

Disappearing leaders: bust Matsunaga down to Rear Admiral so you can use him for something besides commanding Saigon or the Combined Fleet. Make Wavell's availability 12/41 so he doesn't disappear when you check ABDAs leader availability (or, conversely, start the game with someone else in charge of ABDA until Wavell's historical arrival).

NCAC: bring the HQs and reinforcements in at Lashio, not in China.

The unrealistically strong initial defenses/ deployment of Australia (if you can develop one OBC/deployment for PBEM and another for solitaire, great. If not, I'd vote for the old "weak" Oz deployment instead of the new "strong" design.)

What's with the Japanese A6M8 factory? To have the factory spend 4 years "gearing up for production" is a bit much. Can't it make something else then switch over in '45?

MTBs: If you can't tweak the code to allow planes to fire rockets and drop bombs on torpedo boats, then take the MTBs out of the OOB. Right now, the possible game playing abuses of MTBs far outweigh their modest historical contributions to the war.

Mika Väliviita · Post by **Mika Väliviita** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 3:41 pm

Replenishment: The way it currently works is that the replenish tf goes to target and returns to port (usually, I think it stays with target tf when that is a CV tf, and replenish tf has no CVEs) BUT the active tf is still the _target tf_ but the cursor is at the port where the replenishment tf was created. If you immediately press r to remove the replenishment tf (which is at the port and you think is active) but instead you remove the target tf (which can be on the other side of the map) and it's ships go the port where the replenishment tf was created (and that need not have any ships). The old way doesn't work as it used to since the replenishment returns to port.

US subs using Japanese torpedoes and even 13.2mm (!!!) "torpedoes".
Eastern fleet bases have enemy presence yellow background even when no enemy is present.
Sumner armor: add 1 to Gearing armor.
Zero (0) tanker units.
Gfx glitch on max help: B-24s look like Ki-84s, Beaufighter Xs look like PB4Ys.
Early production on max help (well, not a bug), aircraft types only arrive earlier if they have a factory. Is this what GG intended?

Mika V

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 10:07 pm

Don't forget your injured leader bug!

Most leaders get killed off (I notice) by friendly bombardments of bases that they command. It seems like the code is somehow reversed (as you said) making your aircraft target friendly commanders instead of enemy commanders.

Don Bowen · Post by **Don Bowen** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:05 pm

PacWar maintains some unusual controls over Carrier Air Groups and Ship Icons.

Many (but not all) Carrier Air Groups are "hard assigned" to carriers within the executable. I have experimented and can not find a reason for this. Those CAGs that are not "hard assigned" work fine, and I have moved "hard assigned" airgroups to other carriers (with a hex editor) and they also work fine. Perhaps this control could be removed, allowing temporary assignment of CAGs from damaged carriers to shore bases (as was frequently done). Even if a game mechanism is not provided for movement between carrier/base it would be valuable (in my opinion) to have this capability in the editor.

Also, the icon assignments for ship classes are linked to the original assignments in obc41. Aircraft icons don't seem to be. Changing an icon in the middle of a game requires that the change also be made in obc41. Again, I can find no reason for this (except perhaps some old bug fix). I have been using Rich Dionne's icon editor and would like to re-use the icons of sunk classes for more details on the remaining ones (I tried to convert the Hermes icon to a Currituck).

Both of these take up at least some valuable memory in a very core-tight application and do not appear to serve much purpose. Their removal might allow other features to be included.

And a few other possible changes that I think are small (in terms of programming) but valuable:

- Allow Tac Bombers to use airfields smaller than 4 (3 or perhaps even 2). Historically accurate.

- Provide a few more LCU types, extending the current 0-7. Unless PacWar is using bit-wise operators I believe the types could be easily expanded to 0-15. These could duplicate the existing set as far as unit division, but have different maximum strengths. Primarily I'd like to see armored formations and a U.S. equivalent to SBF for Naval Construction Battalions:

0/8 = Engineer Regiment/Engineer Battalion
1/9 = Army (not sure what else)
2/10 = Infantry/Armored Corps
3/11 = Infantry/Armored Division
4/12 = Infantry/Armored Brigade
5/13 = Infantry/Armored Regiment
6/14 = Intantry/Armored Battalion
7/15 = SBF/CB

The Infantry formations could be changed to have a smaller AFV component and the armored formations small infantry and large AFV. The
extra engineer (now zero) unit would be smaller to model the different between Engineer Regiments (like 43rd/46th) and Engineer Battalions (91st/96th).

- allow MCS to load troops (perhaps on a reduced capacity basis). Very historical.

I think these would all have only a minor programming impact, but then nothing is ever difficult for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.

Thanks for listening and thanks for PacWar 2!

Don

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 12:22 am

Don, unfortunately, much of what you ask will be included in WitP, but, for Pacific War, it is beyond the code. There are limitations, due to how it was programed, that even if they spent forever on it, it could not be done. The problem isn't 'it cannot be done', but, 'it cannot be done based on the limitations of 10 year old code'.

The aircraft hardcoding will probably not be changed, unless they already know of it, or it is easy to do. No sense wasting time editing something that does not really require it to make the existing gameplay better. I understand that many squadrons were transferred from carriers to land, and vice versa, but, Pacific War does not handle that well, even with the editor.

You could, if you wanted, create some US SBF forces. The code for the SBF is not hardcoded for IJN formations. However, other than possibly the Seabee units they would not match up with other US engineer formations.

LargeSlowTarget · Post by **LargeSlowTarget** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 12:22 am

Not a bug, but Don mentioned a point which I strongly support: allow MCS to load troops. At least in evacuation TFs and for squads only, i.e. leave Arty and AFV behind.

Don Bowen · Post by **Don Bowen** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 3:55 am

Thanks for you reply, Major Tom.

I understand that War in the Pacific will be a great improvement - but it will be many months before it is available. And patience is not the only virtue that I lack.

In the meantime, I hope the programmer(s) are able to consider at least some of the recommended changes.

Don

Jeff Norton · Post by **Jeff Norton** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 7:37 am

Hi,
I've noticed that some of my TF's (playing the IJN/JA) do reaction moves to San Fran and to Colombo. All the way from Tokyo.

Has anybody else seen this???

Odd thing is it is my troop trans TF's and Cargo TF's. Go figure...

Best,
-Jeff

sulup · Post by **sulup** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 10:12 am

The J1N1-S Irving arrives too early in PACWAR. The 'S' model was the major production model that did not begin deliveries in the war round Aug 1943...Current versions have the Irving arriving late 42.

Knaust · Post by **Knaust** » Mon Mar 05, 2001 4:06 pm

Thx for reviving thsi great game....there is a bug anyway:
When I click on 25th Jap Army's HQ Units, I see that the 5th Div is on board of TF24; when I click on TF24 I see no passengers...moreover I can load supply on that TF24.
Very annoying....I invaded Darwin, but now I lac a Division

Knaust · Post by **Knaust** » Mon Mar 05, 2001 4:07 pm

ooppss...sorry I forgot to mention that I cannot trace 5th Div anywhere on the map!

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 9:08 am

Hi, In current PBEM game (one of them) US player sent CV to bomb Tokyo, ok fine no problem but now 6 turns later Tokyo continues to behave like an isolated base (but is not listed as one) No new Japanese air/LCU units have appeared (but I don't know if any were supposed to) What causes this behaviour (I have only seen Tokyo and Pearl Harbour get this way and always after a CV raid) update Ok 7Mar LCU have appeared in Tokyo but no airgroups (might be none scheduled)
Also PC's that get suprise in a surface battle always start out of range (there by negating the suprise first shot)
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited March 07, 2001).]

Manic Jester · Post by **Manic Jester** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 11:40 pm

Still having the Premature War End problem in the first two weeks of Jan. '42. I'm playing the Allied side/even advantage v2.2, on an older Win95 OS. Used Rich Dionne's patch to get by the problem.

MJ

[This message has been edited by Manic Jester (edited March 07, 2001).]

gdpsnake · Post by **gdpsnake** » Sun Mar 11, 2001 10:30 pm

I have encountered the old bug of routine supply not going to Rangoon, Dacca(yes got it on a sea invasion with land move) or ports in Aussie land (Adelaide, Melbourne). They list as isolated when the air zones show otherwise or even when airpower could not possibly interdict. This rarely has any effect as fas as Australia is concerned but this is bad when Japan puts major push to India and gets bogged down having to run supply from elsewhere.

Mike R · Post by **Mike R** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 12:39 am

I am not sure if these are bugs but I have found the following. 1. APA in pool that can not be accessed, they are in 2 groups 1x12 1x24. 2. 8 B-29 Groups that never grow beyond 4 Planes. 3. Trans-Cargo TFs that lose MCS,Tanker,Victory ships out of TF(eg-5 groups each with 10 ships becomes 5 groups with 1-6 ship groups). 4. ENG LCU do not recombine if divided. 5. Major Bases(HQ and Target in same hex does not receive much fuel and supply.

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 3:23 am

I already reported this bug in October 2000. It is still in Ver. 2.2.

My post from October:

I think I found a big bug I can't remember read of before.
I tested with ver. 2.1, but think it is the same in the older versions.
It is possible to bring each ship to a port you want to at once if you do the following:

1. The destination port has to have at lest two Task Forces in it. (Can be empty TFs)
2. The ship(s) you want to transfer has to be in a TF. Build one if necessary.
3. Klick on the TF so that it is displayed in the bottom right corner.
4. Now right click on the destination port in TF mode. (It has to be visible on the map. Don't scroll the map!)
5. Right click once again.
6. Now simply remove the TF by pressing 'R' and it is in the destination port.

It occurs also in PBEM games.