Matrix Games Forums

As AE is in Beta, I was wondering which of the major bugs/gripes about the system have been addressed. I was wondering if those in the know might clue us in a little bit as the Naval Thread is locked.

We know that the pilot bug is fixed. We know a lot of work has been done on the OOB. We know that pilot training has been addressed and only time will tell if its has been fixed. We know Uber Cap is fixed.

I was just wondering about some of my pet peaves. So I am asking and would encourage others to ask in this thread if they so desire. If the AE people feel congenial; maybe they can peak in here and just say yes or no. No need for a long discussion or explanation. A simple: fixed, SAIEW (same as it ever was), or OOS (out of the scope of the AE project). I would ask those that might post here not ask about specifica units/ships/airframes/weapons that may or not be included in AE. I would like to focus on mechanics

So I will lead off.

1. Have PT boats been addressed. Specifically the rediculous amount of damage they can do
2. Has the drive by bombardment routine been fixed?
3. Has the small fragment blocking a retreat path been fixed.

Just a few I am wondering about

ORIGINAL: vettim89

3. Has the small fragment blocking a retreat path been fixed.

Yes. See Post #15 in the land thread for details.

fb.asp?m=1637463

The AE team looked at all the issues people complained about (most of them bugged us too).  Some were just not fixable due to limitations in the engine or design.  There was some cost/benefit analysis.  The things that could be fixed were fixed for the most part.

Bill

As for PT boats, the real problem with them has always been that people are willing to exploit design holes in the coding to achieve unrealistic results.

Life as a PT boat skipper isn't so easy any more. The new moonlight aspect, for instance, can be quite detrimental to their health, as can the fact that even small-caliber guns (down to 8cm) can literally obliterate a PT boat with one shot now.

Regarding those PT boat fixes... [&o]

[:)]Very nice to here this Terminus.


***

Also to vettim89 i have read about some of the changes... and I remember i complained about the combat range of the KATE.. who should be like twise of what it is in WITP.. and thay (TheElf) Improved / fixed that [&o][&o]


For other changes, i recommend you to read the Land, Sea, Map, ect threads..


[:)]

A tremendous amount of work has gone into the aircraft range issue.  There was a fairly major update to the air code about a month ago to incorporate drop tanks.  Because of the granularity, ie the actual ranges in game have to be translated into hexes, there are some minor innacuracies +/- a hex, but the aircraft ranges are much better than they used to be.  The 40 mile hexes helps this granularity a bit too.

Bill

ORIGINAL: Terminus

..., the real problem with them has always been that people are willing to exploit design holes in the coding to achieve unrealistic results.

So true in every war game I have every played (from chit to electronic). Some opponents delight on finding ways to break the game's simulation engine to produce an advantageous outcome. It is the old game vs simulation debate. If the simulation engine has a minor weakness (such as a Flak gap between 7 - 9K), you don't fly air missions at this altitude in my view. Others enjoy finding such holes and exploiting them. To them, that is part of the game, and the fun. While I try an understand their perspective, I don't enjoy it and will only play them once.

The Opponents wanted forum is an excellent way to overcome these challenges. Post your required/desired house rules to keep game engine exploitation from being too gamey for you, and wait for a taker. Too easy. Thanks to all who make this possible.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As for PT boats, the real problem with them has always been that people are willing to exploit design holes in the coding to achieve unrealistic results.

Life as a PT boat skipper isn't so easy any more. The new moonlight aspect, for instance, can be quite detrimental to their health, as can the fact that even small-caliber guns (down to 8cm) can literally obliterate a PT boat with one shot now.

Some types of Rifle Fire or Heavy MG Fire would often penetrate the PT's killing crews (as thay were most often wooden or playwood components ect) --
IS this simulated ?

Nope.

And there's no way it possibly could be, with the engine not allowing engagement ranges below four figures. Think, then post!

Anyway, PT's are more fun now (if you're not a design-hole-exploiter, but an ACTUAL player). You have to juggle their vulnerability to enemy weapons with the chance of hitting things with the risk of them seeing you because of bright moonlight. Makes it worthwhile waiting for those radars to get mounted.

Nice [:D]

Since some things will always be there and can be exploited, would it be worthwhile, in the case of PT Boats, to increase the point value of sinking them? That way if a player uses some of the exploits for the PT boats, at least there would be an offset. What do you think?

Then why would the allied player use them at all? As it is in CHS in WitP I dont build merchant ships. I dont need them, building more only serves to (possibly) give the allied player points. Same thing here. If the point value for them is too high, allied players simply wont build or use them at all. Why give the Jap free points?

PTs arent that effective in AE. Good for what they were used for perhaps, but in several engagements thus far in the PI I have yet to score a hit with them. I use 2 and 3 ship squadrons (AE limits PTs to 6 ship max).

I don't know how some of ya'll are getting ridiculous amounts of damage during PT attacks. I get very poor results from my PTs, both US & Dutch.

There are a couple of naval related issues that I have and am wondering if they've been addressed at all:

1. Why there are 4 USN PTs (77ft Elcos w/ USN COs) stationed in India (2 ea @ Diamond Harbor & Paniji) at the start of the game?

2. Has the weapons issue with the 77ft Elcos been fixed (or even been brought up before)? They have the 20mm installed at the start of the game but these weren't installed until after Midway.

3. In regards to the Tench class subs, in the OOB only the first few are listed as actually being Tench class boats, while the rest are listed as being Gato. Has this been fixed?

And now for the big question, at least to me anyway as I looking at buying a new PC, is AE going to be more Vista friendly?

ORIGINAL: afspret

I don't know how some of ya'll are getting ridiculous amounts of damage during PT attacks. I get very poor results from my PTs, both US & Dutch.

There are a couple of naval related issues that I have and am wondering if they've been addressed at all:

1. Why there are 4 USN PTs (77ft Elcos w/ USN COs) stationed in India (2 ea @ Diamond Harbor & Paniji) at the start of the game?

2. Has the weapons issue with the 77ft Elcos been fixed (or even been brought up before)? They have the 20mm installed at the start of the game but these weren't installed until after Midway.

3. In regards to the Tench class subs, in the OOB only the first few are listed as actually being Tench class boats, while the rest are listed as being Gato. Has this been fixed?

And now for the big question, at least to me anyway as I looking at buying a new PC, is AE going to be more Vista friendly?

1) Probably to account for some of the RN boats I would suspect (try as I might, I cant find unit histories for every PT boat made).
2) WitP didnt have upgrades for PTs (probably because of space constraints). AE Has these boats upgrading begining 12/42.
3) Yes, not that it really matters since the specs are nearly identical. But the Tench boats are called Tench boats.

AE isnt being written for any particular operating system.

ORIGINAL: afspret
And now for the big question, at least to me anyway as I looking at buying a new PC, is AE going to be more Vista friendly?

More Vista frinedly than stock? Actually we are not aware of any issues running WITP(stock) on Vista. Some folks have had Vista security issues, but these would be Vista issues.

As far as I can tell, there were never any US or "British" PT boats in India.

At the start of the war there were eight RN MTB at Hong Kong - including two built for the Chinese Navy but siezed when China lost her major ports to the Japanese. None of these survived 1941.

Twenty Four US Made (Lend Lease) PTs were transferred (by the Royal Navy) to India in 1943 and transported out as cargo. Two were lost enroute when their transport was sunk. The remaining 22 formed two MTB Flotillas of the RIN and were active in Burmese waters. These boats are in AE and AE has been extended to allow all nations to have PT/MTB and to process their arrivals correctly.

After the war in Europe ended, there were plans to send numbers of the Fairmile "Dog" boats out but this was not accomplished by the time Japan surrendered.

The US PTs in India at the start of the war in some scenarios is a whoopsie.

I like seeing more PT/MTB's in the game but, what about Japan? In Witp I think Japan had 8 MTB's!

The Japanese had essentially 4 flavors of MTB, in AE we call these:

01 - MTB (Motor Torpedo Boat)
02 - MTL (Motor Torpedo Launch)
03 - MGB (Motor Gun Boat)
04 - MGL (Motor Gun Launch)

The difference between the "Boat" and the "Launch" is speed (a.k.a. engines) with about 17 knots being the dividing line, 18+ being a "boat" and 17- being a "launch".

The difference between the "Torpedo" and the "Gun" is whether or not the vessel had torpedos [:)]. A number of those without torpedos, had depth charges, through not very many.

A number of these vessels were switched back and forth between these types, so we allow T to G and G to T conversions in AE.

And yes there are many more than 8 of these four flavors in AE, though many of those that were begun or planned were not finished historically. The "Shinyo" suicide boats taking precedence.