Matrix Games Forums

Don
1. Japanese ships will respawn into allied slots

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


OK - I've run some tests and am very happy with the results:

1. Japanese ships will respawn into allied slots - solved by Number 2 (below) and therefore not a problem. The programmers might have made a check for this but it is quite normal to skip a lot of checks for things a programmer does not expect to happen - especially in games when every "if" statement is a little more delay in turn resolution.

2. If there are no more empty slots - respawning stops (pause for cheers from Ron). It appears that re-spawning can be "turned off" by filling all empty slots with "9999" delay ships. This means the programmers have followed good coding techniques and prevented array overflow.


In my tests I filled all empty allied slots with copies of the Penguin at Guam. Missed a couple so a three respawned but then it stopped. I will run another test with the last three slots "filled". I am also going to make a post on the main forum thread and hope for a comment from a programmer.

Don

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

#2! COOL!!! Guess what's going to happen for the non respawn version?[:D]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

so the slots of sunk ships are never reused? that makes no sense.

I can only see the first ship lost having a problem. Or does the game keep track of sunk ships that way? does not reuse the slot, and that dead slot shows sunk vessels.

Mike

ORIGINAL: bstarr

I think slots of sunk ships are reused. I ended up with my first MSW spawning as an allied ship while the next two spawned correctly. Seems to have fixed itself once there were a few casualties.

Perhaps we should give up and let Ron just take over now and make his long-desired respawn version

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Well, with the respawning issue it appears we have two choices:

1. Allow respawn: free up at least 100 slots in the Japanese side and hope to hell we still don't respawn Japanese minesweepers into the allied oob.
2. Go to a full non-respawn version with all empty slots "9999"ed away. This would require that we provide the "missing" allied ships that were previously expected to be taken care of by re-spawn. I know a lot of people have wanted this from the very beginning. I'm starting to warm to this one myself.

I've still not been able to divine the secrets of AG re-spawning. Doesn't appear to require an empty slot but so far, hasn't happened. My tests to date:

1. In all-slots-full version, got three AG damaged enough to scuttle: appear in sunk ship list like any other ship.
2. In standard scenario 15, got an AG damaged enough to scuttle: appears in sunk ships list and did not re-spawn to an emtpy slot!. Perhaps there's some function in the program??
3. Went back to the all-slots-full version and let in run computer-vs-computer all night. Now 4/42 and the three AG still show in the sunk ship list.
4. Will let it run more (whenever I don't need the PC) and see if, after some unknown time period, the AG respawn in place.

If this test shows that AG require a second slot to re-spawn, they may become candidates for removal!

I'd appreciate any opinions.

Here is a little known tidbit we might want to add. Australia was unofficially a wee bit pissed at the US for naming a Baltimore class cruiser in honour of HMAS Canberra, perhaps the USN felt obliged to considering that it has been determined that USS Bagley accidentally torpedoed Canberra at Savo Island during that debacle. As a direct result, the third Aussie Tribal Class destroyer, originally to be named HMAS Kurnai, was then renamed Bataan in honour of the battle. Many say the choice of Bataan was less in honour of the battle and more a shot at the US for Canberra's loss and at Douglas MacArthur for his unpopularity in official Aussie military circles and his brilliant strategy leading to Bataan.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Here is a little known tidbit we might want to add. Australia was unofficially a wee bit pissed at the US for naming a Baltimore class cruiser in honour of HMAS Canberra, perhaps the USN felt obliged to considering that it has been determined that USS Bagley accidentally torpedoed Canberra at Savo Island during that debacle. As a direct result, the third Aussie Tribal Class destroyer, originally to be named HMAS Kurnai, was then renamed Bataan in honour of the battle. Many say the choice of Bataan was less in honour of the battle and more a shot at the US for Canberra's loss and at Douglas MacArthur for his unpopularity in official Aussie military circles and his brilliant strategy leading to Bataan.

Whew - now that's a tidbit.

Bagley did fire a salvo of 4 torpedoes from her port battery at a poorly defined target (and one she had probably lost track of). She originally intended to fire using her starboard battery but the torpedoes were not primed and she had to come about until her port battery bore, then fire. I've read some histories that feel her target was Furutaka and/or Kinugasa.

However, the official Australian Navy inquiry found that Canberra was not torpedoed. Admiral Crutchley disagreed, noting the sudden and complete loss of power in both engine rooms. However, neither the official Australian History nor any other history I have ever read has made mention of even the possibility of a friendly fire accident by Bagley.

I'd be very interested in a source for this.

As to Australia being a little pissed at America - that's OK. Everyone seems to be pissed at us and we're quite used to it.

other changes make groups of submarines easier to spot

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

One source is "Savo in Retrospect" by Bruce Loxton in The RAN in WW2 (Ed by David Stevens)

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


As to Australia being a little pissed at America - that's OK. Everyone seems to be pissed at us and we're quite used to it.