Leader bug pinned down

[ArkanB]

Hi,
I think I found a reproduceable leader bug. Would be nice if anybody could confirm it.
Start the tutorial scenario as allies vs jap AI.
Create a SC TF with BBs North Carolina and Washington (would work with any other ships too).
It should look as follows:
TF 1001 Cdr: Davis
BB North Carolina Cpt: Fort
BB Washington Cpt: Davis

Now send it out on the open sea on patrol.
At the next turn open the TF information window, click "Form new TF" and choose the Washington (flagship of TF 1001 until now) for your new TF. This is when the first part of the bug occurs. It should look like this:
TF 1001 Cdr: Davis
BB North Carolina Cpt: Fort

TF 1002 Cdr: Davis
BB Washington Cpt: Davis

Now send one of the 2 TFs near Guam or Palau so that it gets sunk and RADM Davis gets killed.
After the turn resolution is finished the second part of the bug has occured and Davis got replaced by a random japanese officer in the remaining TF.
The problem is obviously that when splitting up a TF the old TF always keeps the old commander, even if he is the captain of a ship that isn't in the TF anymore. A workaround would be to always keep the flagship in the old TF when splitting up TFs that have a ship captain as leader.

[rogueusmc]

First post...and so concise too!!!

Very good!!![8D]

Welcome to the community by the way.

[pasternakski]

For god's sake, this has been around forever. When you see this duplicate commander thing, just replace the one who isn't actually present with the commander of the new TF's flagship.

Give the game a break. Don't go looking for trouble where there really isn't any. Believe me, there is plenty of trouble left over that still affects the playability of the game, even after the 1.50 patch.

It's like "diddy wah diddy."

[sadja]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

For god's sake, this has been around forever. When you see this duplicate commander thing, just replace the one who isn't actually present with the commander of the new TF's flagship.

Give the game a break. Don't go looking for trouble where there really isn't any. Believe me, there is plenty of trouble left over that still affects the playability of the game, even after the 1.50 patch.

It's like "diddy wah diddy."

Take a breath it was his first post and just joined today, welcome aboard ArkanB

Sadja

[Grotius]

Welcome, Arkan, and thanks for this. I hope it helps the devs track the bug down.

[pasternakski]

Yeah. Here they are working on it now.

[hithere]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Yeah. Here they are working on it now.

thats just wrong on so many levels [;)]

[michaelm75au]

Welcome.

Yes. You have found one case where that bug can bite.

Afraid there may be several other places where a leader is accessed, and where it could possibly get changed. And each one needs to be identified and protected. Several cases have already been fixed in previous patches.
Of course, the other side of the coin could be that they get so protected you can't get rid of them at all.

HINT:
From my experimentation, the more air-related combat you have, the more likely it is that you may lose/change some leader somewhere during the turn resolution.

Michael

[Twotribes]

Pasternaski? How does one change the commander of a task force at Sea?

[michaelm75au]

Hi
you can't. Need to wait till you get back to a port.

TF will just have to live with a "random" leader until it returns to port.

Note, however, if the TF commander is a "Staff Officer", don't click on him to change when in a port. You will most likely get a CTD. I think the game is trying to get the statistics to display for a leader who does not really exist yet.

Michael

[Twotribes]

The point being Pasternaski claimed it wasnt a problem and easily fixed by changeing leaders, something his great eminence should know CANT be done at sea.

[michaelm75au]

I don't think he really read the guy's post.

Now send it out on the open sea on patrol.
At the next turn open the TF information window, click "Form new TF" and choose the Washington (flagship of TF 1001 until now) for your new TF. This is when the first part of the bug occurs. It should look like this:
TF 1001 Cdr: Davis
BB North Carolina Cpt: Fort

TF 1002 Cdr: Davis
BB Washington Cpt: Davis

Now send one of the 2 TFs near Guam or Palau so that it gets sunk and RADM Davis gets killed

EDIT:
I am afraid I take posts at face value. Ask a question, get an answer or point them in the correct direction.
Michael

[ArkanB]

Hi and thanks for the welcome.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Yeah. Here they are working on it now.

Good one. [:)]

I know I have only found one little instance of the bug, but at least it's easily reproduceable and should be no problem to fix. How difficult can it be to check if the commander is still present after splitting up?
If everyone already knew about it, then I'm sorry for wasting your time. In this case it would have helped to put in the FAQ to never split away a flagship.

Don't go looking for trouble where there really isn't any.

I really didn't look for trouble. It's not like I experimented in the tutorial until I found something. This happened several times in my Scen.15 around the PI when a TF got hit by Bettys. The intuitive thing to do for me is to create a new TF with the damaged ships (regardless if flagship or not) and send them for repairs. Now when the new flagship in my remaining TF got sunk I ended up with Cpt. Murakami in command of CA Houston. Only then I tried to pin it down.

[Skyros]

Keep looking ArkanB and post what you find, at least yours was factual and to the point.

Love that Bat Girl[:'(]

[pad152]

I think the only way the leader bug is ever going to be fixed is to restructer the database and add new colums (Nationality & Service) and then check them to verify lets say for a Japanese Ship (Nationality = Japan && Service = IJN) for any thing to due with Japanese leaders, etc. This way everything ships, planes, bases, ground units, etc would all have both a nationality and service requardless of slot numbers.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
For god's sake, this has been around forever.

AND ITS STILL HERE AT VERSION 1.5.

Its a f*cking disgrace.

Your post is one of the most fanboi-infected ramblings I have ever seen. I mean W T F. "Yeah, the bug is there, just dont give the game a hard time because of it". Thats an example of a customer relations attitude rarely observed outside East Germany circa 1982.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The point being Pasternaski claimed it wasnt a problem and easily fixed by changeing leaders, something his great eminence should know CANT be done at sea.

The point is that you simply send the "troubled" resulting TF to port and THEN change the commander.

Do I have to do all the thinking around here?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Your post is one of the most fanboi-infected ramblings I have ever seen. I mean W T F. "Yeah, the bug is there, just dont give the game a hard time because of it". Thats an example of a customer relations attitude rarely observed outside East Germany circa 1982.

Sorry, your blueness, I merely wanted to point out that you can warp this game into all sorts of odd behaviors if you want. The idea is not, "Look, look, Mom, Wittypitty has been a bad boy again!" I prefer a more rational approach that says, "If I stay within reasonable limits and perform reasonable interface actions, the game performs reasonably well." For example, if you don't mess around with carrer group assignments, you have a lot less trouble with group fragments, phantom enemy air groups, and so on. So, I try to stay cool, and was only suggesting to the original poster that he do the same.

It's the only way I'm going to get my eighty bucks worth, so I might as well do it.

"Fanboi infected ramblings"? My, you leftover WWII lot are a rather frenetic bunch with your similitude and your language, aren't you? Maybe you should tone down your personal moniker from the current one, which suggests a lot of guys in black uniforms with big guns lurking in the woods to a less threatening semi-Teutonic formulation - like "lederhoser," for example.

[Terminus]

Sheesh you two... Lighten up...

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Sorry, your blueness, I merely wanted to point out that you can warp this game into all sorts of odd behaviors if you want. The idea is not, "Look, look, Mom, Wittypitty has been a bad boy again!" I prefer a more rational approach that says, "If I stay within reasonable limits and perform reasonable interface actions, the game performs reasonably well." For example, if you don't mess around with carrer group assignments, you have a lot less trouble with group fragments, phantom enemy air groups, and so on. So, I try to stay cool, and was only suggesting to the original poster that he do the same.

It's the only way I'm going to get my eighty bucks worth, so I might as well do it.

"Fanboi infected ramblings"? My, you leftover WWII lot are a rather frenetic bunch with your similitude and your language, aren't you? Maybe you should tone down your personal moniker from the current one, which suggests a lot of guys in black uniforms with big guns lurking in the woods to a less threatening semi-Teutonic formulation - like "lederhoser," for example.

*shrug* I suppose we see things differently when it comes to what a gaming company owes its customers.

I find the kind of mentality displayed by matrix regarding witp completely unacceptable. Yes there are still bugs, but there will be no more patch for the next couple of months because...well..the programmer has moved on to another project. Maybe we will fix it later, but we cant promise anything. UNACCEPTABLE.

Not to mention the fact that they've released what...3-4 patches without fixing a KNOWN bug, the very same leader bug we are talking about now. Hows that for customer service. Then they open a thread asking us how many hundreds of dollars we would spend on witp2...It boogles the mind.