Page 1 of 1

More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:18 pm
by Dereck
Not only do you have to deal with 1) pilot replacements drying up (hopefully fixed), 2) ships being taken over by enemy officers, 3) staff officers with no attributes taking over units, 4) the remove VADM Halsey code getting you ...

NOW you have to also deal with your units being attached to commands you DIDN'T attach them to. Matrix, CALL TERMINEX because you need someone to exterminate these bugs!!!



Image

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:24 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Has the Santee ever been to Australia?

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:26 pm
by Dereck
ORIGINAL: Terminus

Has the Santee ever been to Australia?

No

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:37 pm
by dtravel
Someone tried to "explain" this when it was reported earlier. The claim was that a change was made in one of the patches to change "Independent" command units to some other command so that they could draw planes and pilots properly.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:52 pm
by Mike Solli
Just be careful where you move them. I dropped some CV units in Japan to disband some replacements into them. The next turn they were HDF. I had to change them to a non restricted command to load them back on the CV. I now drop them, disband and load them back into the CV in the same turn.

"You live and learn, or you don't live long." - Lazarus Long [:D]

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:53 pm
by Tankerace
When a carrier is in a harbor, the airgroups will switch from independent to the harbors command. Fas as I know, its been that way since day 1...., not sure why its suddenly a problem...

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:55 pm
by Mike Solli
I don't think its a problem - unless the harbor is a restricted command.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:46 pm
by Dereck
ORIGINAL: Tankerace

When a carrier is in a harbor, the airgroups will switch from independent to the harbors command. Fas as I know, its been that way since day 1...., not sure why its suddenly a problem...

Maybe because I never docked any of my escort carriers in Australia at all. Only ports they've ever docked at has been either Central or South Pacific after leaving the West Coast.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:39 am
by Ron Saueracker
About to lose a substantial force (3 brigades) to the 59/60 movement problem. Land combat and movement is less than acceptable. Needs some sort of consistency.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:41 am
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

About to lose a substantial force (3 brigades) to the 59/60 movement problem. Land combat and movement is less than acceptable. Needs some sort of consistency.

The program is very consistent. Murphy's consistency, in fact.


RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:34 am
by pasternakski
ORIGINAL: Tankerace

When a carrier is in a harbor, the airgroups will switch from independent to the harbors command. Fas as I know, its been that way since day 1...., not sure why its suddenly a problem...
Nothing sudden about it, TA. It's always been a problem, but other problems have been more severe, and have, therefore, drawn more "ink."

This is just more evidence of how goofy this whole game system is. You would expect carrier airgroups to be assigned to that carrier as their "command" when still on board. But no. The "fixers" apparently decided that the stopgap "assign them to the port's command" idea was superior to actually addressing the problem. Just one of dozens of instances of nonsense in this game system. If the air group is assigned to a land command, what does that say about command and control as a viable element of the UV/WitP system? What is the role of on-ship air commanders (like Genda) of anything in this game, then? Gofers who get the refreshments for the next staff meeting in the wardroom?

I'm sorry. I'm getting to where I hate it.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:55 am
by Tankerace
Not saying its not frustrating, but was just making the point it isn't something new that has cropped up.

I never run into it, as I dock all my carriers at Pearl before sending them to their respective theaters, thereby negating the problem.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:42 am
by EUBanana
ORIGINAL: dtravel

Someone tried to "explain" this when it was reported earlier. The claim was that a change was made in one of the patches to change "Independent" command units to some other command so that they could draw planes and pilots properly.

Happened to me in my Simon Prior game.

Two CVs worth of fighters switched to New Zealand Command while the CVs were docked at Auckland.

Had to change them all to SWPAC just in case, and two carriers worth of fighters was a pretty hefty chunk of PP to lose in April 1942.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:15 am
by bradfordkay
"Maybe because I never docked any of my escort carriers in Australia at all. Only ports they've ever docked at has been either Central or South Pacific after leaving the West Coast."

Are there not several South Pacific ports assigned to Australia Command? Could this be the source of the switch?

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:25 am
by AmiralLaurent
It seems to me that air units of restricted command may be loaded on CV for free... At least the "bug" reported above never hindered me to load back CV units, even if they changed command, and without paying PPs.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:38 am
by bradfordkay
I was thinking that, as long as you don't remove the air units from the carrier (which I haven't since UV days due to the unit growing larger than the carrier could handle), who cares what command to which it is attached?

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:29 am
by doktorblood
Have you ever taken the group off this CV?

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:29 pm
by Dereck
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Maybe because I never docked any of my escort carriers in Australia at all. Only ports they've ever docked at has been either Central or South Pacific after leaving the West Coast."

Are there not several South Pacific ports assigned to Australia Command? Could this be the source of the switch?

I only docked in Noumea and it is assigned to South Pacific command.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:30 pm
by Dereck
ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Have you ever taken the group off this CV?

No. Except for a few VBF squadrons that overloaded fleet carriers prior to their "reshuffling" to the proper configuration I never fly any groups of carriers or any ships for that matter.

RE: More Frustration with BUGS

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:55 pm
by Black Mamba 1942
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I was thinking that, as long as you don't remove the air units from the carrier (which I haven't since UV days due to the unit growing larger than the carrier could handle), who cares what command to which it is attached?

It "DOES" matter if the program switches CV groups to a restricted command.[;)]
Any other command, and it wouldn't matter at all.[;)]