New! v1127 Public Beta Available

[Cavalry Corp]

Tks for these updates and observations - actually I also found some of these and fixed them in my mod (I may not have made precise lists:) . I will look at what you found too.

I think some of the confusion on upgrades and such is because the designers did not take out some of the info from the tables when it had been updated or amended as WIP to newer versions. Or omitted using stuff they had added... like the alternate and more realistic table of the full range of Japanese TT. It was added in at some point but never seemed to get used - so I did it. I did look at historical sites to check and the data all looked about right, someone had done all the leg work.

Upgrade delays (or none at all) in ships is a widespread problem. I added in the need for port visits to slow the pace ( for all ships down to DD) and added in slightly longer dates for many J ships to simulate a bit a lack of parts and so on. I also esp. for Japan grouped the dates more together so the payer chooses how and when who get what upgrade etc. This is playing out very well.

I also looked over all the J air units and made their sizes much more realistic to reduce the excess pilots that can other wise be allocated. There is way too many J pilots available to train on map in the game (also reduced the number and quality outside the game).

looking forward to seeing more updates....

cav

[Fritz641]

Hi all, Long time lurker here but ive really gotten into witp these last few months. (After weeks of reading the manual )

I have a particular issue with Scenario 12 Guadalcanal, (all variants of the Guadalcanal scenario actually) that I cant seem to find an answer to anywhere, but it seems to be a bug.

While playing as the Japanese all my ship arrivals have a build date.

Screenshot 2023-08-10 083511.jpg (72.67 KiB) Viewed 1557 times

Due to this my Ships never arrive at Truk.

Anyone else had\has this issue?

In v1126 it still worked normal. It started at v1127b. All the other scenarios seem to work just fine.

Thanks!

[BBfanboy]

On the Allied side of the Guadalcanal scenario too, there are a few ships in the queue shown as arriving after the scenario cut-off date. This confused me first time through and I thought the scenario would run at least until the ships in the queue and all arrived - not so! I suspect Japan has many more in the scenario because production of the ships uses die rolls to determine how many points it gets per day and a series of good die rolls could result in early arrival of the ship. Variability of the ship reinforcements is also a factor - I think you can set that to + or - a month.

And with so many things in this huge and complex game, the people working on the original database did not have as much time as they needed to make it pristine. There was a target date to get it to market and financial constraints on hire of programmers and researchers. Some updating of serious database issues was done in the series of patches leading up to versions .1126a and .1126b (last official versions - the new version .1127 is still in Beta test stage). But the small scenarios are meant for learning how to play the game so they haven't had as much updating. Once you get used to the idea that the database is not perfect, you get less confused by the anomalies!

[Fritz641]

On the Allied side of the Guadalcanal scenario too, there are a few ships in the queue shown as arriving after the scenario cut-off date. This confused me first time through and I thought the scenario would run at least until the ships in the queue and all arrived - not so! I suspect Japan has many more in the scenario because production of the ships uses die rolls to determine how many points it gets per day and a series of good die rolls could result in early arrival of the ship. Variability of the ship reinforcements is also a factor - I think you can set that to + or - a month.

And with so many things in this huge and complex game, the people working on the original database did not have as much time as they needed to make it pristine. There was a target date to get it to market and financial constraints on hire of programmers and researchers. Some updating of serious database issues was done in the series of patches leading up to versions .1126a and .1126b (last official versions - the new version .1127 is still in Beta test stage). But the small scenarios are meant for learning how to play the game so they haven't had as much updating. Once you get used to the idea that the database is not perfect, you get less confused by the anomalies!

As a workaround I opened up the Scenario with the editor and disabled "Production" for the scenario.

Worked like a charm

[Ian R]

Do I understand correctly that with this new patch, all Mods (created before this patch) will be incompatible with game and Mods editing is required?

It looks that way. Even the DBB scenarios do not quite match the new map

I'll put a "deprecated by Matrix mod-incompatible patch" notice on the LRTT mod. I don't think I can spend the hundreds of hours that went into it investigating the changes, and then re-writing the data.

[Ian R]

A big THANK YOU to the v1127 team for adding near term withdrawal dates to so many of the Dutch submarines. It was a major pet peeve to see most of them running rampant through the SRA for the entirety of the war. In real life, half of them (9 of 18) never made it past March 1942, and the remainder were anything but "scourges of the sea". (snip urelated).

Is that because they were:

(a) sunk, in which case we can leave that to game events, or

(b) could not be maintained for operations due to shortages of replacement parts, Dutch calibre torpedoes, replacement crew, maybe the hulls just got plain worn out, and that sort of thing?

If it's point (b), then, are these constraints going to be applied to other navies, and in particular, the IJN?

PS - as fun as is would be to debate these points again... I'll just make the point and fade away.

Always good the chat with you, Kull.

[Kull]

Good to see you too, Ian!

Here's a good synopsis of the Dutch submarine effort in the Pacific over the course of the entire war:

"All told, 19 Dutch submarines participated in the war in the Far East. Nine were lost by enemy action, scuttling, or ground-ing and four others were paid off before the end of the war because of damage or excessive wear. At least 136 crewmen were killed, plus more who were lost when transports returning them to Europe were torpedoed and sunk. The boats made 84 patrols: 28 in the early fighting before evacuation of the Dutch East Indies, 29 from Ceylon, and 27 from Australia. Included in these patrols were 50 special missions, in two of which 80 mines were laid by 0-19. Confirmed or possible sinkings included 19 ships and 18 small craft totaling approximately 51,900 tons; another 16 ships and two small craft of about 113,200 tons were damaged to various degrees."

https://archive.navalsubleague.org/1993 ... e-far-east

The larger article has more detail, but there's no question that pre-v1127, the in-game results from these boats far exceeded that reality. There's a limitless supply of torpedoes that work great from start to finish, and there's nothing to stop the Dutch subs from VASTLY exceeding the number of real-life war patrols. Pulling half of them from the game is a good start and it's certainly plausible given that most of those which were lost - had they survived - would have experienced the same "excessive wear" that occurred to many of the rest (so a withdrawal mechanism is one way to address that).

They aren't alone, of course. As I indicated in the earlier post, the in-game performance of US "S-boats" is ludicrously overpowered, and that hasn't been addressed at all.

[Huw Jones]

Two problems so far when I updated to 1.8.11.272

DISBAND TF

Click on yes or no nothing happens.
I can disband by hitting Y key on keyboard only.

ABADAN

Run my mouse over I can see information.
But can do anythiny when I click on area, area doesn't seem to be there, with regards mouse clicking.

[joey]

Two problems so far when I updated to 1.8.11.272

DISBAND TF

Click on yes or no nothing happens.
I can disband by hitting Y key on keyboard only.

This is by design I believe. I don't like it either. I like to be able to use the mouse to disband, but not anymore. I don't like to use the keyboard to play WITP.

[BBfanboy]

Two problems so far when I updated to 1.8.11.272

DISBAND TF

Click on yes or no nothing happens.
I can disband by hitting Y key on keyboard only.

ABADAN

Run my mouse over I can see information.
But can do anythiny when I click on area, area doesn't seem to be there, with regards mouse clicking.

It appears you are trying to use an improperly installed extended map with the standard map data, or vice versa. The map art is what you see but the computer sees only the data that defines where the base is. Go to the Main Forum or the War Room and explain what you installed and what steps you followed. Screenshots if possible. Then we can help you sort it out.

[Huw Jones]

I am using here, because this is where I downloaded it on the first page, first post.

Only ever downloaded main game and the beta updates.

Previously I had 1.8.11.26a

My turn is nearly finished, I will finish it and delete the game, then reinstall and see what happens.

[lopec]

It's funny, I thought the disband Y/N was going to ruin my entire flow, I was so conditioned to the mouse movements to disband a TF etc.

Months later using the keyboard to disband TFs is second nature.

[Yaab]

50% of the time I try clicking on Yes/No.

[Tanaka]

50% of the time I try clicking on Yes/No.

Does it work 50% of the time? Yes? No?

[Yaab]

I am playing cat and mouse with my left mouse button.

[Huw Jones]

I think I will skip this update (deleted it), gone back to 26a.

[Fritz641]

So... my next "Bug"

Im Playing the Guadalcanal scenario as the Japanese side right now and its early October 1942.

I noticed at the end of my turn i keep getting a lot of blank "arrived at Nomua" this has happened multiple turns already.
Nomua is oviously a US base so why am i getting Allied arrival notices?

Either my intelligence is working overtime or i assume its a bug

[joey]

Did you post this in tech support?

[BBfanboy]

I think I saw in a different thread that the .1127 version was not written with the small scenarios in mind. The map being different could be one reason it doesn't work the same.

[Besmerello]

BB is right, this update if best for GC scenarios if you would like to test it.