possible bug/error

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

As an example, the Kanoya air group on Dec 8th (Tokyo time) had 36 bombers at Taichu and 36 at Saigon. Every source I have and Niehorster agree with this. For whatever reason the two units start with 27 bombers at each location.

Tainan had 54 A6Ms and 8 C5Ms but in game they have 45 A6Ms and 6 C5Ms. etc.

I was fixing the air OOBs back in the day and if I added anything to the Japanese side a chorus of AFBs would scream 'Japanese favoritism' and pitch a fit. Eventually I ssaid F this and walked away.

I ended up working with Dennis on the aircraft for War in the West and I decided to come back to WitP again.
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: possible bug/error

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

As an example, the Kanoya air group on Dec 8th (Tokyo time) had 36 bombers at Taichu and 36 at Saigon. Every source I have and Niehorster agree with this. For whatever reason the two units start with 27 bombers at each location.

Tainan had 54 A6Ms and 8 C5Ms but in game they have 45 A6Ms and 6 C5Ms. etc.

I was fixing the air OOBs back in the day and if I added anything to the Japanese side a chorus of AFBs would scream 'Japanese favoritism' and pitch a fit. Eventually I ssaid F this and walked away.

I ended up working with Dennis on the aircraft for War in the West and I decided to come back to WitP again.
Saigon, the units start split, 27 are set to day, 9 are set to night ops, 36 total.

Similar for Tainan, there are 2 subgroups that need to be added to get the total.
Pax
decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

Sorry Pax, I built this air database. The Bihoro and Genzan units are the two that start split; 27 & 9 for each unit. This is also incorrect, they each had 48 G3Ms on roster. Most of the navy groups flew 4x12 aircraft chutai.
And Tainan has 27+9+9 A6Ms, 45 total not 54. 6x9 aircraft chutai. Plus Kawai detachment from Tainan and 3rd should be exactly 13 A5Ms, the game shows 9.
RichardAckermann
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm

RE: possible bug/error

Post by RichardAckermann »

Most interesting! Did you ever think of releasing a corrected scenario file with the airgroups having the real numbers? I would really love to use it.
decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

I did, we called it CHS. [:'(]

Seriously, I have most of the work done now, for an AE version.
Fixes the B29
Adds maneuver to most American fighters
Adds the 4th Yamato
Adds 2 more Taiho carriers so you, the player, can make the historical choice Japan did; more medium carriers or fewer small carriers
Untangles and fixes the cluster puck that is the Ki44 & Ki61
Adds the G5m & G8M
Puts oil and refineries in their correct spots
Adds the correct aircraft numbers for both sides at start position.
etc
RichardAckermann
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm

RE: possible bug/error

Post by RichardAckermann »

Great to hear that. I will grab a copy once it is available.
Keep up the good work.

User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: possible bug/error

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

I was fixing the air OOBs back in the day and if I added anything to the Japanese side a chorus of AFBs would scream 'Japanese favoritism' and pitch a fit. Eventually I ssaid F this and walked away.


What did you expect?

Given the very premise and foundation of the game is predicated on "Japanese favoritism", it is both perfectly understandable and certainly predictable that any efforts to expand upon the base level of 'favoritism' already grated the Japanese side would meet with a chorus of nay's from the Allied side.

Why do so many JFBs fail to understand this?
Hans

decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

That is exactly why I left this community Hans. Don and I did the best we could to make an historical game. The only real Japan favoritism is oil does not take enough damage during conquest giving Japan too much oil.

I said 'add the aircraft Japan actually had', and you read 'JFB favoritism'.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: possible bug/error

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

That is exactly why I left this community Hans. Don and I did the best we could to make an historical game. The only real Japan favoritism is oil does not take enough damage during conquest giving Japan too much oil.

I said 'add the aircraft Japan actually had', and you read 'JFB favoritism'.

What fantasy land are you living in?

Allowing the Japanese full control over an economy they can grow way beyond a realistic historical proportions, allowing them control over R&D, allowing them to have jets in '44 while denying all of these aspects to the Allied side are only a few examples that readily come to mind of the inherent base favoritism given the Japanese side I was alluding to.

In order to make the Japanese side viable to play in a competitive game favoritism HAD to be shown to that side.

We all understand that. That's why JFBs seeking additional favoritism above and beyond that meet with resistance from AFBs,

That's the point I was attempting to make.

What I got from you was that any attempt, not the specific attempt you referenced, to enhance the Japanese side meets with AFB resistance.

I was endeavoring to explain why.
Hans

decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

We did the best we could (oil excepted) to limit the growth of the Japanese economy to historical proportions. I am sorry it was not good enough for you, but Don and Joe did their best.

In my mod the jets are removed as they were not developed in Japanese r&d facilities, but developed from German data. Other aircraft, such as the Ki44, could have been built in great numbers, like the Ki43 and A6M were, that was a real choice the Japanese made that we felt the player should have.

Economy growth is limited at the starting end by resources; there are more resources in the game than Japan used during WW2 but not much more, and a limiter is getting the resources to Japan for production. I have seen AARs where the allied player did not put much work into sinking merchants and the Japanese had a great economy, and games where the Japanese were unable to get their resources home and their economy tanked at the beginning of '45.

If you pay attention to games and tests, we found that the Japanese economy actually tends to implode several months earlier than historical, but I think that is players over producing and that is exactly what we went for.

So, no, Don & I did not feel that the Japanese favoritism that you allude to is very strong. I would maybe argue that Allied favoritism is just as strong, but you don't see what you do not want to.
decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

One of my chief beefs with the game as it stands is there is rarely any serious destruction of the Indonesian oil production or refineries. We all know this actually happened, and the Japanese only reached about 35-40% of pre war production in '43.
The code for this is beyond a modder though, it was something Don would have had to change, and it was not done for some reason.

I could in my mod make all of the Dutch oil start damaged to simulate this and limit Japan. What are everyones thoughts?
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: possible bug/error

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: decourcy2
One of my chief beefs with the game as it stands is there is rarely any serious destruction of the Indonesian oil production or refineries. We all know this actually happened, and the Japanese only reached about 35-40% of pre war production in '43.
The code for this is beyond a modder though, it was something Don would have had to change, and it was not done for some reason.

I could in my mod make all of the Dutch oil start damaged to simulate this and limit Japan. What are everyones thoughts?
I think every IJ player has experienced taking Palembang with over 1000 oil damaged more than once.

You are correct that IJ never got more than about 1/3 of the DEI oil production back in service, but I'm not sure about the why.
I suspect that the damage in the game should be skewed a bit more towards higher damage values, but then the allied players know how to skew that and very few do so.
On the IJ side, historically, they simply didn't commit the resources to rebuild the fields they took. Now, why is that is the really relevant question.

John argued that they didn't have the equipment to do so. True, but they could have built it. They had all the technology and did in fact build the equipment at the time, they just chose NOT to ramp up production to allow for more/faster repairs/recovery.
Could they have done so? Again, John argued that they couldn't. I've never been convinced of that. I think like everything else, it was a tradeoff, they chose something else.

My issue is something quite different. When Palembang does suffer 1000 oil damage, the player CANNOT decide to repair it. Why? because that takes 3 years to do so. You cannot repair more than one point per day.
This restriction works fine EXCEPT in the case where the factory is REALLY large like Palembang oil. The decision to repair at that point is largely out of the players hand because at 1/day repair the ROI on the repair is not too good after about 6 months or only 180 units of oil repaired.
Now, was this the same reason IRL that IJ did not attempt to repair more? Maybe.

Bottom line, the devs (you and Don) got this pretty close to spot on. As an allied player, if I want to nuke Palembang, I know how to do it ... I just need to act upon that. Most don't, I suspect, because with Palembang gone the IJ side become rather tedious quite a bit sooner and the games tend not to finish ...

Pax
decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

The thing I wanted but Joe didn't was correct refineries, I wanted Balik Papan to be like 40% of the Dutch capacity not spread fairly evenly as it is in game. But Joe felt (as I understood him) that Balik Papan is too vulnerable to allied bombers in New Guinea so for game purposes the refineries are spread out more.

I cannot remember, I wonder if we can split oil 'factories' into two at one location the same as there can be more than one aircraft factory at one base. I will have to try it out.

User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: possible bug/error

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

The thing I wanted but Joe didn't was correct refineries, I wanted Balik Papan to be like 40% of the Dutch capacity not spread fairly evenly as it is in game. But Joe felt (as I understood him) that Balik Papan is too vulnerable to allied bombers in New Guinea so for game purposes the refineries are spread out more.

I cannot remember, I wonder if we can split oil 'factories' into two at one location the same as there can be more than one aircraft factory at one base. I will have to try it out.

Again, I can see the rationale. There are gameplay considerations, hindsight is huge and you cannot write it out of the game. If you make too many assets too vulnerable, you are more accurate, but there might not be as many players.

As I have said countless times: most times, the devs really got it right. Even in cases where I might have chosen another solution, I can see the merits of their decision and cannot argue too vehemently against them: the game in fact DOES work quite well. Proof: the longevity of the product.
Pax
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: possible bug/error

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: decourcy2
One of my chief beefs with the game as it stands is there is rarely any serious destruction of the Indonesian oil production or refineries. We all know this actually happened, and the Japanese only reached about 35-40% of pre war production in '43.
The code for this is beyond a modder though, it was something Don would have had to change, and it was not done for some reason.

I could in my mod make all of the Dutch oil start damaged to simulate this and limit Japan. What are everyones thoughts?
I think every IJ player has experienced taking Palembang with over 1000 oil damaged more than once.

You are correct that IJ never got more than about 1/3 of the DEI oil production back in service, but I'm not sure about the why.
I suspect that the damage in the game should be skewed a bit more towards higher damage values, but then the allied players know how to skew that and very few do so.
On the IJ side, historically, they simply didn't commit the resources to rebuild the fields they took. Now, why is that is the really relevant question.

John argued that they didn't have the equipment to do so. True, but they could have built it. They had all the technology and did in fact build the equipment at the time, they just chose NOT to ramp up production to allow for more/faster repairs/recovery.
Could they have done so? Again, John argued that they couldn't. I've never been convinced of that. I think like everything else, it was a tradeoff, they chose something else.

My issue is something quite different. When Palembang does suffer 1000 oil damage, the player CANNOT decide to repair it. Why? because that takes 3 years to do so. You cannot repair more than one point per day.
This restriction works fine EXCEPT in the case where the factory is REALLY large like Palembang oil. The decision to repair at that point is largely out of the players hand because at 1/day repair the ROI on the repair is not too good after about 6 months or only 180 units of oil repaired.
Now, was this the same reason IRL that IJ did not attempt to repair more? Maybe.

Bottom line, the devs (you and Don) got this pretty close to spot on. As an allied player, if I want to nuke Palembang, I know how to do it ... I just need to act upon that. Most don't, I suspect, because with Palembang gone the IJ side become rather tedious quite a bit sooner and the games tend not to finish ...
One of Japan's considerations may have been that they did not have the tankers needed to haul fuel or oil from the repaired oilfields anyway. They may have built some new tankers for the purpose but the Allies were already sinking the existing ones at a far faster rate. I think they looked to the Asian oilfields as more accessible because they could ship the fuel/oil overland to Fusan and only have a short tanker haul at Tsushima.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
decourcy2
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by decourcy2 »

Yeah, Japan was in the same situation as Italy/Libya... the big oil fields found in Manchuria were found in the 50's.
RichardAckermann
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:07 pm

RE: possible bug/error

Post by RichardAckermann »

Maybe they did just not look for it. Japanese stupidity was one of the greatest enemies of the empire. In all areas imaginable.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: possible bug/error

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


...Bottom line, the devs (you and Don) ...

I see that you, like others beforehand, has fallen for the "fake news" that decourcy2 is an AE dev. Just because he name drops real AE devs into almost every post of his does not make him one. You should take with a grain of salt every assertion he makes.

I first became suspicious of him when he asserted in a post that only Don Bowen "knew" how the AE air code worked. This was in the midst of other posts which emphasised how central his role was in developing the AE air component even though the final published product carried too many "air" errors because it somehow had not incorporated his work. Yes, no mention of theElf, michaelm or timtom ever having been involved in developing the AE air component; in fact their names have never been dropped in decourcy2's posts.

This constant dropping of Don Bowen's name (with the very occasional dropping of jwilkerson's name too) to lend credibility to his assertion's reminds me greatly of el Cid's assertions re AE knowledge. You will recall just how vehemently several real AE devs constantly set the record straight re el Cid's being neither an AE dev nor someone with inside knowledge.

It is a pity that the real AE devs no longer post as I am certain that they would have put the record straight regarding what role, if any, decourcy2 had with the creation of AE. In their absence I will step in and provide a few inconvenient facts which point to decourcy2 not being a central actor in the development of AE.

1. There are zero posts from decourcy2 in classical WITP. Not really surprising as decourcy2 only joined the forum on 29 Jan 2015. Yet rather significant in that all the AE devs were drawn from regular posters to classical WITP, many of them having collaborated together to produce the CHS mods in the 2005-2008 time period.

2. As "decourcy2" only enters the Matrix public record five and a half years after the release of AE and he has only in the last couple of months, some 8 years after the release of AE, actually posted on this forum, it is obvious that under that name, he could not have been an AE dev. Particularly when one remembers just how active were all the real AE devs in answering queries before its release and up to about 2013 (and in the case of Symon and michaelm well after 2013). This silence alone should trigger flashing red lights.

3. On the chance that "decourcy2" is not his original forum name, I then checked to see if there had been previously a "decourcy" and yes there is such a forumite with 65 posts, the last post dated 19 Dec 2004 coincidentally on the classical WITP forum. Both forum names point to a common individual, more so when one actually reads the contents of their posts. Whilst decourcy's last post is dated 19 Dec 2004 this followed 8 months of silence there. In reality his active but limited participation in the classical WITP forum ended in April 2004. All this predates the development of CHS. Certainly there is no indication in his own posts (or anyone else's that I can find) that he was participating in CHS development, although one can find in his posts there a common theme reprised in decourcy2's AE posts of just how "inaccurate" the game is. Again the silence on not disclosing any CHS development association, particularly in the light of his AE self promotion, should be a flashing red lights moment.

4. Don't just take my comments alone, lets see what jwilkerson the man in overall charge of the development of AE has to say about "decourcy" or "decourcy2" being part of the AE development team. Answer is zilch, nothing, nada, zero. Not only does his name not appear on the published list of credits which after including testers and special thanks totals about 36 named individuals, he doesn't appear in any of the several posts where jwilkerson explained who was doing what and how the development team came into existence. Let's look at just three relevant occasions.

(a) 9 Dec 2007, jwilkerson listed all the significant AE team members. No mention of decourcy/2

(b) 28 Feb 2009, jwilkerson provided an updated list of the significant AE team members. Again no mention of decourcy/2

(c) 23 July 2009, with the end of AE development (of course 6 official patches were still to come plus michaelm's beta work), jwilkerson provided an expansive post on the genesis (including identifying the key movers and shakers)and how work proceeded on the development of AE. I summarise below the key relevant points made by jwilkerson

(c1) The idea for developing AE took concrete shape in August 2005 with a meeting between Eric Rutins and jwilkerson and subsequent meetings between Eric and David Heath (Matrix) and jwilkerson and Don Bowen (devs)whereby Matrix accepted the 3 stage approach presented by jwilkerson. The first stage was to finish the patching work on classical WITP then being undertaken. This was critical as the patching team would be core AE devs. Not stated so but this 3 stage proposal gave Matrix opportunities to pull the plug on AE development if the promised performance was not forthcoming.

(c2) The AE project really started work (my emphasis) in May 2006 when they started to whittle down the 400 player requests for new features/enhancements/"fixing" into a development list of goals for AE. The key plank AE devs who started then were:

assembled from the key CHS contributors

Don Bowen
Andrew Brown
Kereguelen
Treespider
theElf
jwilkerson

assembled from WPO

Tankerace
Terminus

assembled from the classical WITP patch team

Nikademus
michaelm

It is very significant that in this July 2009 post jwilkerson stated "we actually have every one of the core contributors we started off with". Over the three years of the project some of the original core devs had gone to attend to RL issues but they had returned. Other core devs such as wdolson andd JWE/Symon had joined the team after May 2006 but their involvement had been acknowledged in previous and post jwilkerson forum posts.

It is impossible to believe that over all his many posts (not just the three above I have specifically mentioned) over so many years, that jwilkerson would have forgotten to identify and record their contribution to the development of AE of any significant individual. It is possible that someone who merely bought the morning coffee and donuts might have skipped jwilkerson's memory, but not someone with significant input. Certainly not someone who presents himself as being on such close working terms with Don Bowen and jwilkerson.

5. Other than certain individuals being involved in both, there is no connection between AE development work and CHS development work. If, and I have found no evidence to support it, decourcy/2 had some limited input into CHS development, that does not make him an AE dev. It might explain his choice of names to drop and why he quite erroneously believes that Don Bowen did the AE air component completely air brushing out of the historical record the men (theElf, michaelm and timtom) who both did the air component and answered the detailed air queries which Don Bowen always left alone.

6. There are no decourcy/2 posts in the private AE developers forum. It beggers belief that a significant AE dev would not have made a single post there.



It is unfortunate that over all these years so many people denigrate the efforts of the AE devs. Or take unjustified credit for their own endeavours. It is always extremely insulting and discourteous to the real AE devs. Made worse when some blown in who has absolutely no hesitation in blowing his own trumpet wants the rest of us to believe that for more than 10 years on this sole point of being a significant AE dev, he could remain silent and not blow his own trumpet.

Alfred
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: possible bug/error

Post by obvert »

Thanks Alfred. Saved me from posting something silly about this guy.

It's clear that the OP has an axe to grind, and unfortunate he's doing it by whinging about the game because it won't work as he expects.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: possible bug/error

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

A tour de force, Alfred. Thank you.
The Moose
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”