RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support



Message


michaelm -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/16/2012 11:48:31 AM)

Updated 1120b - another LCU fragment check




LoBaron -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/16/2012 12:06:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

michaelm

I've been having problems with my 6 key not sometimes not displaying TF patrol areas. I've suddenly worked why. It is affected by the filters on the display TF screen. Is it designed like that or should the 6 key display patrol areas irrespective of the TF filters? To my mind it should.


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Don't see why that should the case. I suppose it is possible that the list that it using to show patrol zones from is the same one being filtered. I'll have look see.


Michael IIRC this was implemented on purpose. TF display screen governs the patrol zone types displayed with [6] key, so you are able to filter between
Sub patrol zones, ASW patrol zones or others, depending what you want to observe.

I am using this feature a lot and like like it very much.




michaelm -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/16/2012 12:22:42 PM)

Didn't remember that.




JocMeister -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/16/2012 12:50:35 PM)

michael,

If you open up the game and look at a level 8 or 9 airfield aviation support is not doubled. Display error?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
What happened with the double AS support in level 8 and 9 AFs? Did that get removed? Couldn´t find anything about it being removed though. But not getting double in "h" version.







michaelm -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/16/2012 1:28:20 PM)

There was a display issue, but that has been fixed in the last round of 1119 betas.




JocMeister -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/16/2012 2:12:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

There was a display issue, but that has been fixed in the last round of 1119 betas.


Great! [:)]




Reg -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/16/2012 11:04:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hades1001

oh so tanks won't upgrade...

I was hoping that my hundreds of Maltida tanks can upgrade to M3/Grant Lee.


Now that would be an impressive engineering feat if you could pull it off in real life!! [:D]

As a general rule, vehicles are scrapped and then replaced by new builds!!

Squads upgrade by just breaking out a few crates of small arms.....





Treetop64 -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/17/2012 6:37:21 AM)

Wow.

I go away for a little while, and upon returning I see that Michael is working on yet another update! Admittedly, I wasn't expecting this.

Mike, you are a god. [&o]




Capt Cliff -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/20/2012 5:19:30 PM)

How do I make the Beta full screen? Or does it only play in a small window?




latosusi -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/20/2012 7:29:53 PM)

u need to set up command switches, i think -w sets that as windowed by default




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/20/2012 8:14:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

How do I make the Beta full screen? Or does it only play in a small window?

This works for me, x64 OS, 1440x900, dual-core CPU.

-dd_sw -px1440 -py900 -cpu2 -archive -autosave

Adjust the screen resolution to your liking and it will work Kamerad.

Klink, Oberst




Encircled -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/21/2012 10:18:27 PM)

Many thanks for the update!

and thanks to Oberst Klink for the simple explanation for the command switches!




inqistor -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/22/2012 8:35:24 PM)

On which byte there is definition of plane load for Search mission?

I have everything covered, torpedo is at 18, and there is NO armament for normal range Search. There are only bombs for extended range (no torpedo defined), so it shows normally.




Chris H -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120b updated 16 November 2012 (11/23/2012 2:47:28 PM)

michaelm

Any chance of the amphibious TF creation screen showing the amphibious troop/cargo space? Currently it shows the transport load which does cause some inconviences when loading.




michaelm -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120b updated 16 November 2012 (11/23/2012 10:45:43 PM)

On the troop loading screen, it shows the cargo space adjusted for amphib loading. Which is more where you need it.

In some places, the 3-day supply is included in the unit's equipment cost and other not. I will add the 3-day supply to those missing places for Amphib TF.
The main problem is that the totals can be calculated as a base, but how the ships are loaded can change that.
Eg equipment cost of 100 could be loaded as 100 on AK ship, but use 500 when loaded on a AP ship. It is not possible to exactly determine how the load will be distributed, and that mucks up the view.

Here how the original Amphib TF looks after it loads, but still a fragment left behind:
Both troop and cargo are near to max.

[image]local://upfiles/3086/9800EC35CF8C4B9EBB1A5CB9F7A0485E.jpg[/image]

1. Playing around the supplied save some more, it is actually TROOP space that seems to be at a premium. Adding another AP (now TF has 3xP and 2xAK) actually enables all 7th/B to load.

2. To the initial TF (of 2xAP,2xAK) I add a AK (6400 capacity) instead of the AP. Again it fully loaded. Interestingly, the amount on used cargo capacity showing on this TF after it finished loading was 15061.

The difference can be explained by the 3-day supply.

For an Amphib, I am going to add a factor for the 3-day supply to increase its requirement. This should then increase the cargo space required on the loading troop screen. The correct cargo capacity will be used during the load, but this just highlight a possible shortage. Another way to cater for this would be to assume that you need a cargo safety factor of about 90% or more.

For Japanese amphib loading, there is a higher density/packing of troops which probably explains them fitting better.

The same original TF as a Transport TF will fully load the 7th/C (in strat mode) which is same size as the /B unit.




PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120b updated 16 November 2012 (11/24/2012 2:35:59 AM)

Thanks Michael ...




Dan Nichols -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120b updated 16 November 2012 (11/24/2012 4:22:11 AM)

I think a part of the problem is that an Amphibious TF tries to load a slice of the unit in all ships. When you are Allied and are using AK type ships with no troops capacity, the troops component uses a lot of cargo space. Allies use 6 cargo load points for each troop load point, which uses up a lot of space in a hurry.

Here is a screen shot of the xAK Ruth Alexanders load. It is a C2 Cargo class ship with a cargo capacity of 5600 and fuel
capacity of 200. Notice that it is shown with a troop load cost of 419 and a cargo load cost of 1716.

That is 6 x 419 + 1716 = 4230 plus she is carrying 249 supply. As far as I understand, the loading screen does not account for the cross loading. As Allies, I try to never use an AK type ship in an Amphibious TF unless it is loaded with supply only. An exception can be made for the Armored units that have no troop load at all. The Japanese can get by using the AKs because theirs all have some troop capacity which really helps to alleviate the problem.

As a note, the 7th Australian Inf Div has a requirement of about 9100 troop space and about 21000 cargo space. If you are trying to load it on a Amphibious TF that has only AK type ships, rhat translates to 54,600 + 21,000 = 75,600 cargo capacity for just loading the division. Add in about 8,000 supply to be safe and add 20% for being an Amphibious TF and you get a cargo requirement of about 105,000. That would be a very large TF and might still leave a piece or two behind. If I needed to do this, I would not try with less than 125,000 cargo load available. The program never seems to load a unit just perfectly, so I always try to leave a bit of extra.





[image]local://upfiles/39515/27B927741C2E42718E568BBFABDCB57E.jpg[/image]




Chris H -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120b updated 16 November 2012 (11/24/2012 7:37:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

On the troop loading screen, it shows the cargo space adjusted for amphib loading. Which is more where you need it.

In some places, the 3-day supply is included in the unit's equipment cost and other not. I will add the 3-day supply to those missing places for Amphib TF.
The main problem is that the totals can be calculated as a base, but how the ships are loaded can change that.
Eg equipment cost of 100 could be loaded as 100 on AK ship, but use 500 when loaded on a AP ship. It is not possible to exactly determine how the load will be distributed, and that mucks up the view.




Thanks. I appreciate the there maybe some small inconsistances with the exact loading, I don't think that can be helped. The main problem I have is when I have to send ships to pick up units I'm continually unders estimating consequently send to few, especially when I'm short of available troops transports. A simple estimated percentage subtracted from the normal tr load would give a good idea what is needed.




Encircled -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120b updated 16 November 2012 (11/24/2012 1:59:11 PM)

Just a quick question on the saved games

I'm having problems getting the game to load a saved game the first turn after upgrading (I upgraded before I saved)

Its only March '42, and its only against the AI, but did I do something wrong?

Should I have saved in a brand new save slot or something?




Encircled -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/24/2012 7:51:35 PM)

Scrap that.

After a reboot, it loaded up fine




inqistor -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated 10 November 2012 (11/25/2012 8:37:10 PM)

There is definitely something missing from profiling bombload. It happens only for Naval, and ASW mission setting. No matter torpedo, or not, there is no load shown for normal range, but there is for extended range.

When plane have no profiling it works normally.

Just check this JAKE. Bombs defined for every possible mission, yet no bombload shown for normal range mission:

[image]local://upfiles/35065/0A921BB8D2AC40E88C1531342AF0CBEB.jpg[/image]




Chris H -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (11/26/2012 7:12:25 AM)

Two questions on barges

1. Why can't you form a CS convoy with them? Currently to use them in a CS you have to create a landing craft mission.
2. In the save below I have a landing craft CS mission at Tandjoengpinang (50,85) hoping to transport the res there to Singas but I cannot load the resources. I think this is a bug as I can load other landing craft missions with res.







Chris H -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (11/26/2012 10:52:10 AM)

Loadin of CS TF

I have small number of CS TF moving small amounts resorce and oil from places such as Formosa, Sakhalin etc. The problem is they leave with only part loads forcing me to control them manually in an effort to conserve fuel. Is it designed to leave when the port is empty, which would account for it, or is it a bug. I would prefer for them to wait until full. I can also see the need to leave with a part load in some instances but the need for a full load far outweighs the need to leave partly full.




inqistor -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120 updated (11/26/2012 8:56:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

25/11/12: 1120c - Tweaked Land based flak influenced by device's 'accuracy' value

WOW! Results are quite radical, but still doubling penetration & effect increases loses by only 15-20%.

Have you thought about including planes Durability, and number of engines into equation (bigger plane=easier to hit)? So far fighters on sweep are only targets, so with low Durability and only one engine, they could get large multiplier for Maneuver, and evade most hits.

Also, there should be more damaged planes. Just compare KB state in Scenario beginning 8th December. There are like 20 damaged planes on every CV, and currently you are getting only 3, on average.




Chris H -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (11/30/2012 9:19:11 AM)

I still think there is something wrong with the amphibious TF loading procedure. In the save below I'm tring to load the 14th Garrison unit in Tokyo and the loading screen show the unit requires 3588 cargo space. If you look at the unit it's current daily supply requirements is 275 and its cargo load space is 264. Multiplied by 3 results in give 825 + the 264 cargo load space is 1089?




bigred -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (11/30/2012 6:32:17 PM)

I have been reviewing past few pages as I begin my next upgrade to 1120c. Thanks for the effort Michaelm.




michaelm -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (11/30/2012 9:37:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

I still think there is something wrong with the amphibious TF loading procedure. In the save below I'm tring to load the 14th Garrison unit in Tokyo and the loading screen show the unit requires 3588 cargo space. If you look at the unit it's current daily supply requirements is 275 and its cargo load space is 264. Multiplied by 3 results in give 825 + the 264 cargo load space is 1089?

The cargo space on Amphib is only an estimate. It will never be an exact measure. You can either have it as an under-estimate (as originally) or an over-estimate (as with current beta).




Chris H -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (12/1/2012 7:25:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

I still think there is something wrong with the amphibious TF loading procedure. In the save below I'm tring to load the 14th Garrison unit in Tokyo and the loading screen show the unit requires 3588 cargo space. If you look at the unit it's current daily supply requirements is 275 and its cargo load space is 264. Multiplied by 3 results in give 825 + the 264 cargo load space is 1089?

The cargo space on Amphib is only an estimate. It will never be an exact measure. You can either have it as an under-estimate (as originally) or an over-estimate (as with current beta).


I appreciate it cannot be 100% accurate but the current figures are 3˝ times what I would estimate as an amphibious load. The maths I've used here are a reasonable. How's is it worked out in the game?




PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (12/1/2012 2:30:09 PM)

Troops load space is 5x(?) the stated space when cargo space is used for troops.  Other factors involved too.  I suspect your math is not complete.  You need to review the manual on this.

When I do the calcs, I'm with a couple % of the stated load cost ... more than close enough.  And overstating the requirement slightly as the new beta does ensures that the unit will load.  Previously if you were a bit close, it might cause a fragment to be left behind.  Quite annoying that.




Chris H -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1120c updated 25 November 2012 (12/1/2012 3:17:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Troops load space is 5x(?) the stated space when cargo space is used for troops.  Other factors involved too.  I suspect your math is not complete.  You need to review the manual on this.

When I do the calcs, I'm with a couple % of the stated load cost ... more than close enough.  And overstating the requirement slightly as the new beta does ensures that the unit will load.  Previously if you were a bit close, it might cause a fragment to be left behind.  Quite annoying that.


I thought it was 3x but I cannot find the info in the manual, mind you so much has changed since the manual was written it's often a futile exercise anyway. Even with 5x it comes nowhere close to the cargo figure being requested in the TF load screen.

This is not really the problem. Using the example of the 14th Garrison unit which according to TF load screen requires 3588 cargo space. How do I know this? It's fine if you have transports in the base you can find out by creating a single ship TF and testing the load but if you can't do that and need to send some to pick it up you how many do you send?. Very unsatifactory situation to be in. If this cannot be simply calculated in the head then another solution would be for the LCU unit information screen to have an amphious cargo load as well as a standard cargo load.








Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.296875E-02