Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

some issues/bugs?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> some issues/bugs? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
some issues/bugs? - 8/5/2010 1:44:20 AM   
gdpsnake1979

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 4/2/2009
Status: offline
1. Columbo as the auto convoy base is not working very well. Columbo tends to make fuel runs continuously to Trincomalee (which has 1 amc ship and 1 base unit and more than enough fuel) and runs the fuel dry in Columbo very quickly. Also, without the resources of India going to Columbo (like the old Karachi), Columbo goes low on supplies quickly too. A final note, all the TFs have "Return to Karachi" options which would be nice to change to "return to Columbo" options so we don't have to keep selecting Columbo as a destination everytime. Assuming Columbo remains the auto-convoy base.
2. The TF that appears off map to arrive in Singapore in early Devcenber, 41 with the ships, West Point and Mount Vernon, can be diverted elsewhere. In my case, I diverted it to Rangoon which was accepted and it showed up in Rangoon to unload. Unfortunately, those two ships can never leave the hex as they are too "Big" to navigate the major river to get out to sea. I think a message saying "Ships cannot go there" when selecting ships to go to a illegal port would be nice and the TF prevented from accepting the orders.
Also, could we have a message saying "Ships will not be able to dock at destination" for created TF's that are targeted to bases with ports too small to dock the size ships or at least a "Tonnage" line for the ship selection screen so we know which size the ship is without have to constantly go back and forth looking at the ship stats to see if it is 'applicable' for the TF we are creating.
3. I really would like the ship selection screen to show the nationality of the ships with perhaps a future mod to put the Nation flags on the ship pics.
4. SW of Mildura in Australia, specifically hexes 80,165 ans 81,165 seem to be the paths units take on strategic movement but they are just 'farm hexes.' Should there be major road with perhaps RR depictions in these hexes?
5. I would like to see bases "highlighted" on the map that require garrisons so I don't have to select every base to see any requirements. Perhaps a Red "G" next to them or better yet a screen showing all the bases and the required garrisons on the base selection screen (as an option). Also, the bases change between games? Between two different games, the garrison bases were different in India and China at least.
Post #: 1
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/5/2010 2:27:23 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10258
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
1) Auto convoy has always had problems.  It is largely the same as it was with WitP in AE.  Some consideration was made to fix it, but it would have been a major effort and didn't make the cut.

2) There is a bug we haven't been able to fix with ships in the off map boxes being redirected en route.  I thought it was changed to a TF could not be redirected in the off map holding boxes.  If you wait until the TF breaks out onto the main map, you can redirect it without problems.

3) That might be a good idea, but it's down the list for now.

4) I recall this in the past, and I thought it was fixed.

5) I don't have the game open in front of me, but I believe if you open the base list box from the top screen, there is an option to see the garrison levels required.  If you sort for that column, you can see the requirements and current garrisons at each base.

I believe there were some changes to the garrison requirements in the scenario files for one of the patches.  If you have a game that started before the patch and one after, you will likely see different garrison limits.  The limits should not be different for two games started under the same version.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to gdpsnake1979)
Post #: 2
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 1:28:04 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3080
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
I would reccomend manually selecting ships for all TF's and setting to continuous supply in merchat situations rather than using the auto system. You can do it better if you put your mind to it. Dont forget to name your CS (and all) convoys with a convention that works for you so you will always know what you intended. For CS and all TF's that have a destination, I use embarkation and destiination port and stuff carried if anything. For combat TF's that dont have a destination, I usually list the key ships by class and overall mission.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 1:48:58 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

I would reccomend manually selecting ships for all TF's and setting to continuous supply in merchat situations rather than using the auto system. You can do it better if you put your mind to it. Dont forget to name your CS (and all) convoys with a convention that works for you so you will always know what you intended. For CS and all TF's that have a destination, I use embarkation and destiination port and stuff carried if anything. For combat TF's that dont have a destination, I usually list the key ships by class and overall mission.


I have to register my frequent disagreement on this. Auto-convoy works fine if you let it do what it's designed to do. Yes, you can laboriously hand-manage every one of hundreds of bases with CS convoys, but their needs change over time. Auto-convoy has code that performs an automatic test to see if the base needs more supply, based on demand and use, before it details ships and (sometimes precious) supply there in enough tonnage to meet economic order quantities. Once you set up a CS convoy it will supply a base until it bursts. (Except it won't stop even then; it'll just keep piling up toilet paper forever, even though the war, and the men who were at the base a year ago, have moved 1000 miles forward and you forgot to take the CS convoy apart. Ooops.)

CS convoys also waste ships, unless you watch them like a hawk. With A-C you can intentionally underserve the A-C queues by starving the A-C origin base of hulls. You only tie up exactly as many as you want, and adding more is the work of a minute in either A-C base. Readjusting ships dedicated to CS convoys takes a LONG time.

Auto-convoy works best if you don't assign your tankers to the queue (they're too precious and A-C doesn't over-escort as a human would with tankers; manage fuel by hand.) You should also give the ship list some escorts. This is easy to do from the A-C management screen.

I find that A-C saves thousands of mouse clicks if you don't try to supply the forward battle lines with it, but just allow the supply system to ask for re-supply when needed for those bases not in the thick of it. I have better things to do than watch Cold Harbor's supply situation when I'm fighting in the PI. That doesn't mean Cold Harbor doesn't need to be supplied, however. AE has precious few labor-saving devices. Why ignore one of those that does exist, and works?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 4
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 1:56:35 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gdsnake

1. Columbo as the auto convoy base is not working very well. Columbo tends to make fuel runs continuously to Trincomalee (which has 1 amc ship and 1 base unit and more than enough fuel) and runs the fuel dry in Columbo very quickly. Also, without the resources of India going to Columbo (like the old Karachi), Columbo goes low on supplies quickly too. A final note, all the TFs have "Return to Karachi" options which would be nice to change to "return to Columbo" options so we don't have to keep selecting Columbo as a destination everytime. Assuming Columbo remains the auto-convoy base.


I use A-C from Colombo all of the time, and I don't see this at all. I'm not sure Colombo has ever auto-convoyed Trin. in my games. Even if it does, it should only re-fuel Trin. to its normal stock level, not enough to drain Colombo unless Colombo is already dry. And if it is you have bigger problems than A-C.

Colombo is the hub of operations in that 1/3 of the map. You should have large CS convoys running there from Cape Town, Abadan, and eventually Aden--from Day 1. It has a big shipyard, a big airfield, and a big port. It's the re-supply center for India, Burma, and eventually Sumatra and Java. You take and hold Port Blair from Colombo. In my first game it often had about 2 million supply, and at least 1.5 million fuel, and you can run those numbers dry pretty easily in late 1943 and 1944. If Colombo is going dry it's because you aren't sending enough to it. It has nothing to do with auto-convoy.

I agree with your last statement. I think the Karachi button may be an artifact of the development process, where Karachi was the auto-convoy hub as it was in WITP. Colombo is so far superior to Karachi that I can put up with the button. It would be nice to change it, but I doubt it's a high priority for a patch.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/6/2010 2:00:08 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to gdpsnake1979)
Post #: 5
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 2:54:58 PM   
Disco Duck


Posts: 490
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
I don't see that it works. I tried just running the game until April of 42 to check out patrols zones, upgrades, training and auto convoy. All ships from Balboa to Christobal ended up at SF set to auto convoy as well as well as all of the original ships at SF. I ended up with lots of ships at SF doing nothing and some of the Alaskan bases undersupplied.

Topeverest has some good idea. I am still working on different concepts to be able to keep track of things.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 6
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 4:22:08 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

I don't see that it works. I tried just running the game until April of 42 to check out patrols zones, upgrades, training and auto convoy. All ships from Balboa to Christobal ended up at SF set to auto convoy as well as well as all of the original ships at SF. I ended up with lots of ships at SF doing nothing and some of the Alaskan bases undersupplied.

Topeverest has some good idea. I am still working on different concepts to be able to keep track of things.


When you ran up to 4/42, was it AI vs AI? The AI tends to accumulate ships in central locations.

(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 7
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 4:30:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

I don't see that it works. I tried just running the game until April of 42 to check out patrols zones, upgrades, training and auto convoy. All ships from Balboa to Christobal ended up at SF set to auto convoy as well as well as all of the original ships at SF. I ended up with lots of ships at SF doing nothing and some of the Alaskan bases undersupplied.

Topeverest has some good idea. I am still working on different concepts to be able to keep track of things.


Your third sentence doesn't make any sense. Ships appearing in the Canal Zone don't "end up" in SF unless you send them there. No ship goes into the auto-convoy available list unless you put it there. If you have too many unassigned ships in the list, take them out. Assigned-ship names appear in red on the SF and Colombo ship disbanded list, so it's easy to see what's sitting unused.

The all-bases summary screen tells you each base's target supply and fuel level and its actual present level. If you think it needs more, send more. If you're planning to use it for an op soon, send more. Auto-convoy can't read your mind. But it is very useful in stopping small, behind-the-lines bases from running dry, thereby stopping your ASW patrols and rendering your LCUs into low morale, weak troops. You can do auto-convoy with CS convoys, but then you can mow the lawn with scissors too. Your call.

Edit: Don's question didn't occur to me. If you were running AI against AI the results are in no way illustrative of how a human player would/should manage ship inventories. Use auto-convoy, but don't assign every xAK on the map there. It's a back-stop system.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/6/2010 4:32:33 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 8
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 4:38:07 PM   
gdpsnake1979

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 4/2/2009
Status: offline
Thank you for the quick response.

Yes, I found that garrison option in the base list window -sweet.

Still giving Columbo a go as the AC base. I tried not using tankers to prevent the fuel depletion but then none of the bases got any fuel so giving it a go with tankers again - so far so good. I keep running supply out of the off board bases as well so stockpiles are hanging in there. Just a thought - couldn't the "Convoy" units appear at Columbo instead of off base so we wouldn't have to keep running 'cargo' to Columbo to keep it stocked for ac?

I also ran into a bug that I believe has already been reported? At some point, the windowed screens were losing parts of words and dropping off letters in names like an alphabet soup gone bad. Saving and reloading cleared the issue but I don't know what causes it in the first place.

Does anyone have a good use for those little amc ships? I find them to be mostly clutter......

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 9
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/6/2010 7:22:49 PM   
Disco Duck


Posts: 490
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

I don't see that it works. I tried just running the game until April of 42 to check out patrols zones, upgrades, training and auto convoy. All ships from Balboa to Christobal ended up at SF set to auto convoy as well as well as all of the original ships at SF. I ended up with lots of ships at SF doing nothing and some of the Alaskan bases undersupplied.

Topeverest has some good idea. I am still working on different concepts to be able to keep track of things.


Your third sentence doesn't make any sense. Ships appearing in the Canal Zone don't "end up" in SF unless you send them there. No ship goes into the auto-convoy available list unless you put it there. If you have too many unassigned ships in the list, take them out. Assigned-ship names appear in red on the SF and Colombo ship disbanded list, so it's easy to see what's sitting unused.

The all-bases summary screen tells you each base's target supply and fuel level and its actual present level. If you think it needs more, send more. If you're planning to use it for an op soon, send more. Auto-convoy can't read your mind. But it is very useful in stopping small, behind-the-lines bases from running dry, thereby stopping your ASW patrols and rendering your LCUs into low morale, weak troops. You can do auto-convoy with CS convoys, but then you can mow the lawn with scissors too. Your call.

Edit: Don's question didn't occur to me. If you were running AI against AI the results are in no way illustrative of how a human player would/should manage ship inventories. Use auto-convoy, but don't assign every xAK on the map there. It's a back-stop system.


Dang it!! it made sense when I wrote it!

First off ( to Dan Bowen) it was not AI vs AI. I should have made that clear. It was Japanese AI vs. Me. I just set it to three day per turn cycle. When something showed up at Cristobal or Balboa I sent it right to SF and set the ships to autoconvoy. Other than play around with patrol TF and training I did not do any thing. What I found was, Auto Convoy is not useful in stopping small behind the scenes bases from running dry. I had over thirty AK's and xAK's sitting at SF and I still had at least one base in Alaska that had a big red ! on it and about 24 supplies.

Sorry about the messed up post.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 10
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/7/2010 12:31:36 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

Dang it!! it made sense when I wrote it!

First off ( to Dan Bowen) it was not AI vs AI. I should have made that clear. It was Japanese AI vs. Me. I just set it to three day per turn cycle. When something showed up at Cristobal or Balboa I sent it right to SF and set the ships to autoconvoy. Other than play around with patrol TF and training I did not do any thing. What I found was, Auto Convoy is not useful in stopping small behind the scenes bases from running dry. I had over thirty AK's and xAK's sitting at SF and I still had at least one base in Alaska that had a big red ! on it and about 24 supplies.

Sorry about the messed up post.


You just can't trust that Dan person.

(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 11
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/7/2010 1:09:46 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10258
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdsnake

Thank you for the quick response.

Yes, I found that garrison option in the base list window -sweet.

Still giving Columbo a go as the AC base. I tried not using tankers to prevent the fuel depletion but then none of the bases got any fuel so giving it a go with tankers again - so far so good. I keep running supply out of the off board bases as well so stockpiles are hanging in there. Just a thought - couldn't the "Convoy" units appear at Columbo instead of off base so we wouldn't have to keep running 'cargo' to Columbo to keep it stocked for ac?

I also ran into a bug that I believe has already been reported? At some point, the windowed screens were losing parts of words and dropping off letters in names like an alphabet soup gone bad. Saving and reloading cleared the issue but I don't know what causes it in the first place.

Does anyone have a good use for those little amc ships? I find them to be mostly clutter......


The display problem happens when the memory used by DirectX gets corrupted. It is related to how much RAM your computer has as well as how many other programs you have open. Switching back and forth between the game and other programs makes it more likely that the bug will occur. It's essentially a weakness with DirectX.

I believe the AMCs you're talking about are armed merchant cruisers. They were merchant ships with hidden weaponry used to counter attack enemy ships that attacked them. The idea being that if an enemy raider or sub saw one of these running alone, they would close in for the kill (and surface to use the deck gun in the case of a sub) and the merchant ship would open up on them when they got close. They do give a convoy a bit of extra firepower if they run into anything, but I don't think any of them have any ASW capability so unless the sub surfaces they won't be effective against subs.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to gdpsnake1979)
Post #: 12
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/7/2010 2:26:07 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3080
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
AMC's without cargo capacity are excellent raiders. Those with are excellent dual purpose escort transports that at least force subs to attack submerged.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 13
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/7/2010 7:29:38 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14123
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
AMC's are superb LR picket ships for south of Ceylon south and north of PH

i.e. patrol ships for long  open spaces.

Big fuel capacity and ability to stay on station for a long time is invaluable

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 14
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/7/2010 8:56:31 AM   
davbaker

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Is that how they were used historically?

Wont they get clobbered if Japan even sends a CVL/E anywhere near?

or is that the idea ?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 15
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/7/2010 6:46:53 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

What I found was, Auto Convoy is not useful in stopping small behind the scenes bases from running dry. I had over thirty AK's and xAK's sitting at SF and I still had at least one base in Alaska that had a big red ! on it and about 24 supplies.


I find that Auto-convoy isn't always instantaneous in filling demands. Also, I beleive in WITP there was a two-A-C-convoy-at-a-time limit at SF for loading. I don't know if AE continued with this code. Also, I don't know how the code allocates Op points if there are numerous human-managed TFs in SF trying to load as well. Equally? First-in? Largest? I don't know. I'd think that new human-managed TFs ought to jump to the head of the line, but I've never tested this.

So, if you have twenty bases needing A-C services, the code somehow stratifies them into a demand queue and fills needs under that algorithm as long as Op points are available. I don't know how it decides which of those 20 A-C bases to fill--first-in-first-out, largest total demand, etc. But I've never seen a base on the A-C list go unserviced forever unless I took all of the ships out of the A-C list.

Also, for that base of yours, look at the base summary screen. How many supplies is it demanding versus those 24 present? Is there an LCU there, or did one just leave? Finally, is that base on the water or inland? A lot of Alaska bases do not have ports.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/7/2010 6:54:47 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 16
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/7/2010 6:58:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: davbaker

Is that how they were used historically?

Wont they get clobbered if Japan even sends a CVL/E anywhere near?

or is that the idea ?


Just to be clear, an AMC is a very different ship than an AMc. It's hard to imagine AMCs as being "clutter." They're major units. An AMc is a coastal minesweeper, there are dozens, and yes, they are hard to use for anything useful IMO.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to davbaker)
Post #: 17
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/8/2010 7:45:58 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 11731
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
In regard to Auto Convoy:
There are some future tweaks and improvements planned for the auto-convoy screen and how it tries to resupply the bases.
The original code (ex stock) didn't seem to fulfill all the the stock A-C stated objectives either.
I have have tried to fulfill the original intent of A-C to resupply bases to some extent, as I often use auto-convoy myself.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 18
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/9/2010 7:08:07 PM   
gdpsnake1979

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 4/2/2009
Status: offline
Bullwinkle 58, Yes, I was talking about the AMc - little coastal sweepers. They have no use I can find as they don't seem to be listed as maintaining minefields, they don't have asw capability, no upgrades I can see nor do they have any cargo or troop capacity. They are not useful in any TF so I would say get rid of them entirely as they are just dots in the way. If they serve any purpose at all, they could be 'factored in' some base mechanic and removed from the game. I love detail but these seem a waste of code.

I also am having trouble with auto-convoy doing it's job. Many of my bases well out of harm's way are not getting any supplies or fuel even when I crank up the requirement. For example, Adak Island has an Eng on it trying to build with high requirements and AC on but for a month - not even a telegram from the war department. They are getting mighty PO'd. I finally had to create my own convoy with lots of goodies just to keep them from starving. Meanwhile, the Candians in Victoria are getting so much American beef and beer that they are ready to petition for Statehood (The ungodly amounts of AC convoys going here are STUPID as they are throwing the stuff away in spoilage and yet, the AC keeps on sending it!-I had to turn it off before all my beer got guzzled by them clowns!) So Auto Convoy ain't working very well.

< Message edited by gdsnake -- 8/9/2010 7:14:51 PM >

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 19
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/9/2010 9:59:40 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdsnake

Bullwinkle 58, Yes, I was talking about the AMc - little coastal sweepers. They have no use I can find as they don't seem to be listed as maintaining minefields, they don't have asw capability, no upgrades I can see nor do they have any cargo or troop capacity. They are not useful in any TF so I would say get rid of them entirely as they are just dots in the way. If they serve any purpose at all, they could be 'factored in' some base mechanic and removed from the game. I love detail but these seem a waste of code.

I use then in large rear area ports for... minesweeping!! Some sneaky Japanese opponents like to sub-mine bases far behind the front.


_____________________________


(in reply to gdpsnake1979)
Post #: 20
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/10/2010 4:23:47 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 17097
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Yes, these little guys actually have a TF mission for them, "Local Minesweeping."

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 21
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/10/2010 5:23:49 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gdsnake

quote:

Bullwinkle 58, Yes, I was talking about the AMc - little coastal sweepers. They have no use I can find as they don't seem to be listed as maintaining minefields, they don't have asw capability, no upgrades I can see nor do they have any cargo or troop capacity. They are not useful in any TF so I would say get rid of them entirely as they are just dots in the way. If they serve any purpose at all, they could be 'factored in' some base mechanic and removed from the game. I love detail but these seem a waste of code.


The intention in AE was to reproduce an authentic OOB for the most part (the Babes mods take this to the Nth degree), so these guys aren't the only semi-useless hulls. But, a lot of these types of craft (the MLs are another, there are others) can be used to spoof the AI if you want to go that way. Just form them into single ship TFs, put them in the base hex undocked, and the AI will use up Betty and Nell strikes trying to sink them, thus leaving your Port, Airfield, and other TFs alone. This works very well in the early weeks in Singapore and on Java. Some might consider this gamey, but OTOH these ships ARE worth VPs and this isn't the only case of the code selecting targets in an order a human might not. I chalk it up to bad photo recon.

quote:

I also am having trouble with auto-convoy doing it's job. Many of my bases well out of harm's way are not getting any supplies or fuel even when I crank up the requirement. For example, Adak Island has an Eng on it trying to build with high requirements and AC on but for a month - not even a telegram from the war department. They are getting mighty PO'd. I finally had to create my own convoy with lots of goodies just to keep them from starving. Meanwhile, the Candians in Victoria are getting so much American beef and beer that they are ready to petition for Statehood (The ungodly amounts of AC convoys going here are STUPID as they are throwing the stuff away in spoilage and yet, the AC keeps on sending it!-I had to turn it off before all my beer got guzzled by them clowns!) So Auto Convoy ain't working very well.


What month is it? There is a winter penalty in the Arctic that lasts until March 1 I believe. The auto-convoy code may factor this. Outside that, I don't say A-C is perfect, and one of the chief coders is in this thread saying the same thing, but it does work, and it has advantages that CS convoys do not. I find that distance from the A-C home port has some effect, and it doesn't work as well with mega-bases since Automatic convoys tend to be 1-3 ships in size. I don't A-C Pearl for example; I try to build it to 5 million supply plus, and A-C is never going to even try that. But I encourage you to keep using it for the smaller, behind-the-lines bases. I wouldn't rely on it for the Aleutians, especially since they can very suddenly become the front lines. But if it over-supplies Canada, so what? CONUS can't begin to find enough ships to haul all its supplies forward, and in your case Canada is supplied without you having to fiddle with it.

Also, I'm in Feb 1942 in my current game, and Victoria has a combined Air/Port of 10, and is headed higher. There shouldn't be any spoilage there.

Edit: Your comment that you upped the requirements at Adak made me go check something. A-C code is, I beleive, legacy code from WITP for the most part. WITP did not have supply spinners whereby the player can adjust the supply "pull" to a base. The supplies required number that A-C uses to dispatch a convoy is the individual LCU supplies required numbers, totaled, for that base. It is possible in AE to adjust the base spinner so LCU supplies required and base supplies required are very different numbers.

For example, in my game, Sabang on northern Sumatra has a spinner number of 25,046, meaning it will seek to pull 3x that amount of supply into the base from the rest of the road and base network on the island. However, there are only two small LCUs there at the moment, and their combined supply required figure is 49. That is the number that A-C seeks to fill, and as the base has over 43,000 supply on hand, Colombo will not send more if I turn the base on to the A-C system. It won't try to get the base to 75,000+.

This may be the source of some players saying that A-C "doesn't work." It doesn't chase the spinner supply numbers set by the player. It seeks to feed and supply LCUs actually there. To the best of my knowledge aircraft units do not add to the supplies required total in the A-C system, as the game has no idea how much you intend to fly them. Unlike LCUs, aircraft only use supply when employed. So, you can load up Adak with airplanes, and the A-C system will still send only those supplies demanded by the LCUs at the base. If you have one small base force, yet overstack ten squadrons there, you'll never be able to fly them all unless you hand-manage supply and send more. But for garrisons in the back-waters A-C works.



< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/10/2010 7:08:36 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to gdpsnake1979)
Post #: 22
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/10/2010 7:32:53 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Yes, these little guys actually have a TF mission for them, "Local Minesweeping."

Yes. There's a lot of game detail that a player may, or may not, use as they see fit. There's a few TFs that the game automatically forms and uses from these minor combatants, for both sides. So stick these useless things in ports you want to keep clear of mines, or move them where you think you want them and put them into 'Local Minesweeping' TFs if you want to be gnarly. It ain't hard.

_____________________________


(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 23
RE: some issues/bugs? - 8/10/2010 10:52:45 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Yes, these little guys actually have a TF mission for them, "Local Minesweeping."

Yes. There's a lot of game detail that a player may, or may not, use as they see fit. There's a few TFs that the game automatically forms and uses from these minor combatants, for both sides. So stick these useless things in ports you want to keep clear of mines, or move them where you think you want them and put them into 'Local Minesweeping' TFs if you want to be gnarly. It ain't hard.


FWIW, when I use them as bait, they're in Local Minesweeping TFs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> some issues/bugs? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.164