Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part)

 
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 >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 2:25:51 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 8844
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
In other word for the R&D counts, if any disabled devices for the factory then all devices for that factory are not counted.


Seems wrong to me.


< Message edited by michaelm -- 9/12/2011 2:31:39 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 601
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 2:32:33 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5462
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??


I beleive this has always been a potential issue. I think the only reason it doesn't come up as a complaint is because by the time most games get to the point that the allies can intervene, R&D is the 'least' of the IJ problems.

OTOH, it should be possible to interupt R&D. Certainly, the allies tried to do this in europe. And of course, as the date for the ac comes close, repair happens pretty fast.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 602
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 2:34:54 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4713
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Yeah - the global numbers for R&D have always been like that (and wrong).
quote:

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices?

I agree.
quote:


And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
Seems wrong to me.

The factory has to be fully repaired for R&D to accumulate. If it were any other way then points would accumulate too quickly. But given that if the factory reached full production and then was bombed, I'd agree that if a way could be found to simulate part production that would be great... but that might cause other problems in the code re: upgrades, changes etc.

[edit] And as Pax says ... by the time the allies can get close enough ... well it doesn't matter too much.

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 9/12/2011 2:36:34 PM >


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 603
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 2:43:25 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 8844
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

[edit]
in the save I am looking at the R&D total shows as 1257. Once I add the check I mentioned, it then shows 690.
Which what it is if I go thru the R&D locations and count up the actual non-damaged factories.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 9/12/2011 2:47:42 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 604
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 3:01:50 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4713
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

That would be good.

While I'm here -
Any thoughts to making realistic R&D more realistic ?

At present, if I'm not mistaken once a R&D factory is fully repaired you can move along the upgrade path with no cost. This is fine for normal R&D but it still makes realistic R&D a tad easy. I propose that with realistic R&D the free upgrade along the path is either done away with or the factories are halved or reduced by 2/3 to give the impression of an associated economic cost.

Anyway - that's probably a big change so more input might be needed.

Another rambling pipe-dream thought -

How about opening the editor up more to the costs associated with the multipliers for engines, planes, Arm, & Veh? And let the existing multipliers allow fractions ...

You know if you keep making changes, people are just going to ask for more and more ...

Thanks mate and have a good evening. We all appreciate what you do.

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 605
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 3:17:32 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 8844
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

That would be good.

While I'm here -
Any thoughts to making realistic R&D more realistic ?

At present, if I'm not mistaken once a R&D factory is fully repaired you can move along the upgrade path with no cost. This is fine for normal R&D but it still makes realistic R&D a tad easy. I propose that with realistic R&D the free upgrade along the path is either done away with or the factories are halved or reduced by 2/3 to give the impression of an associated economic cost.

Anyway - that's probably a big change so more input might be needed.

Another rambling pipe-dream thought -

How about opening the editor up more to the costs associated with the multipliers for engines, planes, Arm, & Veh? And let the existing multipliers allow fractions ...

You know if you keep making changes, people are just going to ask for more and more ...

Thanks mate and have a good evening. We all appreciate what you do.

Well a player changing a/c factory costs 1/3 of the devices.
Can you give me an example of the R&D scenario with an upgrade? Don't often play Japan in deep testing, so bit hazy on what you mean.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 606
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 3:34:11 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4713
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Well I AM going to change those R&D totals. The large numbers give you the impression that some R&D should be happening.

Just need to add a check in the front of each place it adds up this total to only do so IF there are no damaged devices present.

That would be good.

While I'm here -
Any thoughts to making realistic R&D more realistic ?

At present, if I'm not mistaken once a R&D factory is fully repaired you can move along the upgrade path with no cost. This is fine for normal R&D but it still makes realistic R&D a tad easy. I propose that with realistic R&D the free upgrade along the path is either done away with or the factories are halved or reduced by 2/3 to give the impression of an associated economic cost.

Anyway - that's probably a big change so more input might be needed.

Another rambling pipe-dream thought -

How about opening the editor up more to the costs associated with the multipliers for engines, planes, Arm, & Veh? And let the existing multipliers allow fractions ...

You know if you keep making changes, people are just going to ask for more and more ...

Thanks mate and have a good evening. We all appreciate what you do.

Well a player changing a/c factory costs 1/3 of the devices.
Can you give me an example of the R&D scenario with an upgrade? Don't often play Japan in deep testing, so bit hazy on what you mean.

realistic r&d ... once the factory is repaired you can change it all the way along the upgrade path to the end plane. In my example I show 3 iterations from the M3a to the 5b but I could have gone to the M8 with no cost associated. I don't want to cause probs - I just think for realistic r&d it should be governed by slightly more rules and disadvantages than what is currently in place. Actually, I'd go further and say non-realistic should have some costs associated with changing too ... but that might be a bitter pill for some players.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 607
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 5:31:17 PM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Did something change with regards to detection levels and spotting?

It seems that now when I move the KB (or any AV/unit launching planes), the detection level is showing up as very high (up to 10/10!). I hope he's not following the KB around the map , seeing exactly where it is just because it's conducting routine search ops. Didn't happen before...

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 608
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 5:46:21 PM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Did something change with regards to detection levels and spotting?

It seems that now when I move the KB (or any AV/unit launching planes), the detection level is showing up as very high (up to 10/10!). I hope he's not following the KB around the map , seeing exactly where it is just because it's conducting routine search ops. Didn't happen before...


In fact, I just checked and everything that launched a plane shows up as having a non-zero detection number. E.g., a sub lanching a glen shows up as 4/4 way behind the lines at my base.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 609
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 6:11:38 PM   
thinz2

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Saskatchewan, Canada
Status: offline
I tried to report on a similar observation yesterday.

There appears to be a problem with fog-of-war arising out of the latest beta changes. On Friday michaelm posted a fix dealing with the problem of the map centering on the wrong locations when false sighting reports occurred. I installed it. The next turn in my game as Japan with zuluhour after that I was surprised to see an actual sighting of a significant Allied TF near Rangoon as well as a cluster of TFs around Trincomalee. I thought this might be due to a sighting by my subs, but it didn't feel right.

On Sunday I installed the new 1108q3. On the next turn the issue continued and was compounded by a sighting of a CV TF near San Diego where I have no subs!

Also Sunday I started a new PBEM game as Japan with SgtSwanson using 1108q3. After the combat I can see 2 large task forces west of Hawaii. One is due north of Johnston Island (10 ships DDDDDDD). The other is SSW of Midway (9 ships DDDD). I'm pretty sure these are the US carrier TFs, which I've never had show up before.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 610
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 7:10:02 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 7119
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Hello michaelm..Would it be possible/feasable to make 2 forms of auto convoy:Sea-going and coastal..?

The latter would be entirely historical and could allow smaller craft like LST's to engage in those duties, as IRL..

I like chrome as much as the next guy..

_____________________________




(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 611
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 7:15:14 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 2972
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Wow the sightings are dead on. Saratoga is in San Diego and Force Z off Rangoon.
Oh yeah, Those are ASW TFs back from shakedown cruises.

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 9/12/2011 9:42:31 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 612
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/12/2011 10:27:49 PM   
thinz2

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Saskatchewan, Canada
Status: offline
I re-installed 1108q2 and then opened Zuluhour's latest turn, generating the combat replay. The clairvoyant sighting issue is gone. Re-opening turn 2 of my game with SgtSwanson shows the problem still exists. I think that is because the combat replay was generated under q3 and is not affected by the rollback to q3.

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 613
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/13/2011 4:39:20 AM   
apbarog

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline
I am using 1108Q1. I am also seeing the map jump during the replay to areas of the map that are well behind the lines, where I have no units to spot anything. I have not seen enemy units spotted in this way during my turn, but I haven't specifically looked for them way behind the lines either. I will keep an eye out in future turns. I have had my suspicions about detection level issues. I've reconned several bases and gotten no detection level at all to show.

If I find erroneously spotted units in a future turn, I will post a save.

(in reply to thinz2)
Post #: 614
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/13/2011 9:10:20 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
In other word for the R&D counts, if any disabled devices for the factory then all devices for that factory are not counted.


Seems wrong to me.


Maybe (although I agree with PaxMondo, that if Allies are bombing Home Islands, Japan has bigger problems), but getting Shindens in mid-1944 is far wronger, and that's what will eventually happen if non-fully-repaired facilities are allowed to produce research. Instead of only moderate investment in late-war planes, due to limitations of the current system, assigning 10 size 30 facilities to J7M and Ki-94-II will become the way to go. In the mod game file from which I posted I can now expect A7M to be available in the beginning of 1944. I foresee houserules of "no accelerating planes by more than X months" becoming standard if this change persists, but date-tracking associating with them is a needless hassle.

Also, I think that changes with such massive impact on ongoing campaign games shouldn't be introduced without a really good reason. Please, return things to the old status quo.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 615
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/13/2011 9:35:30 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4713
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
In other word for the R&D counts, if any disabled devices for the factory then all devices for that factory are not counted.


Seems wrong to me.


Maybe (although I agree with PaxMondo, that if Allies are bombing Home Islands, Japan has bigger problems), but getting Shindens in mid-1944 is far wronger, and that's what will eventually happen if non-fully-repaired facilities are allowed to produce research. Instead of only moderate investment in late-war planes, due to limitations of the current system, assigning 10 size 30 facilities to J7M and Ki-94-II will become the way to go. In the mod game file from which I posted I can now expect A7M to be available in the beginning of 1944. I foresee houserules of "no accelerating planes by more than X months" becoming standard if this change persists, but date-tracking associating with them is a needless hassle.

Also, I think that changes with such massive impact on ongoing campaign games shouldn't be introduced without a really good reason. Please, return things to the old status quo.

You missed this post - Michael made a rare mistake and things are going back to normal. My thoughts were just something that I feel needs addressing in the future.
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Your right. Went back and more closely compared the code from p6 and now.

The line checking for disabled devices being zero is commented out. I might have inadvertently done that when playing around with R&D for the following items from p8.
quote:

Tweaked Allow R&D factory change before starting production if R&D option ON [MEM]
Tweaked Production can be turned off but R&D will still happen [MEM]


I'll put it back in.
Sorry for the error.




_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 616
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/13/2011 12:30:56 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 8844
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Did something change with regards to detection levels and spotting?

It seems that now when I move the KB (or any AV/unit launching planes), the detection level is showing up as very high (up to 10/10!). I hope he's not following the KB around the map , seeing exactly where it is just because it's conducting routine search ops. Didn't happen before...

I moved some code in one section dealing with patrols (asw/search/cap) as it was using endurance on ships even if no planes ended up flying. The code now executes only if planes end up getting launched in the same manner as how strike missions are done.
However, strike missions can increase the DL of the the launching TF and this was carried over to the code I had moved to the patrol.

Everytime TF launched a CAP (patrol) it was inflating the DL.
I have removed the DL piece.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 617
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/13/2011 12:58:03 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 8844
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Fixed Restored fully repaired factory needed before R&D starts [MEM]
Fixed Removed incorrect DL addition for TF air patrols [MEM]
Changed Updated RD totals to reflect actual R&D available for a/c and engines [MEM]

Updated installer


< Message edited by michaelm -- 9/13/2011 2:30:58 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 618
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/13/2011 1:38:25 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2083
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
I do not know why, but after i installed the latest Beta on Sunday in my PBEM as jap player i get some info i should not get.
I can "see" some taskforces that i did not spot. For one of them i have no own recon or nav search planes near enough.
And i get VERY detailled intel here. I´m sure this is a bug since i have no detection level on that hex.

Turn attached. Details come with PM.

edit: After reading the last 20 entries here i think it is the bug that was posted by rader. But would like to get a confirmation.
The reworked patch will remove this ?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by seille -- 9/13/2011 2:12:52 PM >

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 619
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/13/2011 2:36:21 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5462
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Fixed Restored fully repaired factory needed before R&D starts [MEM]
Fixed Removed incorrect DL addition for TF air patrols [MEM]
Changed Updated RD totals to reflect actual R&D available for a/c and engines [MEM]

Updated installer


Great Support Michael!!



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 620
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/13/2011 5:39:11 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2083
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
I wish to remove the detection level bug in the current turn i have in my inbox (playing the japs).
In case i follow the PBEM update procedure i have to
-run the turn with q3
-save
-then apply q3a
-give orders etc.

But reading the comments here this won´t remove the bug for the current turn when i run the combat resolution with the
q3 patch.
Is it possible install the q3a fix BEFORE i run the current turn even my ally opponent saved with q3 or will this have negative consequences ?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 621
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/13/2011 8:35:21 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline
Hello, I run q3a.

The Pilots seem to have green improvements (showing improvements compared to the day before) but ALL my squads doesnt have any orange pilots showing Improvements received within some days) anymore. Instead, I see only green improvemnts no orange ones anymore.

And besides, range circles showing the extended range are still not drawn since Version P.

It does not matter if a P 38 has attached external fuel tanks - the range circle does not show the difference. P 38 CAN fly from PM to Rabaul however if they have attached them but the black range circle nor the red one doesnt move at all. It worked in version m8. Since P it is gone and never came back.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Oliver Heindorf -- 9/13/2011 8:38:34 PM >

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 622
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/13/2011 10:14:14 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

You missed this post - Michael made a rare mistake and things are going back to normal. My thoughts were just something that I feel needs addressing in the future.

My bad! Sorry for not paying attention.




(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 623
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/14/2011 12:52:32 AM   
medicff

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

While we are chasing bugs. While updating New Zealand INF groups the Dunedin base force was set to upgrade from the militia, changed from beta P9 to Q1 and made moves and ran turn. Next turn Dunedin BF shows lost the infantry/milita to an additional Aviation group and also additional Engineer line.

Ran next turn and upgraded another BF without any issues so either with Dunedin BF or changing betas??

Pic below, I have saves if you want.



Looking at the Dunedin BF in editor, the active weapons are slightly askewed with the TOE.
However I would have expected it to correct itself by merging the duplicated slots, and taking the normal TOE replacements, after a few days.


I will keep checking but so far three two day turns with no corrections. I do have the replacements off however I will try with them on. The TOE is correct when you click on it.




Ok the Dunedin BF finally corrected itself. It appears to change mid march 42 at the same time that the "MTD inf" start allowing the change to "NZ inf" in the armored units also. (note the squads were available with repl on long before they started upgrading)

Why do these armored units update later than other NZ inf units?


(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 624
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 9/14/2011 2:30:37 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1650
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In relation to the R&D, when the totals are displayed [like Aircaft Assembly: xxx + (yyyy - rd)], the RD number is the number of active devices without regard to non-active ones.

Shouldn't R&D be '0' unless there are no inactive devices? And why does damage to '1' factory from bombing stop ALL R&D from that city??
In other word for the R&D counts, if any disabled devices for the factory then all devices for that factory are not counted.


Seems wrong to me.



What should happen with R&D is the following:
All R&D factories at the start of the game should be fully repaired. Helen Ias (plus one I do not recall) and all engine factories already start out this way at the beginning of the game. Why all the rest are not fully repaired is a mystery that no one has been able to explain to date.

If the player makes NO changes to production at all they are ALWAYS able to get the airframes on the historical date. Matter of fact you can have zero R&D factories for an airframe and you still get the airframe on the historical date. Strange but true.

As most of the R&D factories start out at 5 or less per month, you are NOT going to get 1945 planes in 1943. Remember it takes 100 points of R&D production to advance just ONE month. So at 5 per month it will take 20 months to gain a one month advance. Wow. Impressinve isn't it.

Also remember that R&D factories do not repair at the same rate as production ones. So if you expand a 1945 R&D factory in 1941 it could take until 1944 before it was repaired fully in order to start producing R&D points toward acceleration. I am in 1943 and I still have 1945 R&D factories that have not fully repaired after I upgraded then at the start.

As an example let's use the A7M3-J Sam as an example. It starts the game with 2 R&D factories (that start damaged of course) so it shows as 0(2). It's availability is 1/1946. It is now 5/43 in my game and not a single one of these two factories have been reparied yet. So ZERO points have gone to acceleration. Even if R&D was left as you describe above. There would still be ZERO point towards acceleration. I should also point out that this R&D factory has NEVER been expanded in any way. It started the game like this and it is still that way in 5/43.

Even if these started out as repaired in 1941, I would not have gotten a single month of acceleration until 50 MONTHS have passed (100 points/2 per month). This is something to worry about? Really?

What I would suggest is to allow R&D factories to produce as the production ones do. So if a R&D factory is 5(2) for example the 5/month would accumulate toward the 100 point threashold. Again remember it would still take 20 months for a one month advance. This is much more realistic as in RL, a factory would not stop all research while the factory was expanded. It's not like they tore the existing structure down and then rebuilt it everytime an expansion occured. Also, the production factories work this way, so why is the R&d factories treated so differently? If a production factory is 5(2), it keeps producing planes and does not have to wait for the damaged to be repaired.

I much prefer the way it is now in the p2 beta so will not be upgrading any more as this seems to make much more sense and matchs the way the other systems work. If people think Japan is going to get super planes in years early, it is not going to happen as shown by my example above.

As far as allowing the R&D factories to switch without penility to the next plane in squence is also fine as is. Why? Because those factories are not available to produce planes that can be used. They are tied up for much longer having to do more R&D versus production. While this can be made up by expanding production factory's capacities, this takes HI, supply, and, importantly time to get production up to where it would be if the R&D factories switched automaticly. For those that have not played Japan, this is a huge decision and one that should not be taken lightly. More production right now instantly or a better plane 3-6 months earlier a year from now.

I have done extensive testing and analysis on Japan's production system and can provide any type of data about airframe production and R&D that anyone could possiblely want lol. Both with PDU On and Off. So if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer then. I also have an extensive thread called 'Accelerating Japanese Airframes' that goes into even more detail than what I posted here.

Edit: Added link to posting
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2825013

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 9/14/2011 2:38:41 AM >

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 625
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/14/2011 8:14:42 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3352
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline
Small cosmetic change.

Could you please change the colour of the 'Flying night operations - change to day' message to blue. This would then macth the colour of the air units flying night ops in the list of air units.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 626
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/14/2011 10:18:36 AM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
I have a problem in my PBEM. The current turn stops processing during the turn resolution phase. The current Patch is 1108p9b (so i know it is not the MOST recent beta patch). Michaelm could you take a look ? I have attached the save which should dump.

And i have a second little problem which is not a show stopper but at least it disables a navy squad. If you take a look at the 36 fighter planes F4F Navy squad which should be dumped in Almend (or somewhere in the east USA, it is the only 36 Planes F4F Navy squad in the USA). It bought it back from a Sunk carrier and when i try to upgrade the planes i get the information that some parts of the squad are missing. But there is nothing to buy back and all other parts of the squad are marked as destroyed. In the same base there should be a SBD Squad with the same problem. I cannot upgrade it.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by beppi -- 9/14/2011 10:19:03 AM >

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 627
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/14/2011 11:34:23 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 8844
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

I have a problem in my PBEM. The current turn stops processing during the turn resolution phase. The current Patch is 1108p9b (so i know it is not the MOST recent beta patch). Michaelm could you take a look ? I have attached the save which should dump.

And i have a second little problem which is not a show stopper but at least it disables a navy squad. If you take a look at the 36 fighter planes F4F Navy squad which should be dumped in Almend (or somewhere in the east USA, it is the only 36 Planes F4F Navy squad in the USA). It bought it back from a Sunk carrier and when i try to upgrade the planes i get the information that some parts of the squad are missing. But there is nothing to buy back and all other parts of the squad are marked as destroyed. In the same base there should be a SBD Squad with the same problem. I cannot upgrade it.

What does it stop on?
Air combat near Pegu??

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 628
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/14/2011 11:50:01 AM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

I have a problem in my PBEM. The current turn stops processing during the turn resolution phase. The current Patch is 1108p9b (so i know it is not the MOST recent beta patch). Michaelm could you take a look ? I have attached the save which should dump.

And i have a second little problem which is not a show stopper but at least it disables a navy squad. If you take a look at the 36 fighter planes F4F Navy squad which should be dumped in Almend (or somewhere in the east USA, it is the only 36 Planes F4F Navy squad in the USA). It bought it back from a Sunk carrier and when i try to upgrade the planes i get the information that some parts of the squad are missing. But there is nothing to buy back and all other parts of the squad are marked as destroyed. In the same base there should be a SBD Squad with the same problem. I cannot upgrade it.

What does it stop on?
Air combat near Pegu??


Yes, i checked it and it acutally gets stuck.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 629
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q3a updated 13 S... - 9/14/2011 12:24:43 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 8844
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Good.
It is repeatable under the current beta.
However, I can only fix it with the current code. Not older one.

The issue was a combination of number of aircraft in the air combat.
One of those 'the right combination of events'.


< Message edited by michaelm -- 9/17/2011 12:10:30 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
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

0.137