Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013

 
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 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 3:36:24 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9166
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 781
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 5:05:37 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5778
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.

I beleive that a lot of the units with static devices (IJ side) are to prevent players from shifting them from their historical location (like Yokohama). So, if the unit retreats, that would be kinda funny. How would Yokohama base retreat? I would agree with you, if there are static devices present, the unit should not retreat. It is tethered to that location by physical location.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 782
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 5:13:58 AM   
Quixote


Posts: 737
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??


In the spirit of democracy (which I know this isn't, but humor me) I completely agree. I'd vote for static units to remain, well...static. Being able to run into a previously battered CD unit in the middle of the Gobi desert just doesn't sound quite right.

Kidding aside, I know it's been a bug (or feature) since WitP, but I can't imagine too many people having concerns about changing the code to keep units that were always intended to be static in place.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 783
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q test - 8/11/2013 5:18:18 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9166
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
The only impact would be that the units will usually fight to the last man, surrender or be destroyed in combat. Which it would if it still had one static device present.

Here is a test version of the code that can be un-zipped into the beta directory
Updated to only stand and fight if a static squad device present.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by michaelm -- 8/11/2013 9:32:00 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Quixote)
Post #: 784
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 5:36:38 AM   
cohimbra


Posts: 422
Joined: 10/15/2011
From: Italia
Status: offline
Hi all, I regulary use CS (Continuous Supply) routine for my Resource Cargo. I noticed that you can
set 'Minimal Refuel', 'Tactical Refuel' or 'Full Refuel', but every time a convoy returns to the assigned
base it occurs Full Refuel (Ex: CS convoy Sapporo-Hirosaki where Sapporo is the assigned base; the CS convoy
load resources, go to Hirosaki for the unload, and every time ruturn to Sapporo he made the Full Refuel).
This have an heavy impact in the area like Hokkaido or Shakalin (less in China/Korea or in the hex that
produce fuel). And another one: Combat TF also made Full Refuel when approach to port even if 'No Refuel'
is set. I'm playing with 1123k. Has someone else noticed the same problems?
Regards

edit: I set all my CS cargo with 'Tactical Refuel'

< Message edited by cohimbra -- 8/11/2013 5:38:29 AM >

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 785
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 7:40:47 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 786
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 8:48:33 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9166
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.


Are the 'garrison' static devices squads? If so, compromise could be that any static squad device must cause the unit to NOT retreat.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 787
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 2:18:03 PM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.


Are the 'garrison' static devices squads? If so, compromise could be that any static squad device must cause the unit to NOT retreat.


In a situation where it's retreat or die then retreat is what should happen excluding any national traits. If the equipment is not classified as static then they should be able to take it with them but there might be a case for only taking stuff than does not need towing or carrying as the unit is also likely to have few vehicles.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 788
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/11/2013 5:33:12 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5778
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
I disagree ... I can't see Sasebo Base retreating. I understand about the squads being able to retreat, but that would mean Sasebo Base being somewhere else which is nonsense. If Nagasaki is over-run, those units should be lost. Same with the unit at Hanoi ... makes no sense to see that unit retreat. It is a fixed gun emplacement. Yes, you lose a few more units than you might in reality, but the disturbance to the overall game is larger.

Just my thoughts.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 789
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/14/2013 2:59:54 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1436
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.

That's exactly the purpose of the 'static unit' device. It was added to the database specifically as a means to ensure that particular LCUs could not ever move; and that includes retreating.

Some LCUs have several 'static units', but that's just because it was found that only having one or two would allow the unit to 'free up' if they were destroyed; an undesirable thing. So don't think option 2 is an acceptable one. Want to "ensure" that the LCU never moves, ever, under any circumstances.

So please, if you fiddle with this, do it so that LCUs with static unit devices in them are NOT allowed to retreat. That was, and is, the design purpose and intent.

[ed] just think of it in terms of the troops in those LCUs swore an oath to the Emperor that they would defend their base to the last breath of the last man; duty is heavier than a mountain, death is lighter than a feather, and all that.

Ciao. JWE

< Message edited by Symon -- 8/14/2013 5:15:21 PM >


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 790
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/15/2013 3:27:24 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3464
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
Havent done this for a while and Im getting unable to find PW data error message. Trying to run game off exe in Beta2 folder. Im sure im missing something but i cant remember what.

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born



Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 791
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/15/2013 3:58:04 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Havent done this for a while and Im getting unable to find PW data error message. Trying to run game off exe in Beta2 folder. Im sure im missing something but i cant remember what.

I'm going to guess that the problem is how you made the shortcut. The shortcut must point to the Beta exe, of course. But the other line in the shortcut, the one that says "run in" or something like that, must point to the regular AE folder.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 792
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/15/2013 4:34:05 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3464
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Havent done this for a while and Im getting unable to find PW data error message. Trying to run game off exe in Beta2 folder. Im sure im missing something but i cant remember what.

I'm going to guess that the problem is how you made the shortcut. The shortcut must point to the Beta exe, of course. But the other line in the shortcut, the one that says "run in" or something like that, must point to the regular AE folder.


And indeed that was the fix
Thanks

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born



Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 793
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/17/2013 8:36:20 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

While looking at a possible issue with pursuing units, I discovered that static units (except for the Fortress/CD types) can be retreat if they don't currently have any of the static devices in them.
The purpose of the static devices was to keep these units in-place. This appears to be contra to the game design.
I know that this has been around from day dot - retreating units could suddenly grow roots as a static device was taken as a replacement.

To keep with the intent, I intend to NOT allow static units (those with a static device regardless of number in the unit) to retreat.

Any concerns??

The other option would be to remove the static device from retreating units totally so it becomes a free agent. This would mean the units in China and Thailand would be free to be used anywhere once they lost their static devices - which could presumably happen now.


It's the equipment that's static not the men. They should be allowed to retreat but with only their personnal weapons as they do now.


Are the 'garrison' static devices squads? If so, compromise could be that any static squad device must cause the unit to NOT retreat.

I am pretty sure that was original intent. I remember it was exactly how Chinese units in War Plan Orange were build (fake static Devices to keep them in place). Are all those "static garrison Devices" in TOE, or are they extra? If extra, I think they will never get replacements anyway.
Just remember, that there are such weird Devices as 918 Frontier Scouts, which will upgrade with time to their mobile version.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 794
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/18/2013 9:06:06 PM   
bruin

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline
Auto sub-ops seem to have broken (and likely for at least the last two patches). Running the latest 1123p beta, as the allies I have auto sub-ops turned on, total 109 active subs - 31 are out at sea patrolling and 78 are sitting in port doing nothing. Recent sub arrivals, such as those at Balboa, are sitting in port (11 of them) - typically these automatically re-assign somewhere.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 795
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/19/2013 3:52:38 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2366
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Anyone got beta 23k that I can have.

(in reply to bruin)
Post #: 796
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/19/2013 6:58:16 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2196
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Anyone got beta 23k that I can have.

Sadly i delete "k" installer from my HDD
We can also upgrade to "p".
You will have to only watch replay under p instead of k but turn was quiet so sync bug should not be problem.



< Message edited by koniu -- 8/19/2013 7:13:21 AM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 797
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/19/2013 12:44:19 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7121
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

Anyone got beta 23k that I can have.


I have the last 20 or so saved.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 798
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 2... - 8/19/2013 8:57:22 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2366
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Thanks NYgiants.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 799
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/25/2013 7:19:23 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9166
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
New build added

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 800
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/25/2013 8:15:48 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7121
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
OK Jocke, Michael addressed the issue. Go try it out!!

_____________________________


(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 801
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/25/2013 8:22:38 AM   
seille

 

Posts: 2123
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
I bet he is doing it RIGHT NOW

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 802
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/25/2013 5:50:57 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5778
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

New build added



THANKS!



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 803
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/25/2013 6:29:02 PM   
sandman455


Posts: 201
Joined: 7/5/2011
From: 20 yrs ago - SDO -> med down, w/BC glasses on
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

New build added



THANKS!




Understated IMHO

THANK YOU VERY MUCH MOST WISE AND POWERFUL MICHAELM.

I am unworthy!!

_____________________________

Gary S (USN 1320, 1985-1993)
AOCS 1985, VT10 1985-86, VT86 1986, VS41 1986-87
VS32 1987-90 (NSO/NWTO, deployed w/CV-66, CVN-71)
VS27 1990-91 (NATOPS/Safety)
SFWSLANT 1991-93 (AGM-84 All platforms, S-3 A/B systems)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 804
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/28/2013 4:31:23 AM   
chemkid

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 12/15/2012
Status: offline
thanks for the update - even in hot japanese summer, an update is always a bliss (...some cold beer,too!)

cheers!
chem!

_____________________________


(in reply to sandman455)
Post #: 805
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/28/2013 7:23:03 PM   
blueatoll

 

Posts: 78
Joined: 3/28/2013
Status: offline
I think there may be an issue with Task Force Loading/Unloading. I had a couple of Task Forces unload what seemed to be a massive amount of troops and equipment into a Level 1 port after applying this patch including some heavy equipment that I knew couldn't be unloaded in one turn (2 days). There was no detail that the units were unloading during the Load/Unload Transports phase and I actually thought that they were not doing anything until I checked the ground units in the hex and voila! there they were, heavy equipment and all.

(in reply to chemkid)
Post #: 806
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 8/31/2013 4:53:39 AM   
Pascal


Posts: 1637
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline
I haven't been in the forums for over a year and good old michaelm is still plugging away at new updates.

Absolutely incredible! This is real dedication!

Words of thanks to you, michaelm, are insufficient....but please accept my HEARTY THANKS in any case.

Best,

Pascal

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to blueatoll)
Post #: 807
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 9/1/2013 12:00:20 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1588
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
I guess he needs a real monument, still room at Mount Rushmore?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 808
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123q updated 2... - 9/7/2013 6:40:16 AM   
Treetop64


Posts: 806
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline
Again, many thanks.

Appreciate the adjustment back to the default space-bar function. I can't tell you how helpful that is!

_____________________________



"Junk is something you've kept for years and throw away three weeks before you need it"

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 809
RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123r update - 9/9/2013 12:37:37 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9166
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
New build

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Treetop64)
Post #: 810
Page:   <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1123p updated 27 July 2013 Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   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

0.117