Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Pilot slots

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Pilot slots Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pilot slots - 4/13/2017 9:24:42 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1587
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I released a large number of RESERVE pilots and I was able to add in my 81 available Soviet pilots and Joglinks1 was able to add a large number of pilots into his units.\
So I will say again, it is not that I am low on Soviet pilots, just not enough total pilot slots for the number and size of air units in this mod.

(in reply to Joglinks1)
Post #: 451
RE: Pilot slots - 4/14/2017 4:42:03 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 698
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joglinks1

I am Bill Browns opponent and have the same issue. No more pilot slots. there are indeed only 70k pilot slots in the DB.
I am on 24 k pilots plus 11k coming online in delayed groups
with bills 47 k and 37k delayed pilot needs we are way above the 70k.
We will mange somehow so each of us will have 35k available slots but the scenarios air power needs to be looked at. Later int he game it will be frustrating for players to be able to add planes but not pilots.


Cheers
Joerg



I think what I will have to do is:

*Remove Juan's aircraft purchase system. It adds thousands of unnecessary pilots to the game.
*Remove the additional training squadrons that the US gets in 1943. The 1942 squadrons are enough.
*Remove the Lend-Lease aircraft squadrons. They were put in for flavor and a new mechanic, but collectively they can take up over 1,000 pilots.
*Reduce the number of French reinforcement squadrons. The numbers are over-the-top for French fighter squadrons.

For now, I would have the allied player disband all of the aircraft purchase squadrons. It will add a lot of planes to the pool, but it will also free up a significant amount of pilot slots for both players. Most of the planes will be old airframes anyway.

I apologize for the issue - I had tested into 1943 and 44, but against the AI instead of a vigorous opponent.

(in reply to Joglinks1)
Post #: 452
RE: Pilot slots - 4/14/2017 4:43:34 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 698
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I released a large number of RESERVE pilots and I was able to add in my 81 available Soviet pilots and Joglinks1 was able to add a large number of pilots into his units.\
So I will say again, it is not that I am low on Soviet pilots, just not enough total pilot slots for the number and size of air units in this mod.


Have you tried moving all of the aircraft purchase system pilots to reserve and then releasing them to free up the slots? That should be hundreds of pilots unless you've been aggressive in buying out those aircraft.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 453
RE: Pilot slots - 4/14/2017 12:23:55 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1587
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Of course I did. But we are short many thousands of pilots, a few hundred does not help the overall problem.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 454
RE: Pilot slots - 4/15/2017 12:20:17 AM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
Why is the amount permanently set to 70k? This actually seems like a pretty straight forward change to the database calls.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 455
RE: Pilot slots - 4/15/2017 1:14:43 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1587
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Why is the amount permanently set to 70k? This actually seems like a pretty straight forward change to the database calls.


It started at 30k in the initial release. michaelm increased to to 50k and then 70k when players had problems like this.

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 456
RE: Pilot slots - 4/15/2017 1:16:27 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1587
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Paradigmblue, I would also suggest that the settings you recommend to not include having No unit withdrawals set to ON. Tracker tells me which units should have been disbanded and I will probably disband some or all of them as we go along.

Although, you probably should set most of the Soviet LCUs to not withdraw since the Soviets are active in scenario 71.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 4/15/2017 1:30:00 AM >

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 457
RE: Pilot slots - 4/15/2017 3:03:55 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8520
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Why is the amount permanently set to 70k? This actually seems like a pretty straight forward change to the database calls.

You have to remember how old this code is ... it already has enough memory leaks ... michael and others were very concerned with moves that were done, but they were necessary as games were getting stuck pretty regularly.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 458
RE: Pilot slots - 4/15/2017 11:08:28 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Why is the amount permanently set to 70k? This actually seems like a pretty straight forward change to the database calls.

You have to remember how old this code is ... it already has enough memory leaks ... michael and others were very concerned with moves that were done, but they were necessary as games were getting stuck pretty regularly.


So it isn't necessarily "permanently" set to 70k, but there is concern that adding significantly to this number may cause memory allocation issues? I realize this may be beyond the ability given to modders; however, if this were a piece of software I was managing this is what I'd tell my team:

I get the age of the code and potential limitations, but keep in mind as long as there aren't broader OS or Direct X compatibility issues, computers are significantly better than they were when this launched. Given this make the changes, and we will test this see if your concern is warranted, unless making the change isn't worth the investment of time. And in this case, it's should be a pretty simple change.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 459
RE: Pilot slots - 4/16/2017 12:45:32 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8520
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Nope, this is not hardware related, it is all software. we're talking about 20 year old compilers for NT memory. So yes, OS is a factor in terms of how memory is organized and addressed. Remember, this is compiled for a single CPU ... can't use multiple CPU's. It's prolly C, not even C++. Doesn't have all the new functions and headers and calls that you could get now. So, this thing runs in a compatibility mode that we have to keep hoping Microsoft in their infinite wisdom continues to support.

Pretty sure that by the time my life frees up enough to play a PBEM, I'll be using a "Win-Box" program to emulate windows and allow this thing to run.



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 460
RE: Pilot slots - 4/16/2017 1:19:36 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1587
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joglinks1

I am Bill Browns opponent and have the same issue. No more pilot slots. there are indeed only 70k pilot slots in the DB.
I am on 24 k pilots plus 11k coming online in delayed groups
with bills 47 k and 37k delayed pilot needs we are way above the 70k.
We will mange somehow so each of us will have 35k available slots but the scenarios air power needs to be looked at. Later int he game it will be frustrating for players to be able to add planes but not pilots.


Cheers
Joerg



I think what I will have to do is:

*Remove Juan's aircraft purchase system. It adds thousands of unnecessary pilots to the game.
*Remove the additional training squadrons that the US gets in 1943. The 1942 squadrons are enough.
*Remove the Lend-Lease aircraft squadrons. They were put in for flavor and a new mechanic, but collectively they can take up over 1,000 pilots.
*Reduce the number of French reinforcement squadrons. The numbers are over-the-top for French fighter squadrons.

For now, I would have the allied player disband all of the aircraft purchase squadrons. It will add a lot of planes to the pool, but it will also free up a significant amount of pilot slots for both players. Most of the planes will be old airframes anyway.

I apologize for the issue - I had tested into 1943 and 44, but against the AI instead of a vigorous opponent.


You should also look at removing some of the IJN and IJA extra air units. Just reducing the Allies is not really the right answer.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 461
RE: Focus Pacific: Release - 4/18/2017 7:54:21 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
Since I'm involved in a Focus Pacific PBEM game, any recommendations on which squadrons either side should remove. I've already gotten rid of the aircraft purchase system groups, and I am planning on reducing the number of Dutch squadrons by not evacuating them when the DEI fall. I will probably also reduce the number of Philippine squadrons, and kill the lens-lease squadrons when they arrive; however, Bill has a point. If the game is balanced around extra aircraft to both sides, it doesn't strike me as workable--maybe workable, but not fair--if I am the only one removing air groups and pilots.

< Message edited by Revthought -- 4/18/2017 7:55:01 PM >


_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 462
RE: Focus Pacific: Release - 10/9/2018 1:45:31 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2353
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
No posts on this mod for a while. I'm playing this against an experienced Allied player, two day turns, play by email.

Obviously as an alternate history this feels more like their war in a heavily industrialised society but without technological advances of the First World War -say what the world may have looked like in 1950. The Japanese are very strong but so are the allies. This means the early stages of the war feel like a grind not an explosion of Empire.

It may be my fault but we have failed to take Singapore and Manila in April 42 and now even our advance into the DEI is slowed by heavily defended and fortified bases everywhere. Firstly I would say Singapore should have no intrinsic supply production as historically it had no water except from the mainland.

The Japanese planes are inferior to the other planes especially the skyrocket and French planes. My very best pilots are flying an obsolete plane called the zero. I would have expected in early 42 Japan to have had better planes than the allies but I do realise this is a alternate history scenario. As it stands I lose around three times as many planes a day than the allies or more. Allied fighter sweeps are disastrous for us as the French plane flies so high. There are already a lot of B-17 is in play and they have wrecked some of the airfields near Singapore. Singapore itself has over 250 fighters totally impossible to attack with air.

My opponent tells me the Allied submarines in their upgrade get rid of the DUD TT this is proving quite disastrous for Japan as we have almost no effective ASW weapons. Every day we are losing ships. This is without the threat of the Russian SS as we have agreed a house full they cannot come in until the end of 42 though I see there are some scenario notes on this I must take account of.

Every base I arrive at is heavily defended and fortified. Not one of them has fallen so far, even when landing with full divisions and supporting units. Though we have managed to take Midway and Johnston Island bringing us close to Pearl Harbor. We have to move into the DEI not particularly because of the oil but because of the aircraft factories located there. Soon we will have to abandon the idea of trying to take Manila and Singapore and move round them

One allied CV has been ambushed and sunk that is all.

Would be interested in having other people's opinions. It seems to me by early 42 the allies are at a strength of early 43. This makes the Japanese advance even more tricky I would have thought it would have been better to have a host of reinforcements arriving during the latter part of 42 to make for a wild and exciting counter-attack. It seems to me that Japan will fail to take even half of the historical objectives.

In China because of the very good political points situation the Chinese can be very strong and we are pushing forward there. However the allies are very strong to and the Allied units are very tough and there is a lot of allied air activity in China . I assume China has a lot more supply then in other scenarios.

Anyone else playing the scenario please advise


(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 463
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Pilot slots Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]
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

0.133