Pac 3.2.15 test

Pacific War is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

Hi Rich,

I didn't want to spoil your threat therefore I open this one.

Run the first tests in Linux dosemu for 1941, historical, Jap AI.
Tried 3x different starts, from these 3 first moves some observations:

Pearl Harbor: 2x only 1 BB sunk, 1x no BB sunk.
TF53 Lexington: 3x sub attacked: 2x hit with 99% damage on Lex, 1x sub failed to hit.
Subs sunk 4-7MCS during each supply phase, very active.

There are sqn's with B17 + B26 but no production, also not showing in factory list in xls editor. Is this meant to be?

I try to get a complete move done soon.

Cheers,
Chris

User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

forgot re 83) all HQ on computer control, does 83) only apply human vs human?
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

Thanks for the great comments Zeke! I’ll respond to these when I get home later today.
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

ORIGINAL: zeke99

forgot re 83) all HQ on computer control, does 83) only apply human vs human?

This was supposed to fix the initial game setup so that if you were playing as human (against AI or another human), the HQs would show up as human control. I always hated to have to change every HQ to human control at the start of a game. I thought I had fixed this, but for some reason, this is still not happening for OBC42 or OBMARI, so I have some more fixing to do. Thanks for finding this!
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

ORIGINAL: zeke99

Hi Rich,

I didn't want to spoil your threat therefore I open this one.

Run the first tests in Linux dosemu for 1941, historical, Jap AI.
Tried 3x different starts, from these 3 first moves some observations:

Pearl Harbor: 2x only 1 BB sunk, 1x no BB sunk.
TF53 Lexington: 3x sub attacked: 2x hit with 99% damage on Lex, 1x sub failed to hit.
Subs sunk 4-7MCS during each supply phase, very active.

There are sqn's with B17 + B26 but no production, also not showing in factory list in xls editor. Is this meant to be?

I try to get a complete move done soon.

Cheers,
Chris


Great comments Zeke!

Re: Pearl Harbor Attack - Yes, this is looking a bit wimpy. I already know how to fix, so I'll update and upload soon!

Re: Lexington - Hmmm, I haven't seen this at all; just random?

Re: Sub activity - Yes, you will see more active AI (only AI) Allied Submarine warfare. The tested MCS and TK losses seem to match historical losses.

Re: B-17 and B-26 - Yes, I took away their factories, but gave them actual semi-historical numbers to work with before they were actually pulled from the Pacific theatre. This forces the AI to use these aircraft a bit more historically, I think. Also, I wanted to save the factories for aircraft that were more dedicated to the Pacific theatre.
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

Thanks for your fast reply Rich.

I've done about 15 starts, in summary:

Pearl: hit rate is of 250kg bbs is not bad ~40% but damage is mostly 0* on BBs, rarely 1* or 2**. Problem is B5N also use 250kg instead torpedo, distance of TF too fare away?

TF53: 6 times sub attack, 4x hit Lex with 4**** (1x sunk)

other observations:

MCS & AP symbol same in combat display

B17 from Clarke bombing Kagoshima

Dutch Harbour - Midway now out of range for ac with range 4, so ship transfer to Hawaii needed instead of flying via Midway.

Enough with starts, starting playing turns now [:D].
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

ORIGINAL: zeke99

Thanks for your fast reply Rich.

I've done about 15 starts, in summary:

Pearl: hit rate is of 250kg bbs is not bad ~40% but damage is mostly 0* on BBs, rarely 1* or 2**. Problem is B5N also use 250kg instead torpedo, distance of TF too fare away?

TF53: 6 times sub attack, 4x hit Lex with 4**** (1x sunk)

other observations:

MCS & AP symbol same in combat display

B17 from Clarke bombing Kagoshima

Dutch Harbour - Midway now out of range for ac with range 4, so ship transfer to Hawaii needed instead of flying via Midway.

Enough with starts, starting playing turns now [:D].

Zeke,

Re Pearl: Yes, TF1 is too far, range needs to be less than 1/2 of normal range to use torpedoes or 800 kg bombs I believe. When I moved TF1 to range of 1 (100 miles, although historical was 200 miles), the Kates use torpedoes and the BB loss appears to be quite historical. Also, too many Allied aircraft are flying CAP; if I put the P-40s on training, the number of aircraft responding on CAP drops to ~10-12 I think (actual was 8). So these are the changes I plan to make.

Re Lex: Still don't know why this is. I didn't change code for IJN subs against Allied capital ships. I wonder if we need to move Lex by a hex or 2?

Re MCS / AP symbols: do you mean the icons used to display an image of the ship? I think some of MCS and AP types do share the same symbol...

Re Dutch Harbor: Dutch Harbor is actually about 1900 miles from Midway. The latest map has them 1800 miles (18 hexes) away. So an aircraft with range of 4, shouldn't be able to transfer between the 2 bases.

Re B-17 bombing Kagoshima: Kagoshima is actually 1240 miles from Clark Field, and the latest map has it at 1200 miles, so it looks like a B-17 from Clark Field could just reach Kagoshima.

Great comments, keep at it!
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

Hi Rich,

1. Pearl, sounds reasonable & like your proposed changes
2. If I recall correct, historically there where many Jap subs out there
3. Yes, same symbol, was different in 3.2.14
4. Dutch, it worked before and was a fast route to get B25s and others into the theater [;)]

Cheers,
Chris
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

This will not be an AAR, I will just write if something unexpected happened.

Turn 1: for first time I saw Jap air supply happening. Not much load delivered but something new.

Turn 3: More LCU action in China, Jap attacked. Chines experience higher, do not shatter, same in Burma, like it.
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

01/25/42 #75wing arrived in Sydney with 4 Beaufort, which is not in stock or production.

03/08/42 Beaufort production started.

Was the range of F4 Wildcat changed (shows 2) but can jump from Island to island?

Combat TF automatic get ROS assignment, can be tricky, don’t like it. Better commander decision or nothing.

4/5/42 Singapore finally taken, fighting going on.

It is far harder for Jap LCU to make progress in Indian sector.

6/7/42 15th FG grew to 59 on a 5 base, how?

Air attacks on air ports not effective, usually 0 planes destroyed, both sides.

Plane icon for G3 & G4 green not Navy white.

8/9/42 Jap CV with A5M sqn? Looks like Kaga. Also some land based sqns.

Ac mission menu: can Disband be put as last option? Deleted a sqn again by accident :(

9/27/42 production for army very high: 3418 sqds / 19399art / 3883armor

11/15/42 Bombardment of Amadan damaging OIL Ind???

Istfemer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:45 am
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Istfemer »

It is apparent to me that 3.2.15 is unsuitable for our PBEM game. Some important (and questionable) changes it brought appear to have been underdocumented.
My concern here is that 3.2.16 may turn out to be not much of an improvement over 3.2.15 in this regard. And I want it to be an improvement.
---
Keep on reporting, Zeke. I appreciate your feedback. We all do.
User avatar
Gilmer
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:01 pm
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Gilmer »

I started a game human vs AI (I'm playing US and Allies) and the computer control thing was the same. Had to change them all to full human control. Other than that, not really any complaints except some turns the Japanese scoring jumps fairly largely with no reasoning I can fathom. This was in 1943 from turn to turn.
"Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit" John III Sobieski as he entered Vienna on 9/12/1683. "I came, I saw, God conquered."
He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

ORIGINAL: KurtC

I started a game human vs AI (I'm playing US and Allies) and the computer control thing was the same. Had to change them all to full human control. Other than that, not really any complaints except some turns the Japanese scoring jumps fairly largely with no reasoning I can fathom. This was in 1943 from turn to turn.
Thanks for the comments Kurt! When you say you had to change them all to full human control, are you talking about some of your own HQs that you had on computer control, and didn't like the way they were performing? If so, what aspect of their performance was the problem? Or am I misinterpreting what you mean?

The Japanese Kill Point Multiplier has been modified in the latest version. It used to be implemented only at year changes, starting in 1944. At those times, you would see big jumps in the Japanese score. In the latest version, the multiplier gradually increases month by month, starting in 1943. So you should see a slight bump in the Japanese score at the start of every month.
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

ORIGINAL: Istfemer

It is apparent to me that 3.2.15 is unsuitable for our PBEM game. Some important (and questionable) changes it brought appear to have been underdocumented.
My concern here is that 3.2.16 may turn out to be not much of an improvement over 3.2.15 in this regard. And I want it to be an improvement.
---
Keep on reporting, Zeke. I appreciate your feedback. We all do.
Yes, I agree Istfemer. I've been working on it, trying to get the bugs ironed out. I'm hoping 3.2.16 which be much better.
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

Thanks for the comments, Zeke!
ORIGINAL: zeke99

01/25/42 #75wing arrived in Sydney with 4 Beaufort, which is not in stock or production.

03/08/42 Beaufort production started.
Noted, I'll fix it.
Was the range of F4 Wildcat changed (shows 2) but can jump from Island to island?
Yes, GGs original had a range of 2 for the F4, FM2, SBD and TBD, as the Japanese did have a range advantage through most of the war. However, this does cause a lot of problems for the Allies. I'll change it back to the version 3.2 range of 3. The AI has always "cheated" when moving aircraft around. It ignores range when moving air groups. I haven't made any changes here.
Combat TF automatic get ROS assignment, can be tricky, don’t like it. Better commander decision or nothing.
Yes, I see the problem. This is not intended and is something only for AI formed TFs in certain situations, not TFs automatically formed by a human player. I'll fix it. Thanks for finding this. It's why I need you guys trying out some human versus AI play.
4/5/42 Singapore finally taken, fighting going on.
I've been tweaking things around this. Seems pretty realistic. GGs code gives lots of variability to play. In my latest tests, Singapore can fall anytime from about 1/25/42 to into April or May.
It is far harder for Jap LCU to make progress in Indian sector.
Yes, it is harder. Historically, the Allies didn't retreat from Rangoon until 3/7/42. Mandalay didn't fall until early May. So the game plays a little closer to this, although normally, the Japanese AI will still capture Imphal, Myitkyina, and Lashio before the monsoons.
6/7/42 15th FG grew to 59 on a 5 base, how?
No idea on this one Zeke. I'll see if I can find anything in the latest code.
Air attacks on air ports not effective, usually 0 planes destroyed, both sides.
I don't think I've altered any of the code around this. Are you saying this is different than before? or continues to be frustrating as before? I'll look for this in the code. I agree it does seem weak in this area.
Plane icon for G3 & G4 green not Navy white.
Yes, it seems to me that most of the later war IJN carrier based aircraft were green, not white. This was also the case in version 3.2, if I recall correctly. If this is not right, I'm open to suggestions.
8/9/42 Jap CV with A5M sqn? Looks like Kaga. Also some land based sqns.
The A6M production rates are historical. If the AI (or a human) wipes out his carrier air groups, the A6M2 air groups will eventually revert to A5Ms, which still have a reasonable pool. I think Midway solved some of the IJNs early low aircraft production issues; their pilots were gone!!
Ac mission menu: can Disband be put as last option? Deleted a sqn again by accident :(
Good suggestion. Not sure how easy this is, but I'll take a look.
9/27/42 production for army very high: 3418 sqds / 19399art / 3883armor
Agreed. I don't think I did anything to this code. I'll take a look.
11/15/42 Bombardment of Amadan damaging OIL Ind???
"Amadan"? What base is that? I think I've noticed this on Japanese Home Island bases that have no oil. I'm not sure if this is an existing issue or not.

Regards,

Rich
User avatar
Gilmer
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:01 pm
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Gilmer »

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne
ORIGINAL: KurtC

I started a game human vs AI (I'm playing US and Allies) and the computer control thing was the same. Had to change them all to full human control. Other than that, not really any complaints except some turns the Japanese scoring jumps fairly largely with no reasoning I can fathom. This was in 1943 from turn to turn.
Thanks for the comments Kurt! When you say you had to change them all to full human control, are you talking about some of your own HQs that you had on computer control, and didn't like the way they were performing? If so, what aspect of their performance was the problem? Or am I misinterpreting what you mean?

The Japanese Kill Point Multiplier has been modified in the latest version. It used to be implemented only at year changes, starting in 1944. At those times, you would see big jumps in the Japanese score. In the latest version, the multiplier gradually increases month by month, starting in 1943. So you should see a slight bump in the Japanese score at the start of every month.


Oh! Good to know about the multiplier.

About the full control. Sorry if I was not quite clear. I know that is annoying to people at times. I started a Human vs Computer. I am playing allies. All of my HQs started at Computer Controlled. So I had to change them. If that's not what you were fixing, I apologize and am a damn fool for not figuring it out. [:D]
"Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit" John III Sobieski as he entered Vienna on 9/12/1683. "I came, I saw, God conquered."
He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

No worries Curt! Yeah I tried to stamp out starting with computer controlled HQs when playing as a human. I see I haven't got that all sorted out yet...[:)]
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

Hi Rich,

short reply:

misspelled Andaman Islands near Rangoon.

Attack on AFB usually yielded at least some damaged ac. But I may remember wrongly.

From now on I start numbering my points, easier to refer to:

3.1 12/13/42 T sub (brit) appeared in Frisco not in Colombo, its home base.

3.2 12/20/42 Jap LCU capitulate very fast. Air raids on air field still not effective, OK on LCU.

3.3 01/24/43 Brit CV F4 sqn should be able to change to Corsair as they were the first to fly them from CVs.


3.4 Leaving production on computer ctrl: Changed 1 sqn Hurricane to Spitfire, computer changed it back.

P-38G arrived but factories keep on production of P39 & P40, only 1 new one producing P38s

3.5 02/14/43 VMF F4F change to Seafire possible but not to F4U Corsairs!

Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

Zeke,

Thanks for continuing to look for issues; it's a big help.

3.1 I tested this and the "T" showed up in Colombo as expected. Was Colombo isolated at the time?

3.2 The old code unfairly protects LCUs with low readiness, I have tweaked this a bit, so that a decimated, low readiness LCU can be destroyed a little quicker than previously. The retreat / surrender code for Japan is unchanged; it is still hard to get them retreat and they will commit suicide rather than surrender, but they can be destroyed.

3.3 Right now the British CVs need to wait for the F4U-4 to become available in Sep 1944. This is the same in all current versions. I think the earliest use of British Corsairs in the Pacific was around April 1944; I'll see if I can improve this.

3.4 If the Spitfire pool is very low, the code for computer production will revert back to the earlier aircraft, in this case, the Hurricane. This in general helps the AI by using earlier aircraft if a more current aircraft pool gets decimated. Regarding Lightnings, historically, when the P-38G started arriving in the Pacific in significant numbers in about Sep 42, both the P-39 and P-40 were still increasing their numbers. The P-39 didn't phase out of the Pacific until around June 1944, and the P-40 stayed on into 1945. On automatic aircraft factory mode, I have the P-39 upgrading to the P-38J in August 1943, and the P-40 upgrades to the P-51B in August 1943. Of course, as a human player, you can upgrade your P-39s and P-40s earlier, but for the AI, I wanted something a little more historical.

3.5 Yes, this is an existing problem that needs to be fixed. I'll see what I can do.

Thinking more about the F4F from an earlier post, I think we should keep its range at 2, as this is the same in every previous version of the game, and is historical.

Regards,

Rich
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: KurtC

I started a game human vs AI (I'm playing US and Allies) and the computer control thing was the same. Had to change them all to full human control. Other than that, not really any complaints except some turns the Japanese scoring jumps fairly largely with no reasoning I can fathom. This was in 1943 from turn to turn.

There are undocumented changes in scoring beyond the multiplier feature.
Post Reply

Return to “Pacific War: The Matrix Edition”