Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

2 Bugs spotted V3.1

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> 2 Bugs spotted V3.1 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
2 Bugs spotted V3.1 - 8/14/2002 9:55:28 PM   
jjjanos

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 4/11/2002
From: Wheaton, MD
Status: offline
On the whole, I have to say that I think 3.1 is great, but I have spotted 2 bugs. Or at least one bug and one possible.

#1 - I think mentioned elsewhere, is the 7th Division starting under the 4th Army HQ.

#2. Non-ANZAC units are getting switched to ANZAC HQ. I had 2 US Divisions switch their HQ to ANZAC.

With most of DEI still in Allied hands, the IJN AI made a bold landing at Broome - which was undefended... my bad. I quickly rushed 2 USA divisions to Darwin to contest the IJA advance. I switched the HQ to SoWPac to get the US commanders. First time I activated the 2 US divisions, the HQ switched to ANZAC.

The AI is much more aggressive in 3.1
Post #: 1
Aggresive AI -YES! - 8/14/2002 11:53:24 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1072
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
I agree -just started a 41 Campaign, Very light damage to PH (1BB 50% dam 2 CA heavy damage 2-3 DD sunk / damaged) I took control of all theatres and concentrated first turn on India and corralling AP's in South Pacific for future use... When turn is over- at Hawaii, what to my astounded eyes should appear but IJN 2DD's, 3 AP's and a tender too!!! an invasion (although small) of Hawaii on the 2nd turn??? Of course Hawaii's defense battalion is on Oahu (???) and they land unopposed. I am currently trying to muster up some AP's to get to SF or LA (no AP's there, by golly-geewhiz-GRRR!)so I can push these upstart pipsqueaks back into the Pacific Ocean... If Kimmel wasnt getting sacked for incompetence for PH... lol, he's guaranteed going to Attu for sure now!!!! :p :p :p

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 2
- 8/15/2002 3:05:27 AM   
stretch


Posts: 608
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: The Dark Ages, USA
Status: offline
Ive played a game of 3.0 and 3.1 seperately and in both games the Japanese AI landed and took Broome. And in both cases remvove the troops immediately leaving it undefended for my re-conquest.

I also had trincomolee taken, and landings in the aleutians both games.

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 3
- 8/17/2002 3:12:15 AM   
Caranorn


Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline
Agreed on the high agressivity. I have had the Japanese take Broom once and evacuate as described (unfortunatelly I did not use SIGINT and thought it had a garrison, so I waited to switch two Australian divisions up North along with air support only to find an empty town). I get a landing along the Aleuitian chain almost every game. The Japanese also try to land on the Andaman islands a lot (and suceed most times). This time they even continued on to Colombo (SIGINT told me they targetted it, but with IJN short 2 BB, 2 CA, 6 CL and some 6 DD (all sunk off Rabaul within 3 weeks by a mixed ANZAC cruiser squadron and USN carrier reinforcements) and with at least 3 more BB and 1 CA damaged (off Timor and Celebes) and all IJN carriers and remaining capital ships busy invading Java and no noticeable air presence at either the Andaman's or Rangoon I never expected a move towards Ceylon. Now the japs have two elite divisions stuck far beyond support range with 3 RN carriers, 7 BB, 6 CA, scores of scouts cruisers and destroyers covering their beach head (they obviously could not take it as I had already shifted reinforcements to Colombo, though I had also withdrawn the original garrison for service at Mandalay). All in all, to me the Japanese agressiveness has been suicidal. Their headquarters are pursuing too many goals at once, finishing none and taking horendous casualties (it would have been worse had I not made a serious mistake when they landed on Timo (my carrier forces ran out of fuel and I had to pull them back before they'd become sitting ducks, my oilers had been left south of Guadalcanal). In may 42, Coregior looks as if it will hold out the rest of the year (the base has fallen but a large force, well commanded and of by now high quality is holding on stubornly), Java is under attack (but has dealt some serious casualties to the Japanese airforces, bombardment TF's and cargo fleets, not to speak of 150+ downed IJN carrier planes at the high point so far), Ambon has fallen (but it's Australian garrison fought for 3 turns before I decided to evacuate), Timor has been partially occupied (but Mac Arthur just launched the first counter attack and the isolated IJN regiment is not expected to last), Southern Celebes is still untouched and providing great reconaissance etc. All Japanese capital ships are either fully engaged, damaged or sunk. The only real setback for me is in the New Guinea area (I just had an entire transport force sent to the bottom off Milne Bay, IJN land based air is extremely strong there (now, it was not when they still had a fleet in the South Pacific).

I really think the ai is overextended and not using it's resources effectively (8+ carriers bombing Batavia and losing badly to 3 Dutch, British and US FG's is a rather sad sight).

And I'm just bungling through those games too, else they'd never set a foot on either Ceylon or Timor.

Marc aka Caran...

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 4
Two More Possible Bugs - 9/6/2002 2:37:13 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5314
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
I notice the 26th Cav. Regiment in the Phillipines is considered a "native" (non-USA) unit. Its experience is OK--rated at 60--but being a Filipino unit is a problem, because losses are not replaced. Historically, the 26th was considered part of the US Army. Most of the men were Filipino recruits, but the officers were American.

Also, the Allied aircraft have had their capabilities gutted. The A-20 Havoc's bomb load has been reduced to 12, and the B-26 Marauder's range has been cut to 3! Worse yet, all Allied fighters worth mentioning have a range of only 2. This hurts both in attempting to escort airstrikes, and in transferring the squadrons. Surely the P-40 had a transfer range better than 800 miles?

And speaking of the P-40, here is the second definite bug. I can't change any squadrons over to the P-40; it doesn't show up on the list of available aircraft. Since it is still the best Allied fighter at the beginning of the game, this is a huge problem.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 5
- 9/6/2002 5:40:08 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
#1. The US 7th Division was on the West Coast as of December 1941 (actually earlier) as a part of the 4th US Army. It did not leave the 4th Army until it was sent up to the Northern Pacific region and aided in the liberation of the captured Aleutian Islands, then it was detached for duties in the Pacific. I might make it attached to North Pacific for the PBEM games, with a house rule that it cannot leave 4th Army territory until 1943 because of the HQ switching bug for PBEM games.

#2. This bug is well known, however, OBC_A has the OOB set up for all Australian units that are to be switched to SW Pacific start off attached to SW Pacific. This bug only occurs in PBEM games, and OBC_A and OBC_C are designed to maximize PBEM play.

#3. I have never seen the US Divisions to ANZAC bug before. Was SW Pacific affected? This might be due to the fact that they were used to reconquer Broome, and might be a bug limited to that base.

#4. USMC Defense battalions are actually at their historic deployment. Most were located at Oahu. The original Pacific War had Defense battalions located at each base (even though they were never deployed there) primarily to stop a cheezy Japanese invasion. However, the newest versions are specialized either to cover AI incompetence (where the Defence Battalions will be depolyed) and making it as historic as possible (for difficult PBEM play).

#5. Agressiveness has increased, and I am not totally sure why. It might be due to unit experience, numbers of units attached to HQ's, resources avalible to the nation, and so on.

#6. Aircraft have been overhauled for 3.2. Range, dogfight as well as durability have been changed.

#7. You should be able to change over any USAAC (i.e., any ** FG) to P-40's, but you cannot change USMC, RAF, RNZAF or RAAF squadrons to P-40. This is purely a political institution, as it would be too easy to equip everyone with the very powerful P-40 and unrealistically dominate the skies too fast. RAF Wirraways will auto-uprgrade to P-40's, but that is the only way Allied forces (other then USAAC) can get them.

#8. Philippine AND Dutch LCU's now get troop, artillery and tank replacements. The 26th Cavalry was primarily Philippine Scouts, sort of like a part of the US Army, but not quite. Since they now can get replacements, it does not really matter that they are Philippine. I was also thinking about making the Philippine Division a Philippine unit, since 2 of its 3 Regiments were Scouts as well.

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 6
- 9/7/2002 2:45:06 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5314
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
On the subject of P-40's: Yes, I am able to upgrade USAAF squadrons. I can accept that USMC squadrons shouldn't fly them, (although the Cactus Air Force flew a version of the P-39, technically a USAAF plane). But the RAAF and RNZAF should have better freedom. Auto-upgrade from the Wirraway just takes too long, and my reading is that if the Allied player switches to some other plane in the meantime (like the P-39), the upgrade is no longer possible.

My basic philosophical position is that Pacific War is not simply a historical re-creation. It also shows what MIGHT HAVE BEEN, if a few leaders had made different decisions.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 7
- 9/7/2002 9:33:34 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
I did this because it was too easy to make the Allied air forces powerful. The P-40 has the ability to get through enemy CAP because of its good range, durability dogfight and cannon rating. Giving it, unrealistically, too early to the RAAF and RNZAF (they had to use the Wirraways for a long time before lend lease P-40's got to them) will just give them another leg up against an already easy to defeat Japan. Under the old system, the RAAF could be equipped with P-40's by late January 1942, meaning that Java and other critical islands to Japanese advance will be bristling with the most modern aircraft the Allies had to spare (when in reality there was not enough to go around, let alone any to spare on the RAAF). If I give the P-40 to the allies, it must be given to the USMC (limitation of the code). Since those that used the P-40 on the Allied side can still get it, without resulting in abuse of overusing the aircraft, then I don't see much of a problem. It will just make the Allied side that much more challenging and realistically spread out (relying more on the USAAC).

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 8
- 9/10/2002 2:48:00 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5314
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
You have some points, but consider these: In V 3.1, the P-40 no longer has the range for good strike escorting. The Hurricane II is actually superior to the P-40, except for the lower production, so that RAF units can be equipped with a plane to challenge the Japanese early in the game anyway. If there was a shortage of P-40's wouldn't it be better to simulate that by starting the factories off small, so that they had to "ramp up" for several months.

And the shortage may have been due to other factors. P-40's were actually supplied to the Dutch at Java in February 1942. However, Java fell so rapidly that one shipload of disassembled planes had to be dumped over the side, rather than offloaded and assembled. If the Japanese can be slowed down a bit in Pacific War, and they often can, it would be quite realistic to have Java bristling with advanced aircraft, as you put it so well. Except--the NEIAF units can't be equipped with P-40's. But, they CAN be equipped with Wildcats!

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 9
Bug in 3.1 - 9/23/2002 10:23:16 AM   
TheFryer

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/21/2002
From: Canton, MI USA
Status: offline
My dad has had a problem with Marcus I.
It cannot be attacked, the game seems to react as it the base didn't exist.

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 10
- 9/23/2002 10:48:42 AM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4402
Joined: 9/5/2001
Status: offline
Jeremey, can you give us a status on ver 3.2? I have a PBEM game waiting for it. I'm not looking for a set in stone date, but some indication of how the mods are going.

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 11
Re: Bug in 3.1 - 9/23/2002 10:24:42 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6567
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheFryer
[B]My dad has had a problem with Marcus I.
It cannot be attacked, the game seems to react as it the base didn't exist. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's in newer version and it's correct .
Players often used this small atoll as a Heavy Bomber base to bomb Japan mainland but in reality it was ways too small to support such big bombers .
So it got a zero port size and can't be attacked by sea and it's usable only as seaplane or Patrolbomber base.

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 12
F6F arrivals - 9/24/2002 6:47:01 AM   
chanman

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Westminster, Colorado, U.S.A.
Status: offline
Hi all,

I am playing the '41 campaign as the allies against the Japanese AI with max help Japanese. I have started to receive CVE's, Essex class CV's and just this turn, two CVL's. All with full complements of F6F's. But. I cannot change any of my factories over to F6F production. Shouldn't these carriers have shown up with F4F's or FM2's The AI needs all the help it can get, having F6F's "leak" out a little early, even just a few, can tempt me to take certain liberties that I really shuuldn't.

I can deal with the incredibly early arrival of 4xP47D's and 4xP38J's. But, having nearly 60xF6F's to play with this early in '43 is not really a good thing.

In addition, shouldn't the CVE's have started loaded with FM2's anyway? I thought there was a problem with the short decks on the CVE's that precluded deploying F6F's and F4U's on them.

Great game, though.

_____________________________

"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 13
Re: F6F arrivals - 9/24/2002 7:29:27 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6567
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chanman
[B]Hi all,

I am playing the '41 campaign as the allies against the Japanese AI with max help Japanese. I have started to receive CVE's, Essex class CV's and just this turn, two CVL's. All with full complements of F6F's. But. I cannot change any of my factories over to F6F production. Shouldn't these carriers have shown up with F4F's or FM2's The AI needs all the help it can get, having F6F's "leak" out a little early, even just a few, can tempt me to take certain liberties that I really shuuldn't.

I can deal with the incredibly early arrival of 4xP47D's and 4xP38J's. But, having nearly 60xF6F's to play with this early in '43 is not really a good thing.

In addition, shouldn't the CVE's have started loaded with FM2's anyway? I thought there was a problem with the short decks on the CVE's that precluded deploying F6F's and F4U's on them.

Great game, though. [/B][/QUOTE]

AFAIK problems known and update planned for next game version .
Especially CVE Limitation to F4F or FM2 is needed .

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 14
- 9/30/2002 12:26:38 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
I can't really give a date for the release of 3.2, as I have just started supply teaching (hoping to quickly evolve into a full time position) and am very busy.

I have been doing as much as possible in my spare time, but there is still a lot left to do.

Aircraft and Industry were the main targets in the 3.2 patch. Virtually every aircraft was changed in Dogfight, Durability and Range.

A lot of my newer, more reliable, sources base the abilities of many aircraft under or over represented in PacWar. Typically, most Japanese aircraft had slightly too high Dogfight, while too low Durability. Allied aircraft generally experienced improvements in all areas, especially in some early aircraft. The P-36 was a particular example. The RAF tested the P-36 vs the Spitfire I and was very tempted to take up the P-36 as one of their main fighters. The P-36 was also superior to the P-40 in all flying aspects except for top speed. Hawk 75's (P-36 export version) had enough range to escort bombers from Singapore to Bangkok (as a part of the NEIAF contingency sent to Malaya they escorted many Blenheim and B-10 raids on Bangkok).

Industry was heavily changed.

US industry was greatly improved, with much of it being sent to the Eastern U.S., and the new Central U.S.. Shipyard construction was also increased.

Japanese industry was greatly curtailed. Shipyard capacity was limited more to historic levels, along with Heavy Industry. Japan had heavy industrial regions, where most of the production took place, and was not quite as spread out as in other PacWar versions. Japanese industry is now more vulnerable to USAAC attack, as it is now historically concentrated into a few heavy industrial bases.

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 15
- 9/30/2002 9:03:17 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1566
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
I guess teaching supply has nothing to do with MCS, supply points, convoy routes etc?

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 16
- 9/30/2002 9:16:10 AM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4402
Joined: 9/5/2001
Status: offline
jeremy, is there anything we in the 'peanut gallery' can do to help?

Can we help with testing? Can we help with error checking the OOBs?

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 17
- 9/30/2002 10:31:30 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline
Just e-mail me at...

[email]jpritcha@hotmail.com[/email]

and I will create a mailing list to send out some preliminary OBC files. They are 'very' fragmented, but can send out the OBC41 as it is the most complete.

I will send the files out on Tuesday, so you have until then to send me an e-mail (sorry for those who see this Tuesday night!)

(in reply to jjjanos)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> 2 Bugs spotted V3.1 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

0.141