Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements

 
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 >> New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 10/24/2015 9:59:21 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
After much pain and struggle, I’ve managed to figure out a way to edit the Pacwar EXE with the goal of finally fixing some of the long standing bugs, and perhaps even enhancing the game somewhat. This is a work in progress; as I’m sure you Pacwar veterans know, there’s lots to fix! I’ve uploaded a new version of the PAC.EXE (version 3.2.2) at the link provided below. Let me know if you have any trouble downloading it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t81db05i0ull3rq/Pacwar322.zip?dl=0

If you want to try it, first save your original PAC.EXE version (3.2) to a different name so you don’t lose it, and then unzip and copy the new EXE into your game directory (rename it from PAC322.EXE to PAC.EXE). I hope you like it. I’ve also included a SAVEA file to highlight the differences between the official 3.2 version of the game and my new 3.2.1 version. Here a description of the first set of bugs I’ve tried to fix.

Teleportation Bug: This old bug involved different ways of “teleporting” ships (including loaded cargo) around the map using a variety of techniques. The bug was recently well described by Istfemer on the Pacific War Forum (link below):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3664408

In general, the bug was based around transferring ships between TFs that weren’t in the same location, or disbanding a TF to a base that is not in the same location as the TF. My new version of the EXE should fix this bug. The new code prevents TFs from disbanding unless the base and TF are in the same location, and it prevents ship transfer between TFs unless they’re in the same location. Try out the new EXE (confirm it works) and let me know if I missed any “teleportation” techniques.

Replenishment Bugs: There seem to be many bugs surrounding replenishment. I’ve made an attempt to eliminate some of them, although I’m sure some still exist; it’s a work in progress. The new EXE fixes (hopefully) the bug that prevents carriers from getting refueled (generally when no aircraft replenishment is available). The new code also allows CV TFs to be replenished with aircraft if the replenishment TF is only carrying aircraft. You can look at differences between the version 3.2 and 3.2.1 by loading the SAVEA file. If you open SAVEA in human player mode, you will notice I have placed TFs in 3 different areas to test out replenishment.

The first area at hex 24, 25 shows a typical replenishment setup (containing both air and fuel replenishment ships). This should work OK for both versions of the EXE.

The next setup at hex 50, 19 shows a replenishment TF with fuel only. Version 3.2 has a problem with Air Combat TFs refueling from this replenishment TF (no refueling takes place). Version 3.2.1 should fix this.

The last setup at 37, 39 has air replenishment only. This type of replenishment doesn’t work at all in version 3.2. Version 3.2.1 should now replenish Air Combat TFs. Try it.

Target Priorities: I don’t know about you, but I have been often frustrated when my air base or Air Combat TF doesn’t attack a juicy target that is nearby, concentrating instead on an airfield, for example. In Version 3.2.1, I have adjusted the code so that if you set an air base target type (using alt-B) or set an Air Combat target priority (using the “F” key), you should now see the EXE giving a greater focus on the target you have set. This doesn’t always work, but you should see an improvement. You can try this by opening the SAVEA file again. In human player mode, as Japanese, adjust the target priority at your Gasmata base (near Rabaul). I have the target currently set for “Port”. Try adjusting this and running the execution phase for both Version 3.2 and 3.2.1. You should see some difference.

Zones of control: I’m sure you’ve noticed that the AI regularly sends Allied TFs returning to base to take the scenic route, through the Japanese Empire! The new 3.2.1 version of PAC.EXE should be much more respectful of enemy territory. You can see this difference by again opening up the SAVEA file, running the execution phase, and focusing on Allied TFs 50 (heading to Port Moresby) and 51 (heading for Darwin). Look at the difference between version 3.2 (living dangerously!) and 3.2.1. You will note in 3.2.1 that the TFs should try to skirt around enemy territory, although they may pause during their return to base; this is due to the close proximity of Japanese ZOCs (basically, this is still a work in progress and very hard to fix, I’m still unhappy with how close the TFs get to enemy ZOCs), but they should continue moving on the next turn.

I’ve also made a couple more minor fixes:

You will now get victory points for lost aircraft due to bombardment, either air or naval (Version 3.2 does not give points for this).

I’ve also adjusted HQ supply & fuel on-hand multipliers to 1000 to limit oil / resource disappearance during the routine convoy phase. This issue was described in my old forum post below:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3026840&mpage=1&key=routine%2Cconvoy�

I’m currently working on a major fix for the oil, resource, and routine convoy routines.

Try out version 3.2.1 and let me know what you think. Also, if you have a bug or enhancement request that‘s been driving you crazy for years, let me know, and I’ll add it to the list of potential fixes. Keep in mind; however, that I’m basically working with machine code to make these changes, and major enhancements, such as AI improvement, may be beyond my reach (although I may even try to improve that!)

Regards,

Rich


< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 10/27/2015 3:25:56 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 10/25/2015 8:56:28 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5310
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

You will now get victory points for lost aircraft due to bombardment, either air or naval (Version 3.2 does not give points for this).


Now that alone is a worthwhile fix. Much appreciation for the hard work.

_____________________________

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 Rich Dionne)
Post #: 2
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 10/27/2015 2:33:04 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Thanks! Hopefully I'll be able to keep at this for awhile and add some more fixes / improvements.

Istfemer pointed out that my version 3.2.1 didn't stop the sneaky submarine patrol based teleportation technique. Well, I just revised the link, and have uploaded version 3.2.2, which should now eliminate this bug also. Here's the updated link:

Sorry, Istfemer, I know you kind of enjoyed finding this one!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t81db05i0ull3rq/Pacwar322.zip?dl=0

As always, let me know if you find any problems, and if you have any hated bugs you want eliminated, I just may be able to help!

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 3
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 10/28/2015 3:08:55 PM   
wga8888


Posts: 380
Joined: 9/29/2010
From: Sachse, Texas USA
Status: offline
I am in my third game with Brad Kay who has been editing the exe to fix many of the issues introduced in the SSI to Matrix conversion. My issues as Allied was I end up with 15000 C47s in the pool, Japanese have an excessive number of fighters in the pool such that losses are of no consequence. I do not remember the others or the details of what Brad was doing. Another iteration was anticipated after our 3rd game.

I would like to get the two of you together to share ideas. Otherwise I have to choose which patch to use in the next game. [I took a two year haitus to play 8 games of Uncommon Valor and 3 games or War in the Pacific].

I am aways wary of those who want to clarify a game [wounds like what you are doing] vs change it to fit an agenda [what they did to War in Europe so Axis always win in the 3rd week of Oct 1942].

bill thomson; bill@wargameacademy.org

_____________________________

Bill Thomson
bill@wargameacademy.org
skype: wga8888
817-501-2978 CST [-6 GMT]

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 4
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 10/28/2015 7:19:15 PM   
Istfemer

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 7/19/2014
From: Kyiv, Ukraine
Status: offline
As far as I know, the only difference between Brad Kay's exe and original v3.2 one is the year when Japanese kill multiplier comes online.
Brad Kay edited the multiplier to activate in 1944 instead of 1946.

Most of Brad's fixes were made through editing of Pacwar scenario files.

(in reply to wga8888)
Post #: 5
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 10/29/2015 12:56:01 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Bill,

Well, I certainly don't have an agenda (Allied or Japanese), I'm trying to fix some bugs and issues that have been bothering us all for many years. I love this game and my only goal over the last ~15 years has been to make it a better game, if possible. I will certainly touch base with Brad; he has done much to improve the game. I think as Istfemer mentions, much of Brad's work has been around improvements to the OBC files, where you can significantly affect things like aircraft production rates, plus perhaps some factor adjustments in the EXE to adjust victory point multipliers, etc.

I am also interested in your comments about game issues, such as crazy aircraft production rates, because I may be able to make some tweaks within the code to alleviate this issue. I have also had a fairly long hiatus from Pacific War; somehow I can never stay away too long. I only wish I had figured out how to edit machine code long ago; I guess even old dogs can learn a few new tricks!

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to wga8888)
Post #: 6
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/1/2015 11:31:13 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

Bill,

Well, I certainly don't have an agenda (Allied or Japanese), I'm trying to fix some bugs and issues that have been bothering us all for many years. I love this game and my only goal over the last ~15 years has been to make it a better game, if possible. I will certainly touch base with Brad; he has done much to improve the game. I think as Istfemer mentions, much of Brad's work has been around improvements to the OBC files, where you can significantly affect things like aircraft production rates, plus perhaps some factor adjustments in the EXE to adjust victory point multipliers, etc.

I am also interested in your comments about game issues, such as crazy aircraft production rates, because I may be able to make some tweaks within the code to alleviate this issue. I have also had a fairly long hiatus from Pacific War; somehow I can never stay away too long. I only wish I had figured out how to edit machine code long ago; I guess even old dogs can learn a few new tricks!

Regards,

Rich


Correct. The only thing I touched on the exe was the date of the kill multiplier. That's because that's all I knew how to do!

I haven't worked on PW for a long time... a blessing actually because the next thing was LCU fixes in CBI, which would have been made ineffective by the Monsoon changes. With all the work that's been here I'm excited about getting back to working on PW.

Glad to work with you guys on this project.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 7
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/1/2015 11:37:06 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
What I've done with the scenario files still needs some fixes even absent any exe changes. In a couple games with Bill its been shown I went a bit too low on production of a couple of types of aircraft... BOTH sides. However, its pretty close to what I consider reasonable.

Certain things worked out very well, as examples, no factories for patrol or cargo aircraft. The auto production of one per turn of every active aircraft - even those without a factory - combined with preloading the pools and adjusting the number is to be activated airgroups seems to work.

Anyway, I'm very happy people here are working on things beyond my capability.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 8
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/6/2015 4:30:05 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
I’m currently working on a major fix for the oil, resource, and routine convoy routines.

You're talking here about IJ oil disappearing so quickly? I tried (I think it was your suggestion) moving the two Asian mainland HQs from a port location to an inland location. It seemed to work acceptably, that is, IJ didn't have an abundance of oil but didn't basically run out June 42.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 9
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/6/2015 11:50:27 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Brad,

Yes this is related to the issue I originally brought up in the following post:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3026840&mpage=1&key=routine%2Cconvoy�

I finally found the bug in the EXE: In the routine convoy code, the desired amount of fuel and supply to be delivered to a given base is first selected, then these desired amounts of fuel and supply are actually pulled out of the oil and resource reserves. Following this, the code checks if MCS is available for delivering the fuel and supplies; if not, these quantities are still gone from the reserve.

So I'm currently working to adjust the code so that only fuel and supply actually delivered gets subtracted from the reserves.

Pulling HQs away from ports prevents the routine convoy system from sucking down the resources without delivering fuel and supplies; but this is only a stop gap measure...

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 10
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/9/2015 11:10:12 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Yes, its a stopgap. Best I could do in the middle of a game!!!

Looking at the figures on how demand from bases is calculated, would it be possible to alter the demand formula so bases ask for less? There would still be some waste but might be easier than figuring out how to return unused oil to the pool amounts. I can't imagine any base needed 18,000 fuel points.

Even on a small base port size 4, 500 (instead of 2000) times port size is 2000 fuel points which ought to be enough even if TFs are formed there. I think....


(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 11
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/10/2015 12:22:50 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Indeed, actually Istfemer found the very factor for me, which I reduced from 2 to 1, and voila, you only need to supply 9000 to a size 9 port. This makes a big difference in routine convoy losses (the AI actually has a chance of finding the ships necessary!). I think I may have already put the 1.0 factor in my version 3.2.2 of the EXE. I still want to eliminate the possibility of loss altogether; I know what to do in the code, just haven't had time yet...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 12
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/10/2015 1:07:11 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
That's fantastic.

Suggest you be willing to accept some waste if necessary.

The "necessary" part is that small non HQ ports need enough fuel for TFs. Its very possible for a player to base several TFs at a level 4 port. This could especially be a problem for the Allies late in the game.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 13
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/10/2015 2:36:29 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Yes, there'll be a bit of a balancing act. But I think we can find a happy medium on what target supply and fuel levels are necessary at both HQ and non HQ bases. Actually, now that I think about it, the 2.0 factor adjustment to 1.0 only affects the target supply and fuel levels for HQ ports, the target levels for non HQ ports should be unaffected by this adjustment.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 14
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/10/2015 4:21:34 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Cool.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 15
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/10/2015 7:18:21 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5310
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

I finally found the bug in the EXE: In the routine convoy code, the desired amount of fuel and supply to be delivered to a given base is first selected, then these desired amounts of fuel and supply are actually pulled out of the oil and resource reserves. Following this, the code checks if MCS is available for delivering the fuel and supplies; if not, these quantities are still gone from the reserve.

So I'm currently working to adjust the code so that only fuel and supply actually delivered gets subtracted from the reserves.


Applause and thanks if you can fix this. I had my strategy in a PBEM game ruined because my National Oil Reserve dried up, and took my Preparation Points with it.

A thought: is it possible to do anything about Chinese LCU's being bombed to levels of experience that render them worthless, and they never train back up?

_____________________________

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 Rich Dionne)
Post #: 16
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/11/2015 12:46:18 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

A thought: is it possible to do anything about Chinese LCU's being bombed to levels of experience that render them worthless, and they never train back up?


I'll see if I can find this in the code. The Chinese should be able to train up like other Allied units. They may (and probably should) have limits in terms of maximum training level possible, and a likely low starting experience for added recruits...

What kind of drop in experience have you seen? and then you don't see any experience recovery? or perhaps a painfully slow increase?

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 17
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/11/2015 7:30:46 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5310
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

What kind of drop in experience have you seen? and then you don't see any experience recovery? or perhaps a painfully slow increase?


I've seen Chinese LCU's go down to 18 after repeated bombing casualties and then being reinforced with recruits back to TOE strength. When this happens I try to move them to the rear, which is of course a slow process. (PP limitations make it wise to move only one Chinese unit per turn.) In the rear positions, I do not see any experience increase, and I seem to recall from the manual that, unlike other units, they do not train.

_____________________________

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 Rich Dionne)
Post #: 18
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/12/2015 2:06:17 AM   
wga8888


Posts: 380
Joined: 9/29/2010
From: Sachse, Texas USA
Status: offline
Slowly all the strange things seen in game play are coming to mind. Some are being addressed.
-A TF teleported to some remote location
-My Allies gaining a Betty bombing group; or a number of IJN AKs under my control in a port.
-Excessive numbers of planes of certain type. My game in 9/43 I have 6000+ C47s in the pool.
-The loss of Calcutta is fatal to the Allied cause; it is the supply source for India and indirectly China. It cannot be successfully defended if the IJN commits. Before starting a new game, I find it best to ask the IJN opponent if he is dedicated to capture Calcatta. If he is, congratulate him on winning the game and just don't play the game. Same issue on other Replacement hub cities.

_____________________________

Bill Thomson
bill@wargameacademy.org
skype: wga8888
817-501-2978 CST [-6 GMT]

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 19
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/12/2015 1:08:54 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Capt. and wga, Thanks for the input. I couldn't find anything in the manual about LCU training, but I also remember something on the subject. I'll see what I can find in the code.

wga, I've been working on teleportation issues, much is fixed. Most of the other issues you mention sound like they can be adjusted in the scenario files, such as air groups or ships entering the game at the wrong base due to an error in the scenario file. Calcutta is a definite problem. I've been toying with the idea of adding Bombay to the base list (perhaps instead of Addu I.), make it the Allied Indian supply source, and prevent it from being invaded.

(in reply to wga8888)
Post #: 20
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/30/2015 2:29:55 PM   
Fishbreath

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 2/2/2012
Status: offline
This is excellent news. I was planning on running a real-time AAR at my website starting on December 7th, but now, I'm going to put it off until next year to give you guys some time to work. The updates you've made sound great, and I expect you'll do even better.

As always, if you need a mirror for file hosting, drop me a line via PM or email.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 21
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/30/2015 10:47:35 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Thank you for the offer and I very much appreciate you making my previous modifications available on your site.

In case you haven't seen the other thread announcing it, we're discussing the modifications here.

http://s15.zetaboards.com/Pacific_War_Update/index/

(in reply to Fishbreath)
Post #: 22
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 11/30/2015 11:26:10 PM   
demyansk


Posts: 2479
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
I was unable to get this game working with Windows 7 64 bit. What do u guys think?

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 23
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 12/1/2015 5:08:33 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
The Captain said in another thread only DosBox will make the game work under Win 7. Are you having trouble making it work with DosBox?

(in reply to demyansk)
Post #: 24
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 12/1/2015 10:12:12 PM   
demyansk


Posts: 2479
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
I used to have dosbox, I will try it again, thanks

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 25
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 12/2/2015 12:53:49 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
You said in another post you have XP on another computer. Have you made the game work with XP?

You can do that by making special config.sys and autoexec.bat files for the game. Take out everything you don't need, like joystick, sound, cd drive, etc.

(in reply to demyansk)
Post #: 26
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 12/2/2015 1:27:25 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: demjansk

I used to have dosbox, I will try it again, thanks

demjansk, for me, Dosbox is the way to go. It's the only way I can run these "classic" DOS programs anymore. Give it a try, and let us know if you have any troubles.

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to demyansk)
Post #: 27
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 12/2/2015 9:51:46 PM   
demyansk


Posts: 2479
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
Thanks rich, I had the game at one time, I still have the box, manual for War in Russia, I like it

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 28
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 12/24/2015 3:05:53 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
I just posted at the Pacific War Update website version 3.2.8 of PAC.EXE along with Brad's latest updates to OBC_D. A list of ongoing fixes / modifications is also included in the zip file. You can download it here:

http://s15.zetaboards.com/Pacific_War_Update/forum/3233699/

The latest version 3.2.8 EXE fixes / features are as follows:

28) Added impacts to air operations in the Monsoon Weather Zone (MWZ), similar to what already exists in the Arctic Weather Zone (although not as extreme). Existing code currently impacts ground operations in the MWZ: in the MWZ from June through September, LCUs that attack get a 75% drop in readiness, although a good leader can recover some of this readiness. The new code will now impact air operations from June through September as follows:

• If the target hex is in the MWZ, then each CAP fighter group has a 33% chance of aborting.
• If the origin or target hex is in the MWZ, then each attacking group has a 33% chance of aborting.
• If origin and target hex are in the MWZ, then each attacking group has a 67% chance of aborting.
• For carrier based air strikes, if the origin hex is in the MWZ, then the PP cost for launching the strike is multiplied times 1.5 (22 PPs for a full strike and 15 PPs for a half strike).

29) Altered the recently added MWZ and AWZ map indicators (see update 26). Now these weather zone map indicators will only show up when the actual weather impact is most prevalent (from October through April for the AWZ, and from June through September for the MWZ). This provides the benefit of teaching the players where these zones are located as well as the time periods when they are in effect.

30) Fixed an old bug that prevented switching the IJA 17th and 18th Armies from “Human Control” to either “Computer Control” or “Operational Control” starting in October 1942, when the 8th Area Army is activated. This bug was only seen in IJ Human vs. Allied AI (or Human) games (not secure PBEM). You can now set these armies to whatever level of control you wish without them being constantly changed back to human control.

31) Altered code to remove the restriction that prevented the Allies from providing routine supply to any bases in the range 140-167 (includes Perth, Cook Island, Nassau, and Kolombangara). These bases should now behave normally.

32) Fixed a number of newly created bugs around aircraft upgrades, including one that was allowing automatic aircraft upgrades and downgrades in the secure PBEM games. This should now be fixed. Also fixed a bug that was downgrading B-17s to Bolos in both PBEM and non-PBEM games.

33) Fixed another newly created bug that was allowing armor and other factories to be switched to aircraft factories.

34) Fixed the USMC aircraft manual selection list. You should now be able to select USN aircraft for USMC air groups.

35) Fixed bug that caused the following issue: when reading battle reports (accessed through circles, triangles and squares) and you right-click to exit, the map automatically centers on the Eastern U.S. base. The cursor should not move at all.

As usual, please let me know if you find any bugs or issues.

Happy Holidays everyone!

(in reply to demyansk)
Post #: 29
RE: New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements - 4/22/2016 11:27:05 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
I just posted version 3.2.13 of PAC.EXE available for download. A list of ongoing fixes / modifications is also included in the zip file. You can download it here:

Pacific War Update

The latest version 3.2.13 EXE fixes / features are as follows:

Version 3.2.13

50) Fixed some bugs and made improvements to the division / recombination / replacements for LCUs as follows:
Fixed the bug that prevented many detachment LCUs from recombining with their parent LCU or other detachment LCUs from the same parent. Both types of LCU recombination should now occur reliably at the end of each turn.

Altered the naming of detachments to more naturally match the size of the unit. As before, parent units always keep their original size designation (div, bde, reg, bn, etc). Subordinate units previously took a size one size smaller than their parent (e.g. a detachment bde from a parent div). Now subordinates will take a size designation that more closely matches the number of infantry squads (or AFVs for tank brigades).

Detachment units that divide will split into equal size units as before, but now both name designations will be altered to reflect the new size of both units (e.g. one bde sub-unit will divide into 2 reg sub-units, etc.).

51) In an effort to provide more detachment slots for the division of units, I have altered the code so that all LCUs permanently lost in the game (e.g. Gull Force, Philippine units, etc.) now become open slots for new detachments.

52) New code now prevents LCU detachments from receiving replacements (previously detachments received replacements if their number of infantry squads dropped below 30). If due to combat, the LCU detachment infantry and AFV numbers drop below 10, these detachments will now combine with any other friendly LCU (parent or detachment) at the same base. Why was this done? To keep as many LCU slots open for LCU dividing as possible. This change will also encourage human players to keep their detachments closer to their parent LCU. This change does not appear to negatively impact performance of the AI.

53) As before, the size of LCUs will be limited to their TO&E levels when drawing replacements, but now new code will take into account the size of the parent and any detachments when determining whether the LCU can draw replacements. For example, a division that splits off a detachment brigade will not immediately start receiving replacements. The combined size of the parent division and subordinate detachment will both be considered when determining if replacements are provided. This change does not appear to negatively impact performance of the AI.

54) The experience, readiness, and entrenchment levels of LCUs that combine are now averaged. Previously, these combined factors took the values of the LCU higher in the display list.

55) New code was added to simulate the impact of disease / starvation on LCUs that are isolated from supplies for long periods of time. If an LCU’s readiness is below 49% at the start of a turn, the LCU will start to lose infantry squads as the readiness level continues to drop. Infantry losses will increase from 0% per week at a 49% readiness up to 8% per week for a readiness level of 0%. This new code will prevent the unrealistic hold-out of LCUs for many months on end when they are completely out of supply with a very low readiness. Bataan, for example, won’t hold-out as long as previously, although 3-4 months after losing Bataan is still quite possible with the new code.

56) Prevented an increase in range of the Wellington from 8 to 10 in 1944. The value will remain at 8. Thanks to Istfemer for pointing this one out.

As usual, please let me know if you find any issues / bugs.

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> New Pacific War Bug Fixes / Enhancements Page: [1] 2   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

0.176