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: B-Mod, Last Update

 
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: B-Mod, Last Update Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/11/2017 7:35:03 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
thanks for checking

all very odd - looks like it must be an install problem

EDIT : if that is the case any thoughts on what might have caused it?

< Message edited by sanderz -- 4/11/2017 7:36:14 PM >

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 31
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/11/2017 7:41:34 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I don't see any problems with Japanese production...nothing was touched that would affect that.
I'm not sure what the Tracker issues is, I'm currently 7 months into a PBEM with the same scenario and there have been no production issues in this game (I have several games under the belt amounting to several years and have never seen an issue here).

I do not use Tracker, so I'm not familiar with it - but maybe someone who knows Tracker can take a look?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

BigB

As Japan there seems to be no production of resources and other stuff - see AlessandroD's post in the Tracker section of this forum.

Not sure if this is a mod problem or a bad install - please could you check

many thanks




it doesn't seem to be a tracker problem - the actual game is not showing resources etc being produced - though oddly armaments/vehicles are

just a thought but if you are looking at a long running game that has been updated - rather than a fresh install - could anything have happened with your recent updates that could have caused problems for fresh installs? Only it seems odd that 2 different people seem to have the same problem

thanks again

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 32
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/11/2017 7:46:56 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
I agree that's very odd, I can't think of anything except a reinstall - just in case.

_____________________________


(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 33
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/11/2017 8:43:09 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
i've had a quick look in the editor

if you look at any device in scenario 199 then the most right hand fields (e.g. Resource out, Oil Out etc) are all set to ZERO

however if you look at scenario 1 (as a comparison) these fields all have values in them (e.g. Resources out 20, Oil Out 10 etc etc)

could this be the problem?

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 34
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/11/2017 8:56:36 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
That sounds odd - let me check that...


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

i've had a quick look in the editor

if you look at any device in scenario 199 then the most right hand fields (e.g. Resource out, Oil Out etc) are all set to ZERO

however if you look at scenario 1 (as a comparison) these fields all have values in them (e.g. Resources out 20, Oil Out 10 etc etc)

could this be the problem?



_____________________________


(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 35
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/11/2017 9:28:21 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Ok - I had a look after your comment, and indeed somehow those fields got blanked in an update (no idea how that happened).
What those fields do is define production of industry and resources.

So, I put all the data Back into those fields, rechecked it to make sure it was all there, then re-uploaded the corrected file into Scenario 199 on the website with a new extension to differentiate with the old.

It should be fine now, and sorry for the inconvenience.

B


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

i've had a quick look in the editor

if you look at any device in scenario 199 then the most right hand fields (e.g. Resource out, Oil Out etc) are all set to ZERO

however if you look at scenario 1 (as a comparison) these fields all have values in them (e.g. Resources out 20, Oil Out 10 etc etc)

could this be the problem?





_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 36
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/11/2017 9:47:03 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I guess I don't have the updated version.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 37
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/12/2017 12:14:00 AM   
AlessandroD


Posts: 362
Joined: 12/28/2014
From: Italy
Status: offline
Oh man, your support is fantastic, many thanks!

_____________________________


(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 38
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/12/2017 10:21:57 AM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok - I had a look after your comment, and indeed somehow those fields got blanked in an update (no idea how that happened).
What those fields do is define production of industry and resources.

So, I put all the data Back into those fields, rechecked it to make sure it was all there, then re-uploaded the corrected file into Scenario 199 on the website with a new extension to differentiate with the old.

It should be fine now, and sorry for the inconvenience.

B


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

i've had a quick look in the editor

if you look at any device in scenario 199 then the most right hand fields (e.g. Resource out, Oil Out etc) are all set to ZERO

however if you look at scenario 1 (as a comparison) these fields all have values in them (e.g. Resources out 20, Oil Out 10 etc etc)

could this be the problem?






not sure this has fixed the problem - i updated the scenario and ran a couple of turns

things have definitely changed in that the industry screen says resources etc are now produced (it didn't before) but the values of all production is shown as ZERO

any idea if this is still an editor issue OR if this is something that only rights itself on starting a new game

thanks

EDIT 1 : i'll load up a new scen199 and run the first turn to see what happens

EDIT 2 : On starting a new scenario the problem is indeed fixed

However the question is whether it is possible to fix games in progress?

thanks

< Message edited by sanderz -- 4/12/2017 10:29:21 AM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 39
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/12/2017 1:57:44 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Need to restart for PBEM, vs AI - it should auto-update in progress.

_____________________________


(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 40
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/14/2017 10:03:15 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Brian: Do you have a Guadalcanal Scenario?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 41
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/14/2017 4:34:12 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Hi John,
Why yes - scenario 195 on the website....


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Brian: Do you have a Guadalcanal Scenario?




_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 42
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/15/2017 3:18:14 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Consider it being used now.

I take it that I should do a separate install of the AE and then do all the downloads?

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 43
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 12:20:08 AM   
morejeffs

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 4/24/2013
Status: offline
Hi Big B..

Recently just started some games(vs humans). We have the production issue Do we need to restart or just update the scenario?

Thanks

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 44
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 1:38:34 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Update the scenario from the website - download and restart.

I'm sorry about the corrupted version that was up there for a few days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morejeffs

Hi Big B..

Recently just started some games(vs humans). We have the production issue Do we need to restart or just update the scenario?

Thanks



_____________________________


(in reply to morejeffs)
Post #: 45
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 6:37:45 PM   
morejeffs

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 4/24/2013
Status: offline
Understood...Thank you for your effort...Sadly our timing was a perfect bullseye on the bad files.

Will restart

_____________________________

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 46
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 7:47:37 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
In the desire to "fix" China, everyone seems focused on Chinese supplies. I'm not sure that this is the correct focus. The Chinese army was very short of supply throughout the war, until 1944. The Japanese army also experienced significant supply problems in China, which rarely appear in the game. In part, this is owing to the fact that most Japanese players expend much more supply in China than Japan did historically. This is not a problem; it is a strategic decision.

The real problem with China, in my opinion, is that the game does not accurately reflect the problem that the Japanese faced with guerrillas, especially near the Communist territories. I think that a better "fix" for China would be to increase the garrison requirements, especially in northern China. As the game is, Japan can effectively garrison most of China with the various "puppet" units. This was not the case, and large portions of the Japanese army were tied down in garrison duties and attempting to maintain control of the countryside and the roads. Increasing the garrison requirements (substantially... maybe as much as double) would limit Japan's ability to launch offensives in China in a way that would reflect the historical realities.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 4/18/2017 7:49:35 PM >

(in reply to morejeffs)
Post #: 47
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 8:19:03 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
I partially agree - a massive problem for the Japanese was garrisoning China in sufficient numbers to be effective - this proved all but impossible in reality.
As a matter of fact - B-Mod has substantially increased garrison requirements in China for both sides (representing guerilla warfare on the one side, and warlord reluctance to part with their personal troops on the other side).

Regardless, I will respectfully disagree about supply in China - as it relates to the game.
While Nationalist China wasn't swimming in supply in game as if it were Los Angeles or Detroit, The Chinese had enough supply of their own to wage war for years - which they did do.

However, in the stock game - China is usually conquered in any PBEM simply because China can't even supply the existing army that it has...it simply starves to death on it's own a few hexes from Sian or Chunking.

So as far as the game goes - it's not a matter of granting China supply levels to make it a modern industrial power - it's getting China enough supply to survive on it's own as it did in reality....

And as far as anyone is concerned about too much supply in China will mean a big American 4 engine bombing campaign against the home islands, There is no way to put enough supply in China to run an American Air Force - unless it is fed in from Burma or the coast.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

In the desire to "fix" China, everyone seems focused on Chinese supplies. I'm not sure that this is the correct focus. The Chinese army was very short of supply throughout the war, until 1944. The Japanese army also experienced significant supply problems in China, which rarely appear in the game. In part, this is owing to the fact that most Japanese players expend much more supply in China than Japan did historically. This is not a problem; it is a strategic decision.

The real problem with China, in my opinion, is that the game does not accurately reflect the problem that the Japanese faced with guerrillas, especially near the Communist territories. I think that a better "fix" for China would be to increase the garrison requirements, especially in northern China. As the game is, Japan can effectively garrison most of China with the various "puppet" units. This was not the case, and large portions of the Japanese army were tied down in garrison duties and attempting to maintain control of the countryside and the roads. Increasing the garrison requirements (substantially... maybe as much as double) would limit Japan's ability to launch offensives in China in a way that would reflect the historical realities.



_____________________________


(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 48
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 9:52:36 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I partially agree - a massive problem for the Japanese was garrisoning China in sufficient numbers to be effective - this proved all but impossible in reality.
As a matter of fact - B-Mod has substantially increased garrison requirements in China for both sides (representing guerilla warfare on the one side, and warlord reluctance to part with their personal troops on the other side).

Regardless, I will respectfully disagree about supply in China - as it relates to the game.
While Nationalist China wasn't swimming in supply in game as if it were Los Angeles or Detroit, The Chinese had enough supply of their own to wage war for years - which they did do.

However, in the stock game - China is usually conquered in any PBEM simply because China can't even supply the existing army that it has...it simply starves to death on it's own a few hexes from Sian or Chunking.

So as far as the game goes - it's not a matter of granting China supply levels to make it a modern industrial power - it's getting China enough supply to survive on it's own as it did in reality....

And as far as anyone is concerned about too much supply in China will mean a big American 4 engine bombing campaign against the home islands, There is no way to put enough supply in China to run an American Air Force - unless it is fed in from Burma or the coast.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

In the desire to "fix" China, everyone seems focused on Chinese supplies. I'm not sure that this is the correct focus. The Chinese army was very short of supply throughout the war, until 1944. The Japanese army also experienced significant supply problems in China, which rarely appear in the game. In part, this is owing to the fact that most Japanese players expend much more supply in China than Japan did historically. This is not a problem; it is a strategic decision.

The real problem with China, in my opinion, is that the game does not accurately reflect the problem that the Japanese faced with guerrillas, especially near the Communist territories. I think that a better "fix" for China would be to increase the garrison requirements, especially in northern China. As the game is, Japan can effectively garrison most of China with the various "puppet" units. This was not the case, and large portions of the Japanese army were tied down in garrison duties and attempting to maintain control of the countryside and the roads. Increasing the garrison requirements (substantially... maybe as much as double) would limit Japan's ability to launch offensives in China in a way that would reflect the historical realities.





Lol... we are having the Stillwell-Chiang Kai Shek debate all over again as to whether the Chinese army had sufficient supply or not. I think part of the problem is the bias on the part of Western military historians to accept Stillwell's position at face value and assume that Chiang Kai Shek was being difficult deliberately. I am more inclined to believe Chiang Kai Shek than Stillwell, since Chiang Kai Shek was much more familiar with the situation on the ground in China: politically, logistically, and militarily.

As to a major U.S. bombing campaign against Japan from China, that was the plan, at least initially. The supplies for this operation were ultimately diverted to the Chinese ground forces, if I recall correctly.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 4/18/2017 10:04:25 PM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 49
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 10:34:42 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Oh I'm trying not to debate anything, I'm just simply trying to point out what the game situation is.... and only as a game.

quote:


Lol... we are having the Stillwell-Chiang Kai Shek debate all over again as to whether the Chinese army had sufficient supply or not. I think part of the problem is the bias on the part of Western military historians to accept Stillwell's position at face value and assume that Chiang Kai Shek was being difficult deliberately. I am more inclined to believe Chiang Kai Shek than Stillwell, since Chiang Kai Shek was much more familiar with the situation on the ground in China: politically, logistically, and militarily.

As to a major U.S. bombing campaign against Japan from China, that was the plan, at least initially. The supplies for this operation were ultimately diverted to the Chinese ground forces, if I recall correctly.



_____________________________


(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 50
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/18/2017 11:15:05 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Oh I'm trying not to debate anything, I'm just simply trying to point out what the game situation is.... and only as a game.

quote:


Lol... we are having the Stillwell-Chiang Kai Shek debate all over again as to whether the Chinese army had sufficient supply or not. I think part of the problem is the bias on the part of Western military historians to accept Stillwell's position at face value and assume that Chiang Kai Shek was being difficult deliberately. I am more inclined to believe Chiang Kai Shek than Stillwell, since Chiang Kai Shek was much more familiar with the situation on the ground in China: politically, logistically, and militarily.

As to a major U.S. bombing campaign against Japan from China, that was the plan, at least initially. The supplies for this operation were ultimately diverted to the Chinese ground forces, if I recall correctly.




I am not really debating either. It is just ironic how our different points of view parallel those of Stillwell and Chiang Kai Shek.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 51
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/20/2017 10:34:16 PM   
DmitryZ

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 10/24/2011
Status: offline
Hi, Big B!
Thank you for your greate work!
Have a sound issue in separate WITP installation. The "first" WITP installation is working correctly, with sound. Intro of "second" WITP, with mod, is voiced also. The game works and all sound files present in their directory. But there are no sound in the game from the moment of main screen launching.
And, additional question, if I would look combat-save at other installation, could it cause the synk-bug? Sound is usefull for knowing if the damaged ship sunk, all other sounds in game are not so important:)

< Message edited by DmitryZ -- 4/20/2017 11:16:18 PM >

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 52
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/20/2017 11:40:40 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Hi DimitryZ, and thank you for the kind words.

Regarding sound issues, I have never encountered any with this mod, or with separate installs either.
As a matter of fact, after reading your post, I opened up a mod scenario on a completely separate install I use on my machine - and every sound and music trac played fine.

It's puzzling to me - but I have never seen this issue before, perhaps you might ask in the Tech Support thread about any known sound issues when having multiple installs...or perhaps someone reading this might pop in.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: DmitryZ

Hi, Big B!
Thank you for your greate work!
Have a sound issue in separate WITP installation. The "first" WITP installation is working correctly, with sound. Intro of "second" WITP, with mod, is voiced also. The game works and all sound files present in their directory. But there are no sound in the game from the moment of main screen launching.
And, additional question, if I would look combat-save at other installation, could it cause the synk-bug? Sound is usefull for knowing if the damaged ship sunk, all other sounds in game are not so important:)




_____________________________


(in reply to DmitryZ)
Post #: 53
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/20/2017 11:52:37 PM   
DmitryZ

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 10/24/2011
Status: offline
Thank you!
And what about possibility to look combat-save movie at other installation, without mod data? Could it cause any issues to your opinion?

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 54
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/21/2017 2:45:57 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
No idea really

quote:

ORIGINAL: DmitryZ

Thank you!
And what about possibility to look combat-save movie at other installation, without mod data? Could it cause any issues to your opinion?



_____________________________


(in reply to DmitryZ)
Post #: 55
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 4/22/2017 11:17:21 AM   
DmitryZ

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 10/24/2011
Status: offline
Repaired sound. Just re-updated exe-file and it helps. Looking combat-save at one installation and playing at other is bad idea: results are different, so, it cause synk-bug.
Thank you again!

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 56
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 8/4/2017 8:43:49 AM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
Hi Big B

I see there was another update to scenario 199 in late July. I have a game already started, can you give some brief info on what the changes were and whether they will apply retroactively to games in progress or need a new start to take effect.

Many thanks

(in reply to DmitryZ)
Post #: 57
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 8/4/2017 2:38:17 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Hello sanerz,
If you are playing against the AI, updating should occur automatically between turns.
If you're in a PBEM, I'm afraid those never update unless by Official Patch.

Changes were not drastic, I found the Chinese received about 100 P-51B's - so I added them; I put the Soviet T-34/76's back into the game, added 13.2mm AA MG's to the Momi class DD's (at start, Dec 7th, so they don't have to wait a year for AA).
Nothing too major....

Thanks,
B



quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Hi Big B

I see there was another update to scenario 199 in late July. I have a game already started, can you give some brief info on what the changes were and whether they will apply retroactively to games in progress or need a new start to take effect.

Many thanks



_____________________________


(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 58
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 8/4/2017 3:15:04 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Hello sanerz,
If you are playing against the AI, updating should occur automatically between turns.
If you're in a PBEM, I'm afraid those never update unless by Official Patch.

Changes were not drastic, I found the Chinese received about 100 P-51B's - so I added them; I put the Soviet T-34/76's back into the game, added 13.2mm AA MG's to the Momi class DD's (at start, Dec 7th, so they don't have to wait a year for AA).
Nothing too major....

Thanks,
B



quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Hi Big B

I see there was another update to scenario 199 in late July. I have a game already started, can you give some brief info on what the changes were and whether they will apply retroactively to games in progress or need a new start to take effect.

Many thanks




thanks for the update

i'm actually playing head to head at the moment so i guess that counts as PBEM




(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 59
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 8/20/2017 8:57:44 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Completed a major revision of B-Mod. The biggest changes affecting the game are in China.
After a long period of play-testing the game, this should complete satisfactorily making the land war in Asia realistic enough to finish the game satisfactorily.
Details can be read here. Read Me file

Hope you can enjoy.

B

_____________________________


(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: B-Mod, Last Update Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.266