Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Pac 3.2.15 test

 
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 >> Pac 3.2.15 test Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/10/2019 2:51:36 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
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

Post #: 1
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/10/2019 2:53:19 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
forgot re 83) all HQ on computer control, does 83) only apply human vs human?

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 2
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/10/2019 8:22:48 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Thanks for the great comments Zeke! I’ll respond to these when I get home later today.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 3
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 4:00:59 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

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!

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 4
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 4:09:17 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

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.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 5
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 2:22:34 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
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 .

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 6
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 10:52:31 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

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 .



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!

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 7
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/12/2019 8:01:34 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 8
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/13/2019 8:44:46 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 9
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/25/2019 10:23:44 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
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???


(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 10
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/25/2019 2:22:02 PM   
Istfemer

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 7/19/2014
From: Kyiv, Ukraine
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 11
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/26/2019 11:28:01 AM   
KurtC


Posts: 1299
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

My known forum name is H Gilmer

He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
"There are no modern Nazis. The real Nazis in Hell laugh at the notion." - Gilmer, descendant of Poles.

(in reply to Istfemer)
Post #: 12
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/26/2019 9:46:21 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

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.

< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 6/26/2019 9:48:37 PM >

(in reply to KurtC)
Post #: 13
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/26/2019 9:47:48 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

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.

(in reply to Istfemer)
Post #: 14
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/26/2019 10:31:55 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Thanks for the comments, Zeke!
quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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!!

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 15
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/26/2019 11:05:19 PM   
KurtC


Posts: 1299
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

quote:

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.

_____________________________

My known forum name is H Gilmer

He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
"There are no modern Nazis. The real Nazis in Hell laugh at the notion." - Gilmer, descendant of Poles.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 16
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/27/2019 12:57:23 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

(in reply to KurtC)
Post #: 17
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/27/2019 12:05:19 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
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!


(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 18
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/5/2019 3:54:53 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 19
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 10:40:59 AM   
bradk

 

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

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.

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/7/2019 10:58:44 AM >

(in reply to KurtC)
Post #: 20
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 10:47:24 AM   
bradk

 

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

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.


The game has a simulation of historical oil levels. Well, the game doesn't run at low simulated historical oil levels. New factories don't open, existing factories don't expand, and its possible for oil to get so low even open factories stop producing.

AI makes only a cursory effort to defend convoys from subs. But if a human player loads up Nagoya with DDs and DEs, and plasters the convoy routes with air - including pulling G3Ms and G4Ms from offensive activity for ASW work - there is negligible effect on the amount of oil. IJ just plain shuts down and the game isn't playable. Yes, it is unsuitable for your PBEM with Zeke.

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/7/2019 10:59:58 AM >

(in reply to Istfemer)
Post #: 21
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 9:18:10 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

There are undocumented changes in scoring beyond the multiplier feature.


Why do you say that? If you think there are some other effects on scoring beyond the multiplier feature, why not just ask me rather than making statements unsupported by facts. I don't think I've made any other changes to scoring other than those that I have documented, but if there's a bug, please explain what you've seen so I can try to fix it...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 22
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 10:00:18 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

ORIGINAL: bradk
The game has a simulation of historical oil levels. Well, the game doesn't run at low simulated historical oil levels. New factories don't open, existing factories don't expand, and its possible for oil to get so low even open factories stop producing.

You got it partially right, Brad. Existing factories don't expand. New factories do open, but if they start with no production and they can't expand, then it's about the same thing. You're wrong about stopping factories producing. There's nothing in the code that stops existing factories from producing due to low oil. Please don't make statements unsupported by facts...

We must agree that oil and resources are important in this game, right? It's the reason Japan started the war, after all. So why isn't it reasonable to try to model this well? This is how the original version 1.22 runs oil and resources:

Date / Oil / Resources
7-Dec-41 / 53,000 / 50,000
21-Dec-41 / 31,805 / 32,799
4-Jan-42 / 13,855 / 18,104
18-Jan-42 / 8,614 / 2,835
1-Feb-42 / 4,229 / 3,035
26-Apr-42 / 6,146 / 18,290
6-Sep-42 / 4,551 / 25,938
10-Jan-43 / 3,621 / 56,606
6-Jun-43 / 1,854 / 211,009
9-Jan-44 / 846 / 655,059
29-Jun-44 / 3,029 / 880,399
9-Oct-44 / 3,254 / 999,969
1-Jan-45 / 4,400 / 1,031,162
25-Jun-45 / 4,115 / 1,049,592
6-Aug-45 / 3,765 / 1,043,143
7-Jan-46 / 3,846 / 1,014,019

Does this look reasonable to you? Is this what you'd prefer to stay with? Not me, I know I can improve this. Version 3.2 actually rolled over the resource reserves back to zero!

This keeps oil flat throughout the game. It really reduces the importance of the submarine war if you can't affect the oil reserves. These values stay constant even after sinking 267 TKs (which is very close to my latest loss numbers, by the way).

Look at resources. Did Japan really expand its resource reserves on a straight line towards infinity? No! They ran out of resources and supplies also. Soldiers and Civilians were starving, factory production decreased. Here, resources keep increasing even though Japan has lost 1671 MCS (actually higher than my latest loss numbers)

So what's wrong in trying to improve this?

Yes, 3.2.15 is not ready for PBEM tournament play, but folks can still test it and help me improve it, rather than flatly rejecting it. I'm going to get this right, and I'm getting close...

quote:


AI makes only a cursory effort to defend convoys from subs. But if a human player loads up Nagoya with DDs and DEs, and plasters the convoy routes with air - including pulling G3Ms and G4Ms from offensive activity for ASW work - there is negligible effect on the amount of oil.


Yes, I agree with this. Maybe it's worth my looking at the code...

< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 7/7/2019 10:02:37 PM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 23
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 10:16:55 PM   
bradk

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk
The game has a simulation of historical oil levels. Well, the game doesn't run at low simulated historical oil levels. New factories don't open, existing factories don't expand, and its possible for oil to get so low even open factories stop producing.

You got it partially right, Brad. Existing factories don't expand. New factories do open, but if they start with no production and they can't expand, then it's about the same thing. You're wrong about stopping factories producing. There's nothing in the code that stops existing factories from producing due to low oil. Please don't make statements unsupported by facts...



Sorry. Oil below 1000 factories shut down. Thats a fact. Check your test files.

But that's hardly the central issue.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 24
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 10:25:26 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Resources is a different argument. Its never threatened IJs ability in any version. We're talking about oil here that kills the game for IJ.

Applying the historical scale to oil decline doesn't work in the game. We've talked before about the end result being what matters and games often may not have the ability to give historical output with historic inputs.

Most interestingly, after a significant - but a lot less than Matrix or GG - initial drop in oil, the 1705 obcs with 3.2.9 give a gradual drop from 20,000 or so to circa 6000 by Jan 45 in AI/AI. A human can do better but has to give up offense to cover the convoy routes. A good decision to ask a player to make.

At 6000 factories run but PPs are reduced. The effect wanted. And the result didn't even require putting in a system humans can't influence or sinking 300 plus TKs.

Now, a human Allies player could try to take back the oil bases to kill the oil. Wouldn't that be interesting? But oil is not going to just fall off the table automatically.

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/7/2019 10:34:17 PM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 25
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 10:32:20 PM   
bradk

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

Yes, 3.2.15 is not ready for PBEM tournament play, but folks can still test it and help me improve it, rather than flatly rejecting it. I'm going to get this right, and I'm getting close...



No you're not close. This isn't even ready for Beta testing. I was stunned you posted about it here.

Yet the error corrected pair of 1705 obcs, now 1706, ARE ready for PBEM play. Bill and I have done it. Oil even works. What those obcs need is an exe not crippled by Matrix during its tantrum about AI cheating. That's the game that's close to ready. We could put it out for PBEM play right now. But since most people play AI, what's the point?

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 26
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 10:54:44 PM   
bradk

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

There are undocumented changes in scoring beyond the multiplier feature.


Why do you say that? If you think there are some other effects on scoring beyond the multiplier feature, why not just ask me rather than making statements unsupported by facts. I don't think I've made any other changes to scoring other than those that I have documented, but if there's a bug, please explain what you've seen so I can try to fix it...




It seems 169k kills Jan 45 with standard multiplier indicates something else is going on with kill points. Especially since you indicated you wanted to make changes in basic calculations.... civilian casualties, aircraft destroyed on the ground (how do you determine how many reported destroyed were repaired?), y'know that sort of thing.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 27
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 11:20:52 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk
The game has a simulation of historical oil levels. Well, the game doesn't run at low simulated historical oil levels. New factories don't open, existing factories don't expand, and its possible for oil to get so low even open factories stop producing.

You got it partially right, Brad. Existing factories don't expand. New factories do open, but if they start with no production and they can't expand, then it's about the same thing. You're wrong about stopping factories producing. There's nothing in the code that stops existing factories from producing due to low oil. Please don't make statements unsupported by facts...



Sorry. Oil below 1000 factories shut down. Thats a fact. Check your test files.

But that's hardly the central issue.


Just tested it. It's just as I said. Loss of oil does not stop production; it prevents expansion of factories, period! Please conduct the test yourself if you don't believe me, and again, please be careful about giving factual information.

Loss of resources are what shuts down production. I tested this also. It has nothing to do with 1000, it simply subtracts resources to make stuff until it runs out. Test it yourself.

And these are actually both fairly central issues, at least as far as I'm concerned.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 28
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 11:29:23 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

There are undocumented changes in scoring beyond the multiplier feature.


Why do you say that? If you think there are some other effects on scoring beyond the multiplier feature, why not just ask me rather than making statements unsupported by facts. I don't think I've made any other changes to scoring other than those that I have documented, but if there's a bug, please explain what you've seen so I can try to fix it...




It seems 169k kills Jan 45 with standard multiplier indicates something else is going on with kill points. Especially since you indicated you wanted to make changes in basic calculations.... civilian casualties, aircraft destroyed on the ground (how do you determine how many reported destroyed were repaired?), y'know that sort of thing.

In Jan 45, the 3.2.15 kill multiplier will give about 50% higher total kills than version 1.22. So I'd say the values you are seeing are in line with my documented changes. The other changes are indeed changes I have made, but I documented these, right?

Mind you, I haven't been perfect in documenting everything, but I'm trying...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 29
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/7/2019 11:59:53 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

ORIGINAL: bradk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

Yes, 3.2.15 is not ready for PBEM tournament play, but folks can still test it and help me improve it, rather than flatly rejecting it. I'm going to get this right, and I'm getting close...



No you're not close. This isn't even ready for Beta testing. I was stunned you posted about it here.


Brad, you seriously have no clue as to how close I am.

I am indeed getting close, and it will build on the coding work I put into the routine convoy system in version 3.2.9 and the all the versions since, which are all superior to 3.2.9, by the way. I'm guessing, but I imagine you haven't tried versions 3.2.13 or 3.2.14.

I've always posted updates here at the same time as on "Pacific War Update" in case not everyone here tunes in there.

< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 7/8/2019 4:08:47 AM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Pac 3.2.15 test Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.168