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: 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 >> RE: Pac 3.2.15 test Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/8/2019 5:19:58 AM   
bradk

 

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

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne

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've tested four of your scenarios and as a comparison GG 1.1, Matrix 3.2, and your 3.2.9 with obca1705. I have posted the results of those tests to Pacific War Update. So I really do know how close you are...(n't).

The game not running on your simulation of historical oil is a fatal problem. Reason enough not to let this version out in public.





< Message edited by bradk -- 7/8/2019 5:23:46 AM >

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 31
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/8/2019 5:27:41 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

ORIGINAL: bradk
I've tested four of your scenarios and as a comparison GG 1.1, Matrix 3.2, and your 3.2.9 with obca1705. I have posted the results of those tests to Pacific War Update. So I really do know how close you are...(n't).

The game not running on your simulation of historical oil is a fatal problem. Reason enough not to let this version out in public.


Brad, thanks for running the scenario a few times; it's helpful to get constructive feedback. As I posted over on "Pacific War Update" on 26 June, this problem had been driving me crazy for some time. I finally found (and fixed on 26 June) a couple of big issues in GGs original routine convoy coding.

The first was in some faulty logic comparing cargo carrying capacity in a current ship unit versus required pickup or delivery requirement versus ship availability in the pool that caused additional ships to randomly appear in the pool, particularly in the tanker ship pool.

The second was a flaw in the number of ships selected in the routine convoy system. It is also random. If the code comes upon a ship unit with, for example, only one ship, and there are no ships in the pool, then only that single ship is used to meet the need. If this happens when the code is trying to pick up resources from, say Shanghai (95), then much resource, or oil, is not picked up. This issue really made for an unstable routine convoy system. The other thing this does is only use the number of ship units equal to the number of, say oil sites, that are available for collection. So many of the ship units never get used in the routine convoy system.

I'm now seeing a much more stable routine convoy system, and as a result, more stable oil and resource levels.

Brad, don't forget, this game is free, we only have maybe a dozen people currently involved with this game. Why wouldn't we put it out there for folks to try? There are many other updates besides routine convoy. Getting the few folks out there who have time to help and test the updates is a great benefit.

I think I've already fixed the routine convoy / oil & resource problem, and am currently testing it, plus working on other things...

So no, you have no idea what I'm working on, no clue what's been fixed, and no clue how close I am to getting things working right. Stop saying you do. Are you standing over my shoulder watching me work on this?? Thankfully, No!

< Message edited by Rich Dionne -- 7/8/2019 5:29:11 PM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 32
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/8/2019 10:08:27 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Your 3.2.9 (2016) worked with an appropriate obc. Even oil. Best PBEM game ever. Your 3.2.15 (2019) doesn't work. No looking over your shoulder needed. Now, if you'd just look at 3.2.9 and put back the stuff Matrix took out during its "AI Cheats" tantrum we'd have a game everyone could play and enjoy. (During my testing it was a joy to see GG 1.1 take DEI and approaches BY APRIL without extra PPs, without free LCU activation, without weakened Allies LCUs, without a Max Help setting, and without any other nuclear bandaid "solutions".)

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/8/2019 10:20:42 PM >

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 33
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/8/2019 10:25:37 PM   
bradk

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rich Dionne


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.



Its entirely possible I was concentrating on oil going above and below 1000 and not paying attention to resources. If so, then an AI opponent ran IJ out of BOTH oil AND resources. How embarrassing. How's a human to improve on THAT performance?

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 34
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/8/2019 11:42:50 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk
Your 3.2.9 (2016) worked with an appropriate obc. Even oil.


There's too much important stuff in 3.2.10 through 15 (I looked back through the list). You're hyper-focused on the oil issue in 3.2.15; yes, that was a major issue, but it's being fixed.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 35
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/9/2019 1:41:40 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
No, Rich, YOU'RE hyper-focused on the oil issue. Historical oil, historical oil, historical oil, that's all you've said for years. Even have a oil study in the game material.

Adjusting base quantities was't enough. Or changing the number of TKs by a little bit. No, no, you had to change the whole convoy and consumption system, adding hundreds of extra sinking of hundreds of extra TKs that for some reason only get loaded 15% or 20% of capacity so you could get historical oil only to prove the game still doesn't produce historical oil a lot of the time and when it does the game won't run.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 36
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/9/2019 1:45:18 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
"There's too much important stuff in 3.2.10 through 15 (I looked back through the list)"

Every time I read that list, after almost every line I think "Hey Rich, over there, the crippled AI, what about that?"

Its ludicrous that I, someone who doesn't play AI, is an advocate for fixing it while you, who I've never seen ask for or accept a PBEM game, ignore it.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 37
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/9/2019 1:53:05 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
In case anyone other than Rich and I are still reading this, here's the oil performance that's the point of contention. These are all Ai vs AI

I'm wondering if sinkings are even related to oil reserves. Don't see correlation.

And its a puzzle why the same input results in drastically different output.








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bradk -- 7/9/2019 1:55:27 AM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 38
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/9/2019 2:13:04 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
"Brad, thanks for running the scenario a few times; it's helpful to get constructive feedback."

Lots of hours in those few times. Fortunately I could let two run at a time and do other stuff and come back and check on them every so often. (Which is why some of the dates don't exactly match.)

I figure the voluminous data provided is plenty constructive. I'd drop the commentary, which is apparently your objection, if I though the point would still be made.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 39
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/9/2019 2:37:55 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

In case anyone other than Rich and I are still reading this, here's the oil performance that's the point of contention. These are all Ai vs AI

I'm wondering if sinkings are even related to oil reserves. Don't see correlation.

And its a puzzle why the same input results in drastically different output.


You have no argument with me on this Brad.

I agree it is a major issue. As I said, I finally found the 2 bugs causing this (for once, I didn't cause these), one would randomly add significant numbers of ships to the pool because of an original code byte vs. word comparison error, and the other would randomly prevent oil and resources from being properly added to the stockpiles. They were causing the haphazard results you show above. Thankfully, I've fixed these and am currently testing, things are making sense now.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 40
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/13/2019 6:15:03 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
Hi Rich, sorry for late reply, see my reply marked /// below:
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? /// No

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. ///OK

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. /// OK

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. /// low pool was the case

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

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. /// yes please

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 41
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/13/2019 6:16:26 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
4.1 3/14/43 automatic Replenish TF created for Brit Echodale, disappeared. Manual TF creation OK.

4.2 Amph TF lost 4 of 12 AP (100) but the LCU (>1100) lost nothing and landed in full strength.

4.3 Attacks on air fields start to work for both sides.

4.4 5/16/43 Beaufighter X attacking CVTF only with 500lb not torp @ range 3.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 42
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/14/2019 2:44:31 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

4.1 3/14/43 automatic Replenish TF created for Brit Echodale, disappeared. Manual TF creation OK.

4.2 Amph TF lost 4 of 12 AP (100) but the LCU (>1100) lost nothing and landed in full strength.

4.3 Attacks on air fields start to work for both sides.

4.4 5/16/43 Beaufighter X attacking CVTF only with 500lb not torp @ range 3.


4.1 I don't know why this happened. It could be an old bug. I'll look and see if I can find what's going on.

4.2 Yes, this is an old bug from GG versions. The existing code also doesn't account for ship bound LCU or aifcraft losses with sunk ships in the kill points. I've been meaning to look into this, but haven't had time yet. I'll see what I can do.

4.3 Great to hear it seems to be working. BTW, I didn't make any changes to this code; it's per original GG.

4.4 This is per original GG code, I believe. Tac Bombers flying beyond 1/2 their range carry a reduced bomb load. This also happens to the G4M Bettys.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 43
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/14/2019 3:53:55 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
I agree with range 2 for the F4F and TBD. Not really much question there.

We're dealing with 200 mile chunks of range at a time, 100 out plus 100 back. These are solidly range 2 aircraft.

Some mid war IJA aircraft were range 2 by Matrix, Ki61 and also Ki44 I think... where it wasn't so clear there were really range 2 aircraft. Close enough to range 3 they're listed that way in at least some of the scenarios in 3.2.15

Hmmm don't all torp bombers switch to bombs at some range?

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 44
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/14/2019 11:40:02 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk
Hmmm don't all torp bombers switch to bombs at some range?


Yes, correct! I should have said all torp bombers, dive bombers, and tac bombers carry a reduced load against naval targets beyond 1/2 their range.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 45
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/15/2019 2:10:59 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
I understand that this is how the game does it but was it the same in reality? I remember that in Pearl the attack was with torpedoes.




(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 46
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/16/2019 3:55:57 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Good question. I looked into this a bit. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor from about 200 miles out, and the Kates used both 800 kg bombs and torpedoes, which, to be carried, require the aircraft not exceed 1/2 its range in the game. IIRC, PW air groups can fly 150% of their range to attack a port, so this should give the Kates a max range of 4 to reach Pearl in the game. I did test this with TF1 attacking Pearl from 200 miles out and the Kates did carry torpedoes, although I didn't see any 800 kg bombs (maybe these require range 1?). So it looks like the game modeling may be fairly reasonable here.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 47
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 7/17/2019 2:59:25 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Believe TBD carries torps at range two and SB2C carries 1000 lb at range 3.

Don't know where I read this but pretty sure I didn't imagine it, but what an aircraft carries at long range is is the result of a calculation involving weapon warhead rating and aircraft load rating.


(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 48
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 8/12/2019 4:03:03 AM   
zeke99


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

5.1 5/30/43 Independence CVL with Hellcat & TBM, not in production yet.

5.2 8/1/43 still fighting A5M instead of Zeros, the Zero losses were not that high.

5.3 9/12/43 Lost General by Friendly Fire in air attack. Happens too often and never to the enemy. Old bug.

5.4 Tried airborne op but too stupid to make it work :(

5.5 2/6/44 Brit CVE work like US CVE, great :)

5.6 2/13/44 Airborne moved from one base to an other, however not sure how or if I did it.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 49
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 8/17/2019 5:50:19 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

Update

5.1 5/30/43 Independence CVL with Hellcat & TBM, not in production yet.

5.2 8/1/43 still fighting A5M instead of Zeros, the Zero losses were not that high.

5.3 9/12/43 Lost General by Friendly Fire in air attack. Happens too often and never to the enemy. Old bug.

5.4 Tried airborne op but too stupid to make it work :(

5.5 2/6/44 Brit CVE work like US CVE, great :)

5.6 2/13/44 Airborne moved from one base to an other, however not sure how or if I did it.


Thanks for the continuing input Zeke!

5.1 Got it! This has been fixed and will be included in the next issue.

5.2 How many A6M2s and A6M5s do you have in the pools? This is right around the introduction of the A6M5, so if your A6M2 pool is very low, you may get some groups temporarily converting to A5M.

5.3 Yes, this has been there for a long time. I've never looked into this, but I'll see if I can find it in the code and see what's going on.

5.4 Sorry you're having trouble with this. Hopefully, this will help:

For paratroop movement to occur:

1) Starting base must have must have an air transport air group located there.
2) Starting base must have fuel and supply > 20x operational aircraft in air transport air group.
3) Starting base must have its target (keystroke "b") = destination base
4) Destination base must be withing range of air transport air group (if enemy base), or 2x range (if friendly base)
5) If destination base is an enemy base, it must be isolated
6) Paratroop LCU must be located at same base as airlift airgroup
7) LCU must be a parent unit (not a subordinate units)
8) LCU must be a paratroop type unit (detachment # (unit) set = 255)
9) Paratroop LCU must have readiness >= 95
10)If LCU is too big for airlift airgroup, then there must be an available LCU slot for a new subordinate paratroop LCU

5.5 Excellent!

5.6 See response to 5.4 above. If your starting base has a base target set, and has an air transport group and paratroop LCU located there, the LCU will airlift to the target friendly base. Perhaps this is what you are seeing.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 50
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 8/23/2019 12:13:14 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
re 5.2 I tried to attach a screen shot here and in the email I sent you but there is no option for it.

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 51
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 8/23/2019 10:14:02 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Correction: My identification of exe 3.2.9 are incorrect. The exe involved is 3.2 modified for only kill points.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 52
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 9/13/2019 2:08:23 PM   
stljeffbb

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
Hello everyone...I am running AI vs. AI games overnight with 3.2.15. In one game tested, Oil has not been a problem for the Japanese, Resources have. However, I don't see this as a problem, just one way the game plays out. There are a couple things I did notice.

- The Japanese have nearly conquered China, with just Nanning left, and only two Chinese divisions there, however, the KMT have taken over San Francisco! Many Chinese divisions are stacked there.

- I am developing a scenario where the Japanese actually invade Oahu, so I too have noticed (about 175 times to date) the notion that only bombs are being dropped at Pearl on Dec 7. A "dirty" fix vs. AI is to just use the editor to temporarily increase the B5N range to 6. The results are more striking. I should mention that my latest overnight tests are "stock" (except for the B5N temporary fix) and NOT my scenario.

- Japanese AI very aggressive, as I think it should be. Japan briefly took over Darwin (I happened to notice it as I am mostly not sitting in front of the screen), but that didn't last too long.

Game is currently late Feb 46...USA has launched a few Atom Bombs and just invaded Okinawa and nearby islands.

Regards,

Jeff

< Message edited by stljeffbb -- 9/13/2019 2:11:01 PM >

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 53
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 9/17/2019 12:41:34 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 415
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
6.1 2/27/44 Problem with Port Moresby ship passage. TF get diverted around Australia although Japs have no Air Zones there.

6.2 Brit CVE TF finally did air attack on LCU. However icon used was P47, not F6 as on board.

6.3 Regarding CVE, would it be possible to restrict fighter to F4’s?

6.4 4/24/44 Replenish TF does not work.

6.5 Jap TF with CD symbol but number of ships is 0?

6.6 5/1/44 first US air supply flown although many DC3 sqns around.

6.7 5/22/44 TTF still getting stuck on the way to Port Moresby coming form North although not Japs around.

6.8 Dutch K XIV subs do not attack.

6.9 Landed in Philli and Phil Guerrilla appeared with troops, by design?

(in reply to stljeffbb)
Post #: 54
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 9/22/2019 8:19:31 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

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

Here are my comments:

6.1 This has to do with preventing AI TFs from taking suicide paths through Japanese territory. Did you see this in AI play or is this happening with human controlled TFs? This was some early code work I did; perhaps I'll take a look and see if I can improve it.

6.2 That's strange; I wonder if this is an old GG code issue? If you see this again, would you send me a copy of the save file so I can reproduce and study the problem?

6.3 This is the way the AI works. It only places F6Fs on the Sangamon class CVEs, as these were larger more capable CVEs, which did occasionally carry F6Fs IIRC. There's no code preventing F6Fs for human player controlled CVEs. I'd need to add some specific code. I'll see if I can do this without too much trouble.

6.4 Would you send me a save file where replenish TFs are not working; it'll help me diagnose the problem

6.5 Yes, I've seen this. I've added some code in the next version I'll release soon that should prevent this in future. It happens if the AI runs out of ships of these types.

6.6 I hadn't noticed this. I'll look into it and see what I can find. Did you notice this in AI play or human play?

6.7 Probably same problem as 6.1.

6.8 This sounds like an old GG code problem. I'll have to look into it when I have time.

6.9 Yes, this is intentional. If a Philippine base is weakly held, then the Guerrilla unit may show up. It also shows up to support Allies invading a Philippine base. There's only one unit, but it pops up where the need is greatest.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 55
Map/base misalignment on new map. - 9/25/2019 11:09:37 PM   
Tbilisi

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 11/2/2015
From: Deepinaharta, Texas
Status: offline
[image][/image]First of all, thanks very much for the update. The visuals alone are a welcome change.

I have a what looks like a map problem. The attached screen shot shows misalignment of the base/unit counters with the map locations. I see this at several places on the map although some appear to be correct. The .conf file being used is the unedited original. I haven't seen anything in this group or the Pacific War Update site so I'm going on the assumption that this is a local machine issue. Can you tell me what might be causing this?

Thanks for looking into this.

_____________________________


(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 56
RE: Map/base misalignment on new map. - 9/25/2019 11:16:08 PM   
Tbilisi

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 11/2/2015
From: Deepinaharta, Texas
Status: offline
It looks like the screen shot did not make the trip. I need to figure out how to add a .png to the post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tbilisi

[image][/image]First of all, thanks very much for the update. The visuals alone are a welcome change.

I have a what looks like a map problem. The attached screen shot shows misalignment of the base/unit counters with the map locations. I see this at several places on the map although some appear to be correct. The .conf file being used is the unedited original. I haven't seen anything in this group or the Pacific War Update site so I'm going on the assumption that this is a local machine issue. Can you tell me what might be causing this?

Thanks for looking into this.



_____________________________


(in reply to Tbilisi)
Post #: 57
RE: Map/base misalignment on new map. - 9/25/2019 11:20:57 PM   
Tbilisi

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 11/2/2015
From: Deepinaharta, Texas
Status: offline
The Map




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Tbilisi)
Post #: 58
RE: Map/base misalignment on new map. - 9/26/2019 2:28:09 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 427
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Tbilisi, old scenarios do not sync up with the new map, because the scenario files hold the base X,Y coordinates. Is it possible you're using an older scenario file with the new map?

You can see how the map changed (to make base inter-distances more accurate) compared to the old map by comparing old scenario base locations to the new map layout.

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to Tbilisi)
Post #: 59
RE: Map/base misalignment on new map. - 9/26/2019 3:20:59 AM   
Tbilisi

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 11/2/2015
From: Deepinaharta, Texas
Status: offline
Thanks, Rich. You are correct. I moved the save files from a 3.2.14 game.

Also, not to complain too much, but at least one of the functions displayed by left-clicking a base no longer work and the game needs to be saved and restarted to restore the function. In my case it affected the create TF option. If I select create TF I get no response. I did not try the function using a keyboard command. Might this also be related to the save files? I suppose I should just ditch the game and restart, but my curiosity was up.



_____________________________


(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> RE: Pac 3.2.15 test Page: <<   < prev  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

0.234