Pac 3.2.15 test

Pacific War is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

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
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by 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.
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

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.
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by bradk »

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?
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

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.
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

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.



Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

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.
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by bradk »

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.

User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by 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.
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

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.
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

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.
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by bradk »

Correction: My identification of exe 3.2.9 are incorrect. The exe involved is 3.2 modified for only kill points.
stljeffbb
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:02 pm

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by stljeffbb »

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! [:D] 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
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by zeke99 »

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?
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Pac 3.2.15 test

Post by Rich Dionne »

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.
Tbilisi
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:22 pm
Location: Deepinaharta, Texas

Map/base misalignment on new map.

Post by Tbilisi »

ImageFirst 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.
Tbilisi
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:22 pm
Location: Deepinaharta, Texas

RE: Map/base misalignment on new map.

Post by Tbilisi »

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

ImageFirst 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.

Tbilisi
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:22 pm
Location: Deepinaharta, Texas

RE: Map/base misalignment on new map.

Post by Tbilisi »

The Map

Image
Attachments
pac_000.jpg
pac_000.jpg (74.26 KiB) Viewed 41 times
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

RE: Map/base misalignment on new map.

Post by Rich Dionne »

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
Tbilisi
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:22 pm
Location: Deepinaharta, Texas

RE: Map/base misalignment on new map.

Post by Tbilisi »

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.

Post Reply

Return to “Pacific War: The Matrix Edition”