|
Post by darkrenown on Aug 3, 2015 9:25:50 GMT -6
This is still happening:
(Raid on Enemy Coast)
Thanks! I am going through all the war scenarios to fix these things, but there are 7*7*10 of them . What nation were you playing? I have also had a bunch of these playing as Austria and fighting Italy - not sure if that would be the same set or not.
|
|
|
Post by vanagandr on Aug 3, 2015 9:51:38 GMT -6
Every once in a while, when doing a convoy raid mission, I'll sink all the enemy merchants, then I keep getting this pop-up every other turn or so. "Error in convoyEscortCheck procedure! Access violation at address 005AE853 in module 'RTW.exe'. read of address 0000039C" It can be irritating wading through 400 or more of those pop-ups while trying to just let the timer run out on the battle.
|
|
|
Post by darkrenown on Aug 3, 2015 10:33:10 GMT -6
Odd thing, and I *think* it's new to the beta, every design I open claims to have a narrow belt and if I try to save the design it'll claim it is illegal even though the error about the narrow belt not giving full AoN benefit is only a note, not an error. E.g. here I right click the Lissa I have building and open its design then try to save it without making any changes. Note that the armour weight does not change if you change the belt to normal. This means it is impossible to rebuild AoN ships as the belt cannot be reset to Normal in the rebuild design and it cannot be saved due to not being "legal". Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by darkrenown on Aug 3, 2015 11:27:24 GMT -6
I don't think the penalty for declining battles has increased by enough, if it has gone up at all. France can decline dozens of fleet/cruiser/destroyer actions for 30-55 VP hits, but they accept one battle where their sole, outdated, BC sinks my even more outdated CA and they gain 1800+ VP. They can coast along avoiding 30+ fleet battles and still be ahead.
|
|
|
Post by kallek on Aug 3, 2015 11:39:58 GMT -6
You're probably right about the raiding. The Torps are not that though. I tried with just one on each side and i seems like some other message is missing. Will try to find out which.
|
|
sage2
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by sage2 on Aug 3, 2015 11:53:33 GMT -6
I don't think the penalty for declining battles has increased by enough, if it has gone up at all. France can decline dozens of fleet/cruiser/destroyer actions for 30-55 VP hits, but they accept one battle where their sole, outdated, BC sinks my even more outdated CA and they gain 1800+ VP. They can coast along avoiding 30+ fleet battles and still be ahead. I agree. I feel like the penalty should be larger. For example, if you decline to protect a friendly convoy, the those ships should be considered sunk or captured with a commiserate VP loss un the 100s.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Aug 3, 2015 12:26:26 GMT -6
Agreed also - and with it, I think the VPs for commerce raiding should be brought up a little as well. Right now it's almost not worth accepting convoy battles or sending out raiders, since in the best case scenario you gain just a few VPs for the merchants sunk, vs. hundreds to thousands of VPs lost for the loss of a raider. There's still other reasons to raid of course - but a lot of the time it feels like the VP system is not reflecting the actual effectiveness of commerce operations and blockade. I think that also partly explains scenarios like the one with my game with Japan vs. France from my AAR - we were dead-tied on VPs but France was getting hit very badly on commerce towards the end, and perhaps the AI would've been more willing to settle for a negotiated peace instead of just letting their government collapse.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 3, 2015 12:49:52 GMT -6
Odd thing, and I *think* it's new to the beta, every design I open claims to have a narrow belt and if I try to save the design it'll claim it is illegal even though the error about the narrow belt not giving full AoN benefit is only a note, not an error. E.g. here I right click the Lissa I have building and open its design then try to save it without making any changes. Note that the armour weight does not change if you change the belt to normal. This means it is impossible to rebuild AoN ships as the belt cannot be reset to Normal in the rebuild design and it cannot be saved due to not being "legal". Yes, it's a bug in the beta. Reported earlier and handled. Thanks anyway!
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 3, 2015 12:51:42 GMT -6
Every once in a while, when doing a convoy raid mission, I'll sink all the enemy merchants, then I keep getting this pop-up every other turn or so. "Error in convoyEscortCheck procedure! Access violation at address 005AE853 in module 'RTW.exe'. read of address 0000039C" It can be irritating wading through 400 or more of those pop-ups while trying to just let the timer run out on the battle. Yes, it is most likely that there are no merchants left that is causing it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by jack54 on Aug 3, 2015 13:43:23 GMT -6
a minor issue.... on the map screen the tool tip is the same for both Zoom out and oil. Tool-tips both say 'zoom out'. (windows 8.1 at 1920x1080) The oil symbol works OK it's just the tool tip that seems wrong. (Sorry if this has been reported)
|
|
|
Post by eisenengel on Aug 3, 2015 19:31:44 GMT -6
Bug: Auto designer sometimes creates ships with zero fire control positions. Embarrassing for human player if unnoticed (or, as in my case, noticed in newest BB in the middle of a fleet battle), potentially lethal for AI if AI uses same auto designer.
|
|
sage2
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by sage2 on Aug 3, 2015 23:59:15 GMT -6
'List index of bounds' error when trying to open the ship build menu. I'll try to attach save...
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 4, 2015 0:16:34 GMT -6
'List index of bounds' error when trying to open the ship build menu. I'll try to attach save... Reported above, but thanks anyway. Sort the list on name and it will disappear.
|
|
|
Post by darkrenown on Aug 4, 2015 2:13:24 GMT -6
I don't think the penalty for declining battles has increased by enough, if it has gone up at all. France can decline dozens of fleet/cruiser/destroyer actions for 30-55 VP hits, but they accept one battle where their sole, outdated, BC sinks my even more outdated CA and they gain 1800+ VP. They can coast along avoiding 30+ fleet battles and still be ahead. I agree. I feel like the penalty should be larger. For example, if you decline to protect a friendly convoy, the those ships should be considered sunk or captured with a commiserate VP loss un the 100s. Penalty could also increase further based on the number of engagements declined. Decline one engagement? Well not ideal, but maybe circumstances weren't right. Decline 3+ in a row? The naval is ran by cowards and the enemy sails our coast with impunity!
|
|
|
Post by alchenar on Aug 4, 2015 4:35:24 GMT -6
Never mind that, a similarly important issue is: 'The Enemy controls the seas around West Africa! Lose 2 VP!'
Big Whoop. That should matter a bit more because right now there's no meaningful incentive for any Northern Europe nation to not focus entirely on that region, given that's where all the decisive battles will be fought. You need to be punished a bit more for leaving your colonies to the wind.
There should also be a bit more control over invasions of overseas possessions, or at least an event chain that gives you some warning that it's going to happen. Yes, you are the head of the Navy and not the Army, no, there wouldn't be an overseas invasion of a colony without the say-so of the Navy. You could do things like pick a target and then get a certain number of turns to establish naval dominance around it for the invasion, you could just get told that the army has a project and lose prestige if you can't support it, there's lots of options to make this part of the game more interesting and responsive.
|
|