|
Post by Fredrik W on Feb 12, 2014 12:34:56 GMT -6
It has not been turned down. It can depend on the number of ships and formations in the game, especially on slower computers. There are more merchant ships at sea in the RJW campaign, which can make RJW campaign scenarios go somewhat slower on ultra fast.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 14, 2014 20:18:21 GMT -6
VP bug is still evident. Note that turn 19 save shows 271,560 Japanese VPs brought forward from last turn per the turn info tab. But the display on shows 152,060 VP. Previous turn also saved and attached-quit turn with just a ML run. Is this due to the VP charge for the 2nd Pacific Squadron being charged to the wrong side? Same turn as the decision for the Russian player, right?
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Feb 15, 2014 6:59:28 GMT -6
VP bug is still evident. Note that turn 19 save shows 271,560 Japanese VPs brought forward from last turn per the turn info tab. But the display on shows 152,060 VP. Previous turn also saved and attached-quit turn with just a ML run. Is this due to the VP charge for the 2nd Pacific Squadron being charged to the wrong side? Same turn as the decision for the Russian player, right? Yes, you are right! The AI is cheating and charging the player for its reinforcements! Pretty shrewd of it I must say!
Good catch! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Feb 15, 2014 7:31:36 GMT -6
Game was really improved a lot after last patch! P-A waters now much more dangerous for Russians! Thanks! Only couple of minor statistic screen bugs spotted, which don't affect gameplay: 2-inch hits don't count in ship's after battle statistic as light hits, though they are valuable for DD's. Yes that is true. However, there is a problem in that the number is used for some damage routines, and if 2 inch hits were counted it would overstate the effectiveness of the mostly worthless 2 inch armament. So I am afraid we will have to live with them not being shown in the statistics.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 15, 2014 11:17:47 GMT -6
Is this due to the VP charge for the 2nd Pacific Squadron being charged to the wrong side? Same turn as the decision for the Russian player, right? Yes, you are right! The AI is cheating and charging the player for its reinforcements! Pretty shrewd of it I must say!
Good catch! Thanks!
HEY! That's not fair! 460k VP by June-I'm kicking mucho butt in that campaign, too. I tried to 'mod' the crf file by copying the format from original SAI North Sea campaign, and erased the ";1" at the end, but that caused problems, so I reverted to the original. Would it work if I made the VP values negative? On a sort-of related note, a campaign editor sure would be nice (hint, hint). Or at least an explanation of the cam and crf files for modders. I can follow most of it, at least enough to be really dangerous. I have a neat fictional Med campaign idea...
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Feb 15, 2014 11:30:36 GMT -6
It is not the crf-file that is wrong, it is a bug in the code, so editing the crf-file will not help. What you can do to compensate is to edit the VP values in the savefile. An update that fixes the problem is in the works.
I will think about the campaign editor. Editing campaigns is complicated stuff though, and not for the faint hearted...
|
|
|
Post by alex on Feb 18, 2014 13:10:58 GMT -6
Posible bug with protected cruisers. I found that protected cruisers do not have flooding after hits on the engines room (waterline) area. I tryed several times and have the same results - no flotation changed after 6-inches hits. It looks like 'protected cruiser' flag does not work properly and game calculating result for light cruisers from WWI period: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Feb 18, 2014 15:23:16 GMT -6
New spotting: If minelaying objective is too close to base point, minelayer starts her mission automatically in first minutes of scenario, so player can't choose right direction Attachment DeletedAlso the question: does superstructure damage affects maximum speed lineary, or there are some random "hidden events"? In campaign Novik lost 10 knots of her speed after 1-3 superstructure medium/light hits 2 times, but in test suicidal battle she sank bravely at 19 knots with completely destroyed superstructures. In all 3 battles there were no any "machinery damage" or "funnel topples" messages.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Feb 18, 2014 19:59:35 GMT -6
In my oppinion the minelaying operations is a great cheat for player. The fleets in RJW period did not create so much minefields like it possible in the game. How much mines were realy in Port Arthur storage?
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Feb 18, 2014 21:26:38 GMT -6
In my oppinion the minelaying operations is a great cheat for player. The fleets in RJW period did not create so much minefields like it possible in the game. How much mines were realy in Port Arthur storage? Mines sank at least as many warships as were lost to gunfire and more than by torpedoes and the Russian's had between 1300-1500 mines in stock at Port Arthur when the war broke out. There were over thirty Russian defensive minefields laid off Port Arthur, Pigeon Bay and Dalny up to August 1904 and the Japanese laid almost as many. Olender in the Russo-Japanese Naval War 1904-1905 has a detailed map of the assorted mine belts laid by both sides and charts the locations of the 17-ships sunk by mines in that area. The Japanese also laid extensive defensive minefields to protect their Elliot Islands anchorage and the Russians conducted considerable defensive mining in the approaches to Vladivostok. Mines in the game are no cheat if you look at what actually happened. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Feb 18, 2014 22:23:47 GMT -6
Gornik wrote: This happens because the selected mine location is too close to the start point and the trigger radius is about 5000 yards. As the Russian's you can safely push your minefields further out (say 6-7 NM so that the mine layers can accelerate to cruise speed before dropping their mines). After a couple of turns the Japanese AI will see a permanent Russian minefield around the harbour entrance that should keep them from getting uncomfortably near the roadstead so there is really little requirement to lay your mines that close.
There is a considerable amount of randomization built into the hit routines and the effects are also variable according to whether hits are from HE, SAP or AP ammunition. Also there are range variables to reflect angle of fall and other factors like remaining velocity (and so armour penetration). Structure damage may not actually cause the loss of the ship even at 100% but total structural loss may increase the fire risk and slow the target vessel even without critical hit messages regarding funnels and ventilators. SAI models some 38 different types of hits before factoring in projectile size, type, range, fire probabilities and defensive armour arrangements so drawing hard and fast conclusions from a couple of actions is difficult.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Feb 19, 2014 2:47:52 GMT -6
Mines in the game are no cheat if you look at what actually happened. Actually Yenisei and Amur placed 2000 mines (Yenisei - 836, Amur - 1158) [V. Ya. Krestiannikov. Naval mines warfare around Port Arhtur. 2006 (In Russian)]. It is only 8 minefield operations in the game terms (2000/250 = 8). But in the game you can use it each turn and placed more than 25000 mines! Is it a historical accurate in your oppinion? Maybe it is the same level of historical accuracity like protected cruisers without protection (!), Asama with only 12 secondary guns and other in the first version of the game It's normal while game have bugs and I noted about it in the first or second day after buying the game. But you also answered that it is ok and historical accurate So I suggest to check protected cruiser possible bug, greatly increase cost of mines operations, accurately test damage effect after each hit and fix the shells type for each guns and side. Do you know that Russian fleet use only AP shells for 3-inches guns during RJW?
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Feb 19, 2014 14:41:44 GMT -6
Actually Yenisei and Amur placed 2000 mines (Yenisei - 836, Amur - 1158) [V. Ya. Krestiannikov. Naval mines warfare around Port Arhtur. 2006 (In Russian)]. It is only 8 minefield operations in the game terms (2000/250 = 8). But in the game you can use it each turn and placed more than 25000 mines! Is it a historical accurate in your oppinion? You forgot level of abstraction which presents in this game section Minefields are straight lines without gaps, enemy find them fast (even near your base), and they are completely disappear as soon as detected. So, "number of mines" in game seem doesn't mean their actual number. Also, in my games some cruisers and B's often sail between P-A and Vladivostok, maybe they carry some mines? Starting too many ML operations already prevents you from training more ships and starting more offensive operations (and getting more VP), so it is balanced now in my opinion (I may imagine, that sailors make improvised mines from torpedo warheads, shells and what else they find at their ships - instead of training ) And new feature "minelaying interrupted by enemy" may prevent player to lay all mines he want in best "fishing" places. In my current game to January 1905 Amur and Yenisey laid nearly 10 minefields, result is modest but historically accurate - 5 CL's and 3 DD's sunk and some damaged. Interesting that 2 closest to P-A minefields were detected after a week! Unfortunately, Japanese seem to be too passive in minelaying - only 3 minefields after a year, no hits. I think it should be improved a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Feb 19, 2014 15:40:39 GMT -6
New spotting: If minelaying objective is too close to base point, minelayer starts her mission automatically in first minutes of scenario, so player can't choose right direction Also the question: does superstructure damage affects maximum speed lineary, or there are some random "hidden events"? In campaign Novik lost 10 knots of her speed after 1-3 superstructure medium/light hits 2 times, but in test suicidal battle she sank bravely at 19 knots with completely destroyed superstructures. In all 3 battles there were no any "machinery damage" or "funnel topples" messages. Superstructure damage should not affect speed, only flotation damage and engine room or funnel hits etc. Fire will affect speed, but only to a limited extent. However, ships without deck armor might take splinter damage to the engines from superstructure hits, but I assume we are talking about the cruiser Novik here, so that shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Feb 19, 2014 15:47:22 GMT -6
Posible bug with protected cruisers. I found that protected cruisers do not have flooding after hits on the engines room (waterline) area. I tryed several times and have the same results - no flotation changed after 6-inches hits. It looks like 'protected cruiser' flag does not work properly and game calculating result for light cruisers from WWI period: Engine room hits do not always result in flotation damage, though they frequently do. I just tested this and protected cruisers definitely do get flotation damage from most engine room hits.
|
|