Home » PLAYER'S HQ 1.13 » JA2 Complete Mods & Sequels » UC/DL 1.13 & AFS » UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to 2010/10/16)
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250063] Fri, 23 April 2010 21:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
If you want to try out NAS, the one in Data-UC113NAS.
Otherwise Data-UC113, however as far as I know no .exe project except for HAM 3.6 (which is already part of the current SVN release) is using the new format for Ja2_Options.ini

If all goes well, I'll have the v20100423 release up on Moddb as well as esnips later today.

EDIT: Well it is later today now, just waiting for Mod DB to authorize the file. Otherwise it is available from the usual location. I don't know if it is just my firewall, blocked url/IP list, or region, but both the Download buttion, or clicking on the file "icon" above the download button both simply download the file (using the plain browser).

[Updated on: Sat, 24 April 2010 00:00] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250092] Sat, 24 April 2010 00:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
It's remarkable how much better my game now plays once I reinstalled and didn't try to get "fancy" with consolidating folders. Wink

Quote:

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250097] Sat, 24 April 2010 00:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
In theory, as long as you have not visited these maps yet in your present savegame, there is no need to restart.

By the way, I am still waiting for v20100423 to be authorized on Mod DB.
If you are testing the NAS mini-mod, you may want to restart with the new version.

EDIT: forgot to note that a testing goal of v20100423 (NAS mini mod) is to see if the AI successfully loads multiple grenades into the RG6. ie. do you find RG6's with more than one grenade attached?

EDIT 2: Spoke too soon, here is the Mod DB link: http://www.moddb.com/games/jagged-alliance-2/downloads/urban-chaos-113-mod-v20100423

[Updated on: Sat, 24 April 2010 00:38] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250101] Sat, 24 April 2010 00:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Thanks for the quick reply.

Quote:
If you are testing the NAS mini-mod, you may want to restart with the new version.
I am testing the NAS mini mod. Is the restart really necessary if a player hasn't yet found any of the items that you tweaked in this latest release?

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250104] Sat, 24 April 2010 00:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Due to the rapid (and savegame breaking) releases of NAS, I didn't actually play long enough to have many savegames. So honestly, the new game part is only a suggestion.

I am not sure if EnemyItemChoice.xml requires a new game to take effect. If you start seeing lots of RGM (single shot) launchers but no RG6's then yes you will need to start a new game. The RG6 is a copy of the RGM only with attachment slot definitions to give it 6 slots. Now that I think about it that's probably the first bug identified for v20100423, I don't remember adjusting the price of the RG6 from that of the RGM.

EDIT: confirmed, the RG6 is available (NAS mini-mod only) for the incredibly low price of the $500. At least I remembered to set the weight correctly at 6.2kg unloaded. Consider this a sale price for early adoption of this item that needs to be tested.

[Updated on: Sat, 24 April 2010 01:39] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250112] Sat, 24 April 2010 01:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
I'm having to restart. Sector A10 was flagged as having enemies, yet no enemies were visible anywhere in the sector. I'll see if this problem persists in a new game.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250113] Sat, 24 April 2010 01:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Sounds like the missing garrison bug again. I'm not sure if NAS has that one resolved, though the normal SVN release seems to have it fixed.

EDIT: This isn't a proper sample size but with v20100423, I got the following results:
Default JA2.exe from SVN - first try the garrison was there as they should be in A10 when I entered from the subway (after defeating the subway hooligans)
NAS 0.40a - first try resulted in a weird incident where on the second turn of combat, the game jumped to Map A1 suffering a crepitus attack. This is dispite the .ini having the Crepitus turned off (confirmed afterwards). The game soon CTD on returning to A10 basement. I had a save from entering combat in the subway, but this led to the same crepitus incident. Reloaded again, and use cheat to quickly dispatch the hoodlums, found that garrison was missing on surface (A10).

Now I am suspecting this was a pre-existing bug from the code NAS was based on. So I am not going to worry unless this crops up again in a version of NAS based on the current code where the problem should be fixed.

[Updated on: Sat, 24 April 2010 02:55] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250154] Sat, 24 April 2010 04:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Thanks for the feedback. I've decided to restart (again) and this time ignore the NAS. NAS is a nice mod, but I'll wait until that code is more stable.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250216] Sun, 25 April 2010 02:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
This isn't a UC-specific bug, but that serious memory leak issue in the save/reload functionality that I complained about (a lot) a few years ago, that was finally quashed by Chris during the beta of NIV, is now back and with a vengeance. I'm using the latest (1221) SVN files.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250260] Sun, 25 April 2010 12:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:441
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
This is not with the NAS exe, me hopes? (just making sure)

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 13:02] by Moderator

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250292] Sun, 25 April 2010 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
No, the memory leak is with the production SVN .exe. I stopped using NAS when I ran into the missing garrison bug.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250336] Sun, 25 April 2010 23:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Will, is there a document somewhere that gives all the details for the armor upgrades, such as the medic and commando kits I've found? I've looked in the various wikis and searched this site and cannot find anything on the subject. The in-game descriptions merely state what armors they can be attached to, not what the effects of doing so are.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250341] Mon, 26 April 2010 00:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Sorry, I was in the other post. I'll answer in more detail here, but I will need to check with the XML Editor so wait for my updates please.

Commando Upgrade + Spectra (or Dyneema) Vest = Commando Vest/Pants and Commando Basic LBE
Commando Upgrade + Spectra (or Dyneema) Pants = Commando Vest/Pants and Commando Holster

Striker Upgrade + Spectra (or Dyneema) Vest = Striker Vest and Striker LBE
Striker Upgrade + Spectra (or Dyneema) Pants = Striker Pants and Striker Holster

Commando Basic LBE (vest) + 40mm Grenade Panel = Commando Grenadier LBE
Commando Basic LBE (vest) + SAW Pouch = Commando LMG LBE
Commando Basic LBE (vest) + MP Holster = Commando SMG LBE
Commando Basic LBE (vest) + Canteen/Utility Pouch = Commando Commander LBE

Stealth Ops Helmet/Vest/Leggings Upgrade Kit + Kevlar Helmet/Vest/Leggings = Stealth Ops Helmet/Vest/Leggings

Longcoat + MP Holster = Longcoat Holster Rig
Longcoat Holster Rig + MP Holster = Longcoat Dual Holster Rig

Commando Vest + Medic Patch = Commando Medic + Medic LBE Upgrade
Commando Basic LBE + Medic LBE Upgrade = Commando Medic LBE

I cannot seem to find the Recon Vests in the XML Editor, so I guess I didn't put them in (yet).

[Updated on: Mon, 26 April 2010 00:16] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250343] Mon, 26 April 2010 00:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Also the game crashing during enemy turns when your IMP is on a rooftop sniping at people is back as well. I'm rather discouraged to see bugs that were quashed 3 years ago reappear ...

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250344] Mon, 26 April 2010 00:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
That rooftop sniping crash is a new one for me (or at least a forgotten one).


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250345] Mon, 26 April 2010 00:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Crashes due to "excessive" saving/reloading, rooftop sniping, and missing garrisons are all old bugs that were fixed by the time NIV went into beta. (They were quashed while NIV was in alpha.) That's why I'm somewhat annoyed to see them rear their ugly heads again. The current SVN .exe is not nearly as stable as the ones I was using back in 2007.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250346] Mon, 26 April 2010 00:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
For me, Missing Garrison only seems to have been fixed in the most recent SVN .exe... For the longest time people were debating if the bug really existed outside of my imagination. Headrock only looked into it a few months ago, and his fix wasn't incorporated till recently.

Guess I really should have been more involved on the code side in 07.

[Updated on: Mon, 26 April 2010 00:35] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250348] Mon, 26 April 2010 00:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Missing garrisons may not have been fixed in '07 and I might be misremembering. But the other two I am certain were fixed. When ChrisL was cleaning up some of the memory management changes another coder made (a fellow who Chris and the rest of us were having arguments with, whose name I now forget), the save/reload bug serendipitously vanished. And I don't recall crashing while rooftop sniping while I was testing NIV, which is why I know it was fixed way back in '06 or '07.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250349] Mon, 26 April 2010 00:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Ah, well if it is who I think you are thinking of, the last of that code is still being removed/disabled/fixed/rendered harmless...


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250458] Tue, 27 April 2010 16:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Is it normal for the bad guys to attack Callisto an average of 1-2 times a day (in packs of 20, about half of which are elites)? I'm in expert mode, if that matters as far as frequency of attacks goes. I had to increase the number of allowed militia per sector to 36, and I still can barely train enough to keep up with the losses. 20 on 20 versus green militia the enemy rolls over them without breaking a sweat.

Also, are the SAM sites in UC in the same locations as in normal JA2? It's been a long while and I don't recall.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250459] Tue, 27 April 2010 16:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3269
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
how many mercs do you employ?

iirc the sam are where they used to be
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250460] Tue, 27 April 2010 16:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
I currently have 9 mercs, 4 of which are trainers (Ehli, Jubilee, Raider, and Rude Dog). The rest are busy repairing stuff.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250464] Tue, 27 April 2010 17:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3269
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
have a combat-squad and intercept the enemy outside callisto - one guy repairing - two training milita untill you have fortified callisto
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250475] Tue, 27 April 2010 19:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
No, the constant 20 man attacks seem to be a new thing. I'm going to try tweaking the Queen's pool of troops settings in the .ini again. Though one problem I noticed is that on day one, the SAM sites are practically un-staffed, no matter what I do in the .ini.


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250480] Tue, 27 April 2010 19:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:441
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
There are some enemy patrol settings in the xml's. You can give the patrols priority's to different routes.
If you choose high priorities around towns, the enemies that walk by your town will sense enemies in the next sector, being your town, and attack.
If you choose to have low priorities for SAM sites, they might get undermanned.
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250524] Wed, 28 April 2010 04:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
SAM sites already have a higher priority than towns, unless I set them backwards (99). Only the Queen's guard is higher.

Has anyone had a chance to see the new scope penalties yet?


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250541] Wed, 28 April 2010 12:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
A Dragunov SVDS has a single shot cost of only 12! While the SVD costs 42. Surely that's a typo?

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250560] Wed, 28 April 2010 16:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
No, that is me forgetting again that I wanted to remove the folding stock from the SVD-S. Next version the SVD-S is just going to be a lighter SVD.

EDIT: I just noticed that BR's description claims the SVD-S is heavier. Now I need to do some research. Perhaps I'll keep the folding stock and just make sure I take that into account.

EDIT2: Tracked down the error with the SVD-S, I forgot to change its stats when I simplified the Folding Stock System two versions ago. Now the only differences between the SVD and the SVD-S are higher weight, the folding stock and lack of a default optic for the latter. Remember with most other sniper rifles you encounter, the optic is responsible for a large porportion of the AP cost with the new attachment penalties. The next NAS version will make use of the additional default attachmnents to give the SVD-S an optic.

[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2010 17:04] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250565] Wed, 28 April 2010 17:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Something I've noticed too, regarding weapons.. The Car-15 has a drawcost of 13 or 15, I think. Yet the AKS-74U, with a deployed stock, has a drawcost of 18? This seems a little off to me, as the AK's a shorter, more manoeverable weapon, by the looks of it. Even with the stock folded out.

Admittedly, I'm no weapons-expert, just throwing out a seeming anomaly.

Edit: Actually, thinking on it, the same applies to some of the SMGs, like the Skorpion, and the AEK919k. They've both got draw-costs in the 18 range with deployed stocks. Personally, I'd have the Skorpion, et al have drawcosts equivalent, or a point or two higher than normal handguns with folded stocks, and maybe 15 or so with deployed stocks.

Also, what's up with the sawn-off? A drawcost of again, 18-ish, I think? A tad high for a minimal-range two-shot boomstick.

[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2010 17:41] by Moderator

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250566] Wed, 28 April 2010 17:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Sawn-off - yeah that one seems a bit high.

Machine Pistol folding stocks - I'll take a look at the balance for those again, vs. pistols and larger SMG's. MP's have always been the hardest to balance in the system I've devised.

CAR-15 vs. AKS-74U - That one I can explain, the CAR-15 has an adjustable stock which vs a non-adjustable folding stock has the potential for faster draw. That being said, I have not yet produced an adjustable folding stock (FN SCAR and Bushmaster ACR). The AKS-74U with the stock folded should have a faster draw however.

[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2010 17:48] by Moderator



Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250569] Wed, 28 April 2010 17:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
Ahh, fair comment. I never noticed that on the CAR-15. Must be my eyesight. Smile
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250661] Thu, 29 April 2010 07:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
SAM garrison is fixed, sort of, I set the three to use the same army group as the Queen's defence.


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250664] Thu, 29 April 2010 08:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
I'm more concerned with how frequently I'm being attacked in Callisto than with the SAM garrison (which was plenty tough already, as I just took over the eastern SAM and it had 20+ enemies). Twice daily attacks is too much. If I wanted insanity I'd play on insane mode.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250693] Thu, 29 April 2010 20:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Ok, I think I know what is going on. In addition to the generous initial pool for the queen to deploy, I have city garrison set too large, and with too high a priority.

From my testing it looks like whatever reason I had for the reduced force pool is gone (probably the mistake in the SAM garrisons which I have fixed properly as well now). I am going to do some more testing before I advise of the specific changes.


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250695] Thu, 29 April 2010 20:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Well, at least some good is coming out of the terrific pounding I'm taking daily. Razz

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250704] Thu, 29 April 2010 23:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Faithless

 
Messages:441
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre...
To be honest I notice constant pounding in the 1.13 mod too, not just UC.
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250748] Fri, 30 April 2010 21:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Does anyone remember if the AI had a tendency to occupy A9 and A10 (Omerta) on day one in regular Alrulco JA2? I am doing some testing with the new force levels and am finding that A9 and A10 are re-occupied almost as soon as I move on.

I am pausing work on the NAS mini-mod till WarmSteel is ready to proceed to Beta/current SVN code base. Fun as it is, I am running into too many non-NAS bugs that seem to be related to the old code. Unless there are major changes to the XML's, the current release more or less tests every part of NAS to be used (I think I've got every NAS feature up till 0.42a in use in some form or another). By all means keep testing it, but I won't be releasing anything new till it is in Beta or later on. Of course I'll still be trying to break it, but using the default campaign.

UCC News:
I think I have a handle on how I am going to do the southern coast/cliffs of Danubia. Next challenge will be to integrate in a third vehicle (I think I read somewhere we've had the ability to add a third vehicle some time ago). The final step is the comparatively simple replacement of graphics to make the Eldarado look like a small boat. Implementation of the boat and non-connective road (coastline) will of course restore connectivity to the island by foot/swimming, jut not from the same place. Oh and the eventual plan is for this route to the island to have a "roadblock" of sorts...


Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250749] Fri, 30 April 2010 21:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Logisteric

 
Messages:3269
Registered:December 2008
Location: B
at least in 1.13 they do - and it fits d's lines (N075_014: Send my troops to the location at once!), but iirc they did not attack omerta.
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250754] Fri, 30 April 2010 22:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ShadoWarrior

 
Messages:248
Registered:January 2006
Location: Twilight Zone
Quote:
I am going to do some more testing before I advise of the specific changes.
Can you please post your fix? I'd really like to put a stop to the excessive attacks.

Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #250794] Sat, 01 May 2010 16:16 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Wil473

 
Messages:2840
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
ShadoWarrior, send me an email at the project's gmail.com address: uc.ja2113.projects

After the initial overactivity at Atremo things quieted down substantially, I may have taken things too far, but I only have half of Calisto taken for two days (building up militia, no counterattacks yet). I'll send you a preview of what I am doing (they are just XML files, so no point in delaying it for several hours waiting for ModDB to authorize).

[Updated on: Sat, 01 May 2010 16:32] by Moderator



Previous Topic: UC-1.13 Hybrid
Next Topic: UC-1.13/DL-1.13/AFS Discussion 2 (2010/10/29 to 2011/04/18)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Nov 24 02:36:02 EET 2020

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01482 seconds