Never Been this Pissed

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Raverdave
Posts: 4882
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Melb. Australia

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by Raverdave »

Ah Kid......been a long time since I last saw your nick pop up. 
Image


Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The presence of an Air HQ helps keep the strikes from becoming fragmented. I can only assume that a mistake was made somewhere in your application of fighters. Double check that the range, destination , etc was correct. And sometimes, you just do get a bad die roll.

And it's never a good idea to offload carrier air units to a land base if you don't absolutely need to.

Chez

Especially as it looks like the coord rule follows them onto the land base!!! Either that or the VF's had a base as the "target" of their escort mission and hence, didn't fly. (I have done that thinking i hadn't in the past. ow.)



One possibility I have thought about, is what if there's some sort of reset needed? Though it may not apply in this specific case, what if the fighters had their escort mission on the CV, and then were transferred? Is it possible that the escorts will usually fly but they should have their missions reset once transferred? It seems logical to me, though the programmer may not had wanted to get into that, that once they were transferred their mission, if not aborted entirely, is largely compromised by the fact that they took on a prior mission (transfer). In game terms this situation, ironically, may had been just about perfect, afterall, since this game doesn't deal in terms of time, what you are talking about is the bombers being ready at the first crack of dawn (assuming they're CV borne) whereas the fighters have to transfer while the bombers are flying. Later, the escorts take off, but by then the 81 bombers have already flown. But from the sound of it, he tranferred his entire air force onto the base, so you would think that all the a/c have the same amount of delay there might be within the turn, though perhaps it's possible the program just penalizes escorts alone. If so, perhaps the logic would be that with fighters generally having shorter range, they have to fuel up when being transferred before flying again, whereas the laden bombers land and take off soon afterwards. Naturally it can be sort of silly for bombers to land and then take off, just to effect a transfer, whereas to effect the transfer after the raid would make a lot more sense. If this is a universal case, maybe that could be it, where the fighters are considered to be refueling and have to land and the bombers dont' stop and continue on to the target. Yes, I know, as the player sees it the bombers really do land, but with a mission afterwards it may move them to not having to land in a sense; sort of a bonus.
Sonny II
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:05 pm

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by Sonny II »

Have had it happen several times with the coordination rule as the culprit - as far as I can tell. It was the only factor which occurred each time this tragedy happened. The first time it happened I quit the game in disgust. After that I just chalked it up to my mistake.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by Charles2222 »

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

Have had it happen several times with the coordination rule as the culprit - as far as I can tell. It was the only factor which occurred each time this tragedy happened. The first time it happened I quit the game in disgust. After that I just chalked it up to my mistake.

What does the coordination rule basically state?
User avatar
siRkid
Posts: 4177
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Orland FL

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by siRkid »

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Ah Kid......been a long time since I last saw your nick pop up. 


Hey, I'm still around. I do more lurking than posting. Good to hear from ya.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Image
User avatar
VSWG
Posts: 3217
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by VSWG »

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

What does the coordination rule basically state?
The manual, p. 130

The coordination of airstrikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in the TF
launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following circumstances:
  • Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
  • Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
  • Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the number of aircraft in the
    TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).
Also, in 1942 Allied coordination is generally not as good as the Japanese’s.
Image
User avatar
foliveti
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 7:24 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by foliveti »

I thought I had read in another post somewhere that if you set a target hex, the fighters will only escort missions against ground targets and not TFs. Could that have been the source of the problem?
Frank
User avatar
ilovestrategy
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:41 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

RE: Never Been this Pissed

Post by ilovestrategy »

wow, this game is deep! [X(]
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”