Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

[font="Times New Roman"]SETTING: THE SEIGE OF PORT MORESBY - NOV. 5 - 7, 1943[/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I had loaded a fast transport with CA Aoba, Kitakami and Oi, and 10 DDs to bring in 12cm DP guns (the non-airliftable portion of the 7th Kure SNLF) to a besieged Port Moresby. My timing was unfortunate, as they didn't make it by the 5th, when a big Allied landing came in, and were 3 hexes out along the coast of NG during the action, unmolested.

I changed them into a surface combat TF and sent them in the next day to see if they could hit the convoy leaving PM (3 hex react, mission speed, retreat allowed), but instead of reacting to it as it left Port Moresby, they skirted around it and began landing the DP guns! In surface combat mode! [:@][&:][:(] I have had CA/CL fast transports loaded and changed them mid-path to intercept Allied ships, and even fight battles with the troops onboard. I know it has worked before so this seems very odd, and the unintended behavior led to the eventual sinking of the cruisers. Perhaps when I've seen this before they didn't come in contact with the destination base and so never tried to unload until after combat and a reset to fast transport?

I checked them on the 6th and they were in Port Moresby, still in surface combat, and I set orders to flee and potentially lock horns with 7-8 Allied ships (led by modern CA/CL including CA Baltimore) that had ended up 1 hex to the SE of Port Moresby. Instead they stayed in the hex and unloaded their supply as well!!! Still in surface combat mode! [:-]

Again, they were not hit that day, but on the 7th they finally retreated and moved an entire 2 hexes (!!!) which means (in mission mode) they stayed the entire night phase in PM and didn't even move a full day's allowance during the morning phase. (The supply was completely off of the ships by this point, so it was not that they were still unloading). They did interact with two subs in those two hexes, but that has never slowed a TF of this kind nearly this much in my experience, especially since no damage was accrued. They were then sitting ducks in range of Allied strike planes in broad daylight. WTF?

Jocke's B-25D1s came in low and did their job, sinking Aoba with 4 500lb hits (old and frail, I guess?) and putting enough hurt on the CLs that Kitakami was hit by 3 TT from the Finback and sank while Oi burned out and went under the following day. Frustration!?! Yes.

Obviously this was partially my fault for sending them in, and I was prepared to lose them for maybe a DD or two and a shot at a CL during a surface tussle, but not like this. Very cheap.

Has anyone else ever had something similar happen with fast transports? Am I off-base in thinking this is unusual? Aside from not sending them in the first place, could I have set things differently to get the results I was looking for in changing the TF to surface combat and in trying to get them to retreat?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Image
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[font="Trebuchet MS"]The DDs ended up fine, but the cruisers went down. Good work by the B-25D1s flying in low and skip bombing, strafing. [/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Attachments
portmoresby.jpg
portmoresby.jpg (579.74 KiB) Viewed 142 times
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by KenchiSulla »

Did you cancel the unloading order>? You have to do that otherwise the TF will keep going at it untill empty.. That might explain they only moved a short range.
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

There is no unloading order when they are a surface combat TF as far as I know, right? Unless it somehow carries over after they are changed from a fast transport. Seems like this would cause problems though. I haven't seen that before, but that could be it. I can try it later in a test and change the order before a I change the mode to see if that makes a difference. Doesn't resurrect the cruisers though unfortunately. [;)]

Also, this still confuses me with the movement. I don't have the save from those days but I can re-dowoad it from the dropbox archive soon and check it again.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by Miller »

The FT routine has never worked well in AE. That said, I would never risk a Jap CA (even the old ones) on such a mission unless I was 100% certain there was no danger.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Miller

The FT routine has never worked well in AE. That said, I would never risk a Jap CA (even the old ones) on such a mission unless I was 100% certain there was no danger.

In late 43 you can never be 100% certain of there being no danger if you want to do anything at all. Can you elaborate any further on how "the FT routine has never worked well in AE?" What does this mean? Any particular things that don't function correctly with it in your experience?

After several encounters with very well made TFs headed by modern US CAs and CLs where I lost another old CA, in spite of conditions (including TF make-up, proximity of battle, etc) that should have produced better results, I realized that these ships just don't have what it takes to compete seriously anymore. That said, I did all I could to make sure they had a good fighting chance with 10 very good DDs in the TF.

Definitely risky, but a decision based on available recon and naval search which didn't find any big BB TFs in the area. If I had gotten in one day earlier maybe those DP guns would have made a difference, or the presence of the ships would have stalled a landing and led to a surface battle. A risk, but this is not a long distance to travel, and it should take one day in and one night phase out. Right?

We can second guess the choice all day, but that isn't the issue. The issue is why did the ships unload in the wrong mode, and why did they not move to get out of the area when set to do so? It's 7 hexes to safety there. Not so far.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by Chickenboy »

Nothing to add re: the FT behavior. However, just a thumbs up for your game in general. If your opponent is only just getting started on P/NG in November 1943, you're doing something right, mate.
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Nothing to add re: the FT behavior. However, just a thumbs up for your game in general. If your opponent is only just getting started on P/NG in November 1943, you're doing something right, mate.

Thanks. Stalling is the idea. Hence the decision to move in the DP guns. [;)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by JocMeister »

He certainly is doing well... *grump*

Was kind of wondering what the heck you were doing. Funny thing is that I had multiple TFs chasing after your TF. None reacted to yours despite one of them ending up just 2 hexes away. Really odd in general I think!

I have had some odd happenings with loading/unloading too. Especially with Fast Transport TFs. As you recall I just lost most of my APDs when they unloaded but then decided to hang around over night completely empty. And then for the heck of it hang around during the day too...

And those DP guns were very unpleasant for small AMs... [:D]

Btw, my bombers wern´t skipbombing! Attack bombers drop down and strafe after the released their bombs. Pretty cool! [8D]
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

He certainly is doing well... *grump*

Was kind of wondering what the heck you were doing. Funny thing is that I had multiple TFs chasing after your TF. None reacted to yours despite one of them ending up just 2 hexes away. Really odd in general I think!

I have had some odd happenings with loading/unloading too. Especially with Fast Transport TFs. As you recall I just lost most of my APDs when they unloaded but then decided to hang around over night completely empty. And then for the heck of it hang around during the day too...

And those DP guns were very unpleasant for small AMs... [:D]

Btw, my bombers wern´t skipbombing! Attack bombers drop down and strafe after the released their bombs. Pretty cool! [8D]

Very cool. I had thought they were skipping and that might be the reason Aoba was lost to only 4 x 500lb bombs, thinking those hits were low and caused flooding. Even more bizarre that a CA would go down from a decent but not overwhelming hit with no other messages of catastrophe. But it is the IJN.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by btbw »

I think TF changed their type of TF. For example if you create Escort TF with only ACM it will auto-convert into ML TF (if no damaged ship inside). So game code during phases of naval moving count your TF as FT and when trip ended - start unloas cuz it usual option for FT.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: btbw

I think TF changed their type of TF. For example if you create Escort TF with only ACM it will auto-convert into ML TF (if no damaged ship inside). So game code during phases of naval moving count your TF as FT and when trip ended - start unloas cuz it usual option for FT.

That would be a great explanation if they actually did change. They remained a SC TF during those three turns however, while unloading guns and supply, and after when they retreated (or did not retreat I should say).
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by Miller »

I have found in my experience that most FT groups never get clear of the target hex during daylight.......they are either still there during the day or only a couple of hexes away.......
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by witpqs »

Going to the original post, did you make that into a surface combat TF when it still had passengers/equipment aboard? That might be the real problem - are you even allowed to do that?
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Going to the original post, did you make that into a surface combat TF when it still had passengers/equipment aboard? That might be the real problem - are you even allowed to do that?

Yes I did. It had 12 guns on board. I've been able to do this before and fight a complete battle with an SNLF aboard a fast transport TF changed into a surface combat TF. Then changed it back and unloaded the unit at destination.

I'm sure that has something to do with the problem, but there are the other issues as well. It unloaded while still a SCTF, with no direction to do so other than it's previous orders as a FTTF. Then it did not move more than two hexes, even after being unloaded.

I get that this seems unusual if you haven't done it before, but since I had tried it several times and it worked, I naturally assumed it would work again. Looks like I was wrong.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by JocMeister »

You should have told me something was fishy and we could have redone the turn. [:)]
Image
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

You should have told me something was fishy and we could have redone the turn. [:)]

Well, I appreciate that. I want to take full responsibility for my risky moves and it didn't seem right to go back there. I could have put another 15-20 planes on LR CAP as well, but my assumption was that they would get out unless hit by a sub. I'll chalk it up to experience and move on from there.

I'll still go back to those turns later and have a look at all of the settings. I am now doubting myself, as all of these questions come in, and I want to be sure I'm getting the details right so that the problem is known at least.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: witpqs

Going to the original post, did you make that into a surface combat TF when it still had passengers/equipment aboard? That might be the real problem - are you even allowed to do that?

Yes I did. It had 12 guns on board. I've been able to do this before and fight a complete battle with an SNLF aboard a fast transport TF changed into a surface combat TF. Then changed it back and unloaded the unit at destination.

I'm sure that has something to do with the problem, but there are the other issues as well. It unloaded while still a SCTF, with no direction to do so other than it's previous orders as a FTTF. Then it did not move more than two hexes, even after being unloaded.

I get that this seems unusual if you haven't done it before, but since I had tried it several times and it worked, I naturally assumed it would work again. Looks like I was wrong.
I am beyond my experience with this.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: witpqs

Going to the original post, did you make that into a surface combat TF when it still had passengers/equipment aboard? That might be the real problem - are you even allowed to do that?

Yes I did. It had 12 guns on board. I've been able to do this before and fight a complete battle with an SNLF aboard a fast transport TF changed into a surface combat TF. Then changed it back and unloaded the unit at destination.

I'm sure that has something to do with the problem, but there are the other issues as well. It unloaded while still a SCTF, with no direction to do so other than it's previous orders as a FTTF. Then it did not move more than two hexes, even after being unloaded.

I get that this seems unusual if you haven't done it before, but since I had tried it several times and it worked, I naturally assumed it would work again. Looks like I was wrong.
I am beyond my experience with this.

Playing the Japanese there are so many more opportunities to use fast transports as most combat ships have at least some space for troops and cargo. I use them a lot in the DEI to start especially. They work very well for many roles, but apparently not for their originally intended one of bringing troops and supplies into a contested area and getting out quick.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Going to the original post, did you make that into a surface combat TF when it still had passengers/equipment aboard? That might be the real problem - are you even allowed to do that?

Yes I did. It had 12 guns on board. I've been able to do this before and fight a complete battle with an SNLF aboard a fast transport TF changed into a surface combat TF. Then changed it back and unloaded the unit at destination.

I'm sure that has something to do with the problem, but there are the other issues as well. It unloaded while still a SCTF, with no direction to do so other than it's previous orders as a FTTF. Then it did not move more than two hexes, even after being unloaded.

I get that this seems unusual if you haven't done it before, but since I had tried it several times and it worked, I naturally assumed it would work again. Looks like I was wrong.


I think this should go to the tech forum.

It should not be possible to change FT to SAG while the TF is loaded. This simply is bound mess with the game behaviour.

Did not even know that was possible...
Image
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

Post by n01487477 »

From my experience with FT's, I echo some of the other posts here, do not change any settings once you have formed them and set them on their way... FT's are fickle and while improved since patch1, still need kit cloves. I haven't seen the problem you describe, but then once I set them - I leave them unless I completely abandon the mission and send them back to base.

It is a tech issue but needs plenty of different game saves to fix completely. I think Michael has done it for most cases, but it is the outliers that need explaining / examination.

[edit] The other thing I forgot to mention - FT's in my experience need to be formed at bases at some distance from destination. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence on this, but it has caused problems ...
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”