That Bombardment Funk(y movement)

[Lokasenna]

Anybody got a reason this occurred? Pictures coming in the next several posts. Here's a summary:

TF 263 based at Hollandia, set to bombard Biak (9 hexes away). TF has a mission speed of 6, so I know it will pause 6 hexes away before moving in to bombard.

Turn 905: TF is 6 hexes from Biak (screenshots shown), with routing at Direct and threat at Absolute. Fuel is fine. However, during the replay the TF ends up 2 hexes from Biak and gets torpedoed. Looking at the DD fuel levels before and after, it's obvious that they did not refuel. There were no other actions involving this TF during the turn.

Turn 906:
-TF 263 remains as a Bombardment TF, but the destination has reverted to Hollandia. Why? I've never seen this happen when a TF gets beat up with Absolute threat tolerance - the destination always remained what it was before and the TF would try to complete its mission without further orders.

-TF 263 no longer has Direct routing set. It was set back to Normal. What? Again, I've never seen this happen before.

[Lokasenna]

Showing the TF's destination, routing, and threat settings.

[Lokasenna]

Showing the TF screen itself. Note the fuel levels. Also note that Remain On Station is not set so that the TF would retire after bombarding. Everything looks normal to me.

[Lokasenna]

Until we get here. Compare to previous image. TF moved 4 hexes and nothing more.

Why 4 hexes? That doesn't match any multiple of either the mission or the cruise speed of the TF.

[Lokasenna]

Here are the game-changed-my-settings oddities.

[Lokasenna]

And here's the TF screen immediately upon loading the next turn. Note the DD endurance levels: they are 216 lower than before (the CAs are 213 lower). This matches:

-160 for 4 hexes of movement
-37 for being attacked by 37 planes

Leaving 19 for other stuff (does being spotted burn a point of endurance? etc.). But it's obvious that they only moved 4 hexes during the turn from the endurance levels.

Basically, I want to know why they didn't do what I told them to do. This setup has always worked in the past. I've never had a bombardment TF (that had enough fuel and proper routing settings) not move its mission speed to the target for seemingly no reason. Or... is it a potential bug?

[btd64]

Maybe your TF detected the sub, slowed down and got hit....GP

[BBfanboy]

I would guess that the threat of enemy bombers was detected and the TF commander reset to Normal threat tolerance and aborted the mission. He may have reached target and steamed up and down the coast looking for the target in bad weather before deciding to bug out. The TF still being in Bombardment mode says he did not have a target he could shoot at.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I would guess that the threat of enemy bombers was detected and the TF commander reset to Normal threat tolerance and aborted the mission. He may have reached target and steamed up and down the coast looking for the target in bad weather before deciding to bug out. The TF still being in Bombardment mode says he did not have a target he could shoot at.

But threat tolerance remained on Absolute. Also, isn't Absolute supposed to completely override things like that? Doesn't Absolute mean "do your thing via your routing settings and never, ever retreat from anything"?

And no, they didn't reach the target - look at the endurance levels. In order to reach the target, at least 240 endurance would have had to be burned. We know that each hex moved burns (at least) 40 endurance, and that each plane attacking the TF burns 1 endurance per plane in every ship in the TF. That's a minimum of 197 used, and each ship used less than 240. So they didn't move more than the 4 hexes.

[Numdydar]

Someone just misread their borderers and messed up. That is what court martials are for [:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I would guess that the threat of enemy bombers was detected and the TF commander reset to Normal threat tolerance and aborted the mission. He may have reached target and steamed up and down the coast looking for the target in bad weather before deciding to bug out. The TF still being in Bombardment mode says he did not have a target he could shoot at.

But threat tolerance remained on Absolute. Also, isn't Absolute supposed to completely override things like that? Doesn't Absolute mean "do your thing via your routing settings and never, ever retreat from anything"?

And no, they didn't reach the target - look at the endurance levels. In order to reach the target, at least 240 endurance would have had to be burned. We know that each hex moved burns (at least) 40 endurance, and that each plane attacking the TF burns 1 endurance per plane in every ship in the TF. That's a minimum of 197 used, and each ship used less than 240. So they didn't move more than the 4 hexes.

Ah no, "Absolute" doesn't result in that behaviour.

Fundamentally there is no bug here as it is WAD with one smallish caveat.

1. The TF didn't stop and get attacked. It was attacked and because of the attack it stopped. Two things to remember:

(a) movement is done on a hex by hex basis and combat can result in any hex
(b) before the attack the slowest speed of the TF was 12 knots which equates to 3.6 hexes per phase. With rounding up that could result in a 4 hex movement

So the TF could be that close to Biak and still meet it's prime objective of being able to sprint in and out under the cover of darkness.

2. The critical thing here is that the two BBs were sufficiently damaged to necessitate the creation of an Escort Task Force. All TFs are prone to abort their mission and return to base when this occurs. Setting threat tolerance to "Absolute" has zero impact on this process. What is relevant is whether "Remain" or "Retirement" orders are in place. There is a small chance that what remained of the TF would have continued to Bombard if it had Remain orders. There is basically zero chance to continue with the mission with Retirement orders in place.

3. Now of the small caveat, which I think is essentially a graphical glitch. The TF should have had its mission reset to surface combat and not remain as a bombardment mission. The graphical glitch I think is because the flagship was split off into the escort TF, the mission flag on the original bombardment TF was not reset.

Alfred

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I would guess that the threat of enemy bombers was detected and the TF commander reset to Normal threat tolerance and aborted the mission. He may have reached target and steamed up and down the coast looking for the target in bad weather before deciding to bug out. The TF still being in Bombardment mode says he did not have a target he could shoot at.

But threat tolerance remained on Absolute. Also, isn't Absolute supposed to completely override things like that? Doesn't Absolute mean "do your thing via your routing settings and never, ever retreat from anything"?

And no, they didn't reach the target - look at the endurance levels. In order to reach the target, at least 240 endurance would have had to be burned. We know that each hex moved burns (at least) 40 endurance, and that each plane attacking the TF burns 1 endurance per plane in every ship in the TF. That's a minimum of 197 used, and each ship used less than 240. So they didn't move more than the 4 hexes.

Ah no, "Absolute" doesn't result in that behaviour.

Fundamentally there is no bug here as it is WAD with one smallish caveat.

1. The TF didn't stop and get attacked. It was attacked and because of the attack it stopped. Two things to remember:

(a) movement is done on a hex by hex basis and combat can result in any hex
(b) before the attack the slowest speed of the TF was 12 knots which equates to 3.6 hexes per phase. With rounding up that could result in a 4 hex movement

So the TF could be that close to Biak and still meet it's prime objective of being able to sprint in and out under the cover of darkness.

2. The critical thing here is that the two BBs were sufficiently damaged to necessitate the creation of an Escort Task Force. All TFs are prone to abort their mission and return to base when this occurs. Setting threat tolerance to "Absolute" has zero impact on this process. What is relevant is whether "Remain" or "Retirement" orders are in place. There is a small chance that what remained of the TF would have continued to Bombard if it had Remain orders. There is basically zero chance to continue with the mission with Retirement orders in place.

3. Now of the small caveat, which I think is essentially a graphical glitch. The TF should have had its mission reset to surface combat and not remain as a bombardment mission. The graphical glitch I think is because the flagship was split off into the escort TF, the mission flag on the original bombardment TF was not reset.

Alfred

OK, in order.

1) I follow that an attack can stop things. However, the attack came in the morning air phase - which is after both movement phases. The TF should have moved in the first movement phase and bombarded, like 90% of other bombardment attacks (the other 10% or so occur after the second movement phase). Since the attack occurred after the movement, how could the attack have stopped the movement?

1a) Right. But no combats occurred until the air phase (I don't think my opponent has any kind of ship within 5-6 hexes at the least, plus no "contact crosshairs" were displayed during the replay).

1b) Ok, 3.6 rounded up is 4. But that's only 1 phase of movement. As a bombardment TF, shouldn't it have been trying to go its mission speed, not cruise speed, on the run in the target? This very same TF has done 2-day bombardment trips before where it stopped 6 hexes out from the target (Aitape in this case) and then gone in to bombard.

2) OK, that would explain the change in settings to return to Hollandia and revert the routing to Normal? I've just never seen that happen before. Particularly the routing part. I have seen SCTFs and CV TFs begin retiring to their home port after a surface combat (not an air combat, as happened in this case), but I had thought it always retained the routing settings.

3) Perhaps?

[michaelm75au]

A run-in for the Bombardment will only happen if the range to target (6) is LESS than the mission speed (6).
Looking at code, there seems to be a bit of inconsistency where an equal case is included (run-in/out for mine-laying and fast transport; target range <= 12 hex. These don't even check to see if the mission speed is sufficient, just runs each phase at mission speed as long as with in 13 hexes of their destination.[&:] )
I would suggest for clarity that these range tests either include or exclude equal conditions.
Any preferences???

[Dili]

If commander agressivness has any input then i would say to include, that way we can have both results by choosing the commander.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

A run-in for the Bombardment will only happen if the range to target (6) is LESS than the mission speed (6).
Looking at code, there seems to be a bit of inconsistency where an equal case is included (run-in/out for mine-laying and fast transport; target range <= 12 hex. These don't even check to see if the mission speed is sufficient, just runs each phase at mission speed as long as with in 13 hexes of their destination.[&:] )
I would suggest for clarity that these range tests either include or exclude equal conditions.
Any preferences???

I'd include them.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

ORIGINAL: michaelm

A run-in for the Bombardment will only happen if the range to target (6) is LESS than the mission speed (6).
Looking at code, there seems to be a bit of inconsistency where an equal case is included (run-in/out for mine-laying and fast transport; target range <= 12 hex. These don't even check to see if the mission speed is sufficient, just runs each phase at mission speed as long as with in 13 hexes of their destination.[&:] )
I would suggest for clarity that these range tests either include or exclude equal conditions.
Any preferences???

I'd include them.

I'd include them also.

I can find cases in my turn files of bombardment runs happening where range to target was equal to mission speed...

[crsutton]

So, basically what you expected to happen did not happen. It happens.[;)] I have given up trying to explain all of the cases where my carefully planned attack did not go as planned. Quite frankly, I relish the uncertainty and chaos that seems to be built into the system. You and I both know that if everything in this simulation went off as planned, it just would be boring as all f**k. My advice is not to worry about it and move on to your next turn.

[rustysi]

+1

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

So, basically what you expected to happen did not happen. It happens.[;)] I have given up trying to explain all of the cases where my carefully planned attack did not go as planned. Quite frankly, I relish the uncertainty and chaos that seems to be built into the system. You and I both know that if everything in this simulation went off as planned, it just would be boring as all f**k. My advice is not to worry about it and move on to your next turn.

I disagree. The manual flatly states something will happen that doesn't happen. It's fine to like some randomness, but there's a point where randomness crosses over into unmanageable. Bombardment ships are premium assets, even more so when you consider how overpowered LBA 2E torpedo bombers are in the game. Bombardment missions need to be predictable on the down side. If they want to work better than advertised I won't beef.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

So, basically what you expected to happen did not happen. It happens.[;)] I have given up trying to explain all of the cases where my carefully planned attack did not go as planned. Quite frankly, I relish the uncertainty and chaos that seems to be built into the system. You and I both know that if everything in this simulation went off as planned, it just would be boring as all f**k. My advice is not to worry about it and move on to your next turn.

I already have, but it hasn't made me any less pissed about this turn. Every bit of documentation (well, the manual... are there others?) says that TFs on certain missions, such as bombardment (and then these others Michael just mentioned), will move at Full Speed for both twelve hour phases because they will attempt to arrive at the target at night. This is the entire reason they stopped at 6 hexes from the target before this turn, because on the turn before they were 8 hexes out and that's more than 1 12-hour movement phase for these ships.

The case/distance check Michael mentioned in the code directly contradicts this. So either the documentation and everything we've been told is wrong, or the code is wrong. It can't be "Eh, sometimes it just happens because randomness." What Michael posted basically says that if you get your forces even closer to the target than one phase of their full speed movement, they'll just move at Cruise instead of Mission speed. But only sometimes, because other times you can see them do the Mission speed.

On top of that, I can find dozens of other cases (where I still have the turn files in my email and could dig them all up) where this very same bombardment TF was 6 hexes from its target and moved 6 hexes to bombard, and then 6 hexes afterwards. Literally dozens with the exact same ships with the exact same settings with the exact same distance and the exact same speed... and they would go in to bombard from 6 hexes away. Some of these even had the TF starting from more than 6 hexes away and they'd pause at 6 hexes, just as they did here, then go in to bombard as expected. Or other instances with other TFs where the range to target was equal to the mission speed, as Michael stated in that check, yet they still behaved as they were supposed to.

It's been about two weeks of game turns and I'm still mad about it. This completely screws up games. It's not just the VPs, it's the strategic picture also. And really, if some orders don't even make the ships do what you're telling them to do... it just makes the game a little less playable.



That's probably the post I wanted to start with, but knew that if I did I'd just get flamed out of the water for being so up front about it before we knew what was really happening under the hood. But now that we know about the existence of that distance-vs.-speed check, I'm feeling pretty vindicated in my frustration.