Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 1:36:56 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
SETTING: THE SEIGE OF PORT MORESBY - NOV. 5 - 7, 1943
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The DDs ended up fine, but the cruisers went down. Good work by the B-25D1s flying in low and skip bombing, strafing.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/16/2012 1:59:42 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
Post #: 1
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 2:03:37 PM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 1974
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: online
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.

_____________________________


"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


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 2:07:10 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/16/2012 2:20:10 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 3
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 2:32:17 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1644
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
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 reply to obvert)
Post #: 4
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 3:10:16 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/16/2012 4:18:04 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 5
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 3:37:59 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18296
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 3:43:00 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 7
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 4:09:54 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5227
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
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...

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 8
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 4:25:41 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

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...

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


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

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 9
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 4:26:33 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 10
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 4:36:53 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 11
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 6:14:56 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1644
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
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.......

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 12
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 6:22:16 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14991
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
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?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 13
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 6:36:10 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 14
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 7:04:51 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5227
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
You should have told me something was fishy and we could have redone the turn.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 15
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 7:13:15 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 16
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 7:33:11 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14991
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 17
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 8:39:14 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

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.

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/17/2012 12:17:28 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 18
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 10:23:43 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4598
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

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...

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 19
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 11:07:18 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
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 ...

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 12/16/2012 11:11:42 PM >


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 20
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 11:21:47 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

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...


I am not sure I agree it should not be possible with the current conditions of a fast transport TF. In most cases their goal would be to run, get their cargo/troops to the destination. If however a vulnerable target presented itself, in this case the invasion TF at PM, then I'm sure in a real scenario those ships would attempt an intercept. As you say, it might mess with the game behavior, as it obviously did do here, but is that a given? Could it also be set up so it would not mess with the game behavior?

In this particular case it 12 DP guns and their crews and supplies loaded onto 13 ships. In other cases there might be more of a case that the load would be a hindrance to battle readiness. I would guess that this capability was given to IJN ships more than the Allies due to historical use.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 21
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 11:28:56 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14991
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
I think the detail of 'this case vs that case' is probably too much to ask of the game engine.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 22
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 11:45:11 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 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 ...


As stated above it has worked well in the past. If a fast transport is enroute and is about to be intercepted I have changed the FT to SC in order to be able to fight the battle and not flee. Here is an example from the AAR with Jocke early on. This allowed the TF to continue the next day and land the troops. Of course one squad was disabled, and I ran the risk of endangering them by doing this.

I'll have to go back to have a look at the saves again. Even if it's broken I would still like to be able to change these and take the risk in certain situations. I will have to try some tests to see if it's really the arrival at the destination base after the change that mucked it up. It certainly seems like that's it.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 17, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Taliaboe at 74,104, Range 9,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Naka, Shell hits 1
CL Kuma
DD Natsugumo
DD Yamagumo
DD Minegumo, Shell hits 2
DD Asagumo
DD Harusame
DD Yudachi

Allied Ships
CL Mauritius, Shell hits 1
DD Alden, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Edsall, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD John D. Edwards
DD Whipple

Japanese ground losses:
17 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Reduced sighting due to 0% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 0% moonlight: 10,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 9,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 9,000 yards
CL Kuma fires at CL Mauritius at 9,000 yards
CL Naka launches Long Lance Torpedoes at CL Mauritius at 9,000 yards
CL Kuma fires at DD John D. Edwards at 9,000 yards
CL Kuma fires at DD Edsall at 9,000 yards
DD Asagumo launches Long Lance Torpedoes at DD John D. Edwards at 9,000 yards
DD Edsall sunk by DD Minegumo at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CL Mauritius at 2,000 yards
DD Asagumo engages DD Whipple at 2,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD John D. Edwards at 2,000 yards
DD Harusame engages DD Alden at 2,000 yards
DD Alden engages DD Minegumo at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CL Mauritius at 3,000 yards
DD Whipple engages DD Asagumo at 3,000 yards
DD John D. Edwards engages DD Minegumo at 3,000 yards
DD Alden engages DD Asagumo at 3,000 yards
DD John D. Edwards engages DD Yamagumo at 3,000 yards
DD John D. Edwards engages DD Natsugumo at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages CL Kuma at 7,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD Whipple at 7,000 yards
DD Alden engages DD Harusame at 7,000 yards
DD Whipple engages DD Yamagumo at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages CL Kuma at 10,000 yards
DD Yamagumo engages DD Whipple at 10,000 yards
DD Yudachi engages DD John D. Edwards at 10,000 yards
DD Harusame engages DD Alden at 10,000 yards
DD Asagumo engages DD Alden at 10,000 yards
DD Alden engages DD Yamagumo at 10,000 yards
DD Alden engages DD Natsugumo at 10,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CL Mauritius at 12,000 yards
CL Naka engages CL Mauritius at 12,000 yards
DD Yudachi engages DD John D. Edwards at 12,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD Alden at 12,000 yards
DD Asagumo engages DD Whipple at 12,000 yards
DD Minegumo engages DD Whipple at 12,000 yards
DD Yamagumo engages DD John D. Edwards at 12,000 yards
Task forces break off...


< Message edited by obvert -- 12/16/2012 11:55:29 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 23
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/16/2012 11:53:37 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think the detail of 'this case vs that case' is probably too much to ask of the game engine.


There are a lot of things that are too much to ask of the game engine. That is clear. I still love it, by the way.

I am not in any way saying the engine should somehow choose different behavior based on what I have on the ships. Fast transport is fast transport. But when changed to surface combat, it should behave as surface combat.

Going back to an earlier comment, I wouldn't be in favor of a change to disallow the ability to change the TF type on the fly. That would just be so rigid it would be outside of a plausible realistic framework. If it's just the inconsistency in the FT behavior that caused all of this then I'll try to pin it down in tests and see how I can use it better.



< Message edited by obvert -- 12/17/2012 8:27:08 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 24
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/17/2012 3:00:53 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2624
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Going back to an earlier comment, I wouldn't be in favor of a change to disallow the ability to change the TF type on the fly. That would just be so rigid it would be outside of a plausible realistic framework


+1

Let us bombard a port say 60 hexes away. If the TF starts as a Bombardment .. I understand the TF will do full speed at night .. that could be a few days of full speed night travel .. plus waypoints break bombardment algorithums ... So I start my TF as a SAG .. cruise along setting up waypoints to finally set up a patrol point, and when the time is right flip them into bomardment mode to execute the mission.

I beleive it behoves the player to understand how the game works rather than superimpose some view of reality on the game. It makes the game more enjoyable in my opinion ..

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 25
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/18/2012 6:30:56 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1288
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
i've found another 'issue' wrt unexpected TF behavior. when i create an ASW TF, set it to cruise speed, then command it to meet&merge w/ a SurfTF, the ASW TF uses fullspeed to travel to & merge w/ the SurfTF. now that's ok, 'cos i really needed to get some ASW strength to the SurfTF, but i'd rather have done w/o the minor damage that those escorts suffered during that high-speed run. next time, i'll use meet&follow, to see if the ASW TF will respect its cruise setting.

as Crackaces describes, ya gotta get some experience w/ the game & learn where the quirky behavior lies. then you can modify the way you give orders to your TFs, in order to achieve the best results w/ the game-engine.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 26
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/18/2012 10:41:48 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4598
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Don't get me wrong Obvert, 12 DP guns in your example is entirely different from a complete load of troops on an FT, so in your situation it is a grey area.

Relistically a loaded FT TF is at deciding disadvantage when engaging an SAG. There is a lot more flammable equipment
on board increasing the risk of critical damage and fire, the additional troops make general quarters rig less effective, much slower and more difficult
to achieve - if at all possible depending on the loadout - and the added displacement and weight, combined with the danger of moving equipment makes
combat maneuvres more dangerous and sluggish.

WiTP simulates this partly by putting FT TF types at disadvantage to surface combat mission types in an engagement. Changing the mission to SAG
completely eliminates these disadvantages (except for the chance of loaded equipment getting damaged/destroyed when hit).

So in general, more so because WitP does not distinguish between different loadouts, in a PBEM I would consider changing a loaded FT TF
to surface combat as gamey and I would refrain from doing so. Obviousely thats just my personal opinion.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 27
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/18/2012 6:40:36 PM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1396
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline
I wonder if it wouldn't unload if set to "do not unload" and then change it into a SAG.

Am I correct to assume your experiences with that TF change working were not in a coastal/base hex but out in the blue ocean?

_____________________________

If you gained knowledge through the forum, why not putting it into the AE wiki?

http://witp-ae.wikia.com/wiki/War_in_the_Pacific:_Admiral%27s_Edition_Wiki


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 28
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/18/2012 6:46:15 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

I wonder if it wouldn't unload if set to "do not unload" and then change it into a SAG.

Am I correct to assume your experiences with that TF change working were not in a coastal/base hex but out in the blue ocean?


Yes, exactly. I'm curious about that too. I would like to try it to find out.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 29
RE: Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco - 12/18/2012 8:03:17 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Don't get me wrong Obvert, 12 DP guns in your example is entirely different from a complete load of troops on an FT, so in your situation it is a grey area.

Relistically a loaded FT TF is at deciding disadvantage when engaging an SAG. There is a lot more flammable equipment
on board increasing the risk of critical damage and fire, the additional troops make general quarters rig less effective, much slower and more difficult
to achieve - if at all possible depending on the loadout - and the added displacement and weight, combined with the danger of moving equipment makes
combat maneuvres more dangerous and sluggish.

WiTP simulates this partly by putting FT TF types at disadvantage to surface combat mission types in an engagement. Changing the mission to SAG
completely eliminates these disadvantages (except for the chance of loaded equipment getting damaged/destroyed when hit).

So in general, more so because WitP does not distinguish between different loadouts, in a PBEM I would consider changing a loaded FT TF
to surface combat as gamey and I would refrain from doing so. Obviousely thats just my personal opinion.


I'd love to read more about fast transport ops in the IJN. I have no clue really what the changes would be for ships carrying troops and equipment that got caught in a battle. I was just reading about the APD Manley which did have some skirmishes while troops were on board. The APDs obviously were overhauled for dealing with loading units on.

In game all of the Japanese combat ships have allowances for troops and cargo, and some quite extensively. I don't know if that was special areas built in, but I assumed it was since some of the refits increase this capacity in certain ships. So maybe it wouldn't be really stuff sitting all over the deck inhibiting movement and causing difficulty if hit.

If the fast transport routine allowed the ships to stay and fight, and keep going to their target, I wouldn't need to change the TF type. I would take a slight reduction in combat ability in order to get there more quickly. Also, I would like the option to still hit weaker targets, like the convoy in the OP landing troops. If I can't do that stuff the game really suffers and moves into an abstract non-plausible territory very quickly. The IJN would have probably thrown the stuff overboard to hit two divisions on transports unloading at their base.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Strange behaviors; fast transport fiasco Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121