Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Direct disobedience of orders

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Direct disobedience of orders Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 8:36:10 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Ok, the situation is that my opponent has been trying to take Noumea in May/June 1942. Its CHS and therefore Noumea is not built up terribly well. I have been sending the odd CL in to cause a bit of mayhem to his invasion transports. CL Helena gets the next job and off she sails to do a fast raid and out again. However my forces on Noumea spot a BB led TF coming down to add its opinion to who should own Noumea. I issue orders to Helena to move East and hold in position some 300+ NM south of Noumea. From there she can sweep in when the big bad BBs have gone home to rearm.

So back comes my move and Helena has ignored her orders, sailed into Noumea harbour and had a little argument with this lot:

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Shell hits 3
BB Hiei
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 1
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 1
CA Myoko
CA Nachi
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 2
CA Kako
CL Tenryu
CL Tatsuta
DD Urakaze
DD Arare

Allied Ships
CL Helena, Shell hits 19, on fire, heavy damage

The skipper's orders were sail to point X, patrol. His return base was Auckland. He had no
reaction set. His aggression rating is 55.

I can accept that in close situations there may be some latitude in interpretation of orders, but I don't see why this should have happened?

Roger



_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 8:38:59 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		What was her fuel status?

If a ships fuel is low, they will sometimes RTB without orders.

Other than that, I don't know.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 2
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 8:44:27 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Prior to her getting a few holes in her side she had plenty of fuel. Her base was Auckland.

Its like the Captain suddenly says, hey I visited Noumea a while back, I know a nice bar on the beach, lets all go there....

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 3
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 9:22:14 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Hmm, a mystery indeed. Was Helena set to Patrol/Do Not Retire? Had she recently refuled or otherwise used up all her OPS points? Was she in a Surface Combat TF of one ship? (Interesting that she had no DD escort.)

Actually, it really does sound like she "reacted" to "protect" your base; are you sure this behavior was disabled?

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 4
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 11:29:05 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Hmm, a mystery indeed.
Was Helena set to Patrol/Do Not Retire?
Yes
Had she recently refuled or otherwise used up all her OPS points?
No
Was she in a Surface Combat TF of one ship? (Interesting that she had no DD escort.)
Yes, she was on a sneak run to get in and get out fast, hopefully undetected until she opened up....

Actually, it really does sound like she "reacted" to "protect" your base; are you sure this behavior was disabled?
Her base was Auckland, she was not set to react....

Mystifying

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 5
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 11:30:29 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Duplicated post removed

< Message edited by Roger Neilson II -- 7/15/2007 3:22:31 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 6
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 12:11:30 PM   
DSwain


Posts: 171
Joined: 9/23/2006
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline 		Was it Captain Fletcher Christian perhaps, Roger?  Anyway, me thinks a spot of keel hauling for this impudent and imprudent prawn and a reminder of the fate of Admiral Byng and the words of Voltaire:

In this country, it is sometimes necessary to execute an admiral in order to encourage the others.




_____________________________


(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 7
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 8:08:26 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		I've forgotten: does setting the Home Base to Auckland necessarily prevent a surface TF from "reacting" to "protect" a friendly base other than Auckland? Er, how does one enable/disable this "protection" behavior, anyway? My guess is that setting the home base to Auckland isn't enough to disable the ability of a Surface TF to protect other friendly bases. Either that, or this is just a bug. :)

(in reply to DSwain)
Post #: 8
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 8:27:06 PM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Well I have had to cancel the Board of Enquiry as the captain went down with his ship today.

"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."
French Marshal Pierre Bosquet at Balaclava.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 9
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 10:09:31 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I've forgotten: does setting the Home Base to Auckland necessarily prevent a surface TF from "reacting" to "protect" a friendly base other than Auckland? Er, how does one enable/disable this "protection" behavior, anyway? My guess is that setting the home base to Auckland isn't enough to disable the ability of a Surface TF to protect other friendly bases. Either that, or this is just a bug. :)


Supposedly, if you set a Surface Combat to REACTION =0, then they are not supposed to go to the defense of another port/base.

However, i think that if you put a very aggressive skipper in charge of a TF (SCTF or CV) they will react no matter what. Certainly, many of us have seen Halsey go rushing off madly even when REACT=0.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 10
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 10:20:06 PM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		The commander had an aggression of 50.... so not quite a raving loony. Strangely I was unable to locate the Helena anywhere near Noumea so assumed, but didn't check the listings, that she was sunk. Surprise surprise I spot her in relative safe waters heading for safety - I will get the welcome party ready for the captain.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 11
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/15/2007 10:46:08 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		It was determined long ago that there are entirely separate "reaction" routines for Air Combat TFs and Surface Combat TFs.  Air Combat TFs react to enemy carriers but do not react to friendly bases under attack.  Surface Combat TFs react to friendly bases under attack.

The player has absolutely no control or influence over Air Combat TFs reacting.  There is nothing he can do to stop it.

The player is supposed to be able to control Surface Combat TFs reacting by use of the Reaction Range setting.  If it is set to zero, the TF is not supposed to react at all, no matter what!  However, it would not surprise me if the developers once again bent the players over the table here.

By all the information that Roger has given us, he is right.  The Helena should not have been in the Noumea hex.  The only question is whether this is a deliberate bug or unintentional bug.

<edit for spelling>

< Message edited by dtravel -- 7/15/2007 10:47:18 PM >

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 12
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 12:07:47 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

It was determined long ago that there are entirely separate "reaction" routines for Air Combat TFs and Surface Combat TFs.  Air Combat TFs react to enemy carriers but do not react to friendly bases under attack.  Surface Combat TFs react to friendly bases under attack.

The player has absolutely no control or influence over Air Combat TFs reacting.  There is nothing he can do to stop it.

The player is supposed to be able to control Surface Combat TFs reacting by use of the Reaction Range setting.  If it is set to zero, the TF is not supposed to react at all, no matter what!  However, it would not surprise me if the developers once again bent the players over the table here.

By all the information that Roger has given us, he is right.  The Helena should not have been in the Noumea hex.  The only question is whether this is a deliberate bug or unintentional bug.

<edit for spelling>



Yes, there are different routines - that's why i made sure to specify SCTF in the first instance. However, i suspect (but can't prove) an aggressive commander will override orders no matter what type TF they are in. Originally we were also told that setting REACT=0 meant that the CVs would not react to enemy "no matter what", and this was found to be untrue.

i don't know if that is the case here (commander aggression causing a reaction) - This commander's aggression = 50 is considered "cautious" by the game... maybe a strange die roll came up, though.

If something is done deliberately, then i don't think i would consider it a bug.

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 13
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 6:16:52 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		A bug is any action or result by the program that is contrary to what the paying customer was told the program would do.  I.E., if we're told one thing and the program does something else, its a bug!  (Likewise, if the program does something that the customer was told nothing at all about, its a bug!)  Whether that is because the code has a mistake or we were told the wrong thing doesn't really matter.  And yes, that does mean that sometimes "fixing" the bug involves nothing more than updating the documentation.  I've done that any number of times myself too.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 14
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 6:53:31 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		There still is that one question left unanswered, we all are assuming the Helena had a reaction set to 0.
Another question would be was that commander rating you listed(50 I think) the helena's Skipper, or the actual task force commander?
crying bug is way too early here.

I can assume because there is no screen shot.

< Message edited by Gem35 -- 7/16/2007 6:55:03 AM >

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 15
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 6:54:09 AM   
grumpyman


Posts: 105
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

A bug is any action or result by the program that is contrary to what the paying customer was told the program would do.  I.E., if we're told one thing and the program does something else, its a bug!  (Likewise, if the program does something that the customer was told nothing at all about, its a bug!) 

or its a feature!

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 16
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 7:37:01 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: grumpyman


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

A bug is any action or result by the program that is contrary to what the paying customer was told the program would do.  I.E., if we're told one thing and the program does something else, its a bug!  (Likewise, if the program does something that the customer was told nothing at all about, its a bug!) 

or its a feature!


yep - then it is only "poor documentation" rather than a bug.

(in reply to grumpyman)
Post #: 17
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 10:02:12 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

There still is that one question left unanswered, we all are assuming the Helena had a reaction set to 0.
Another question would be was that commander rating you listed(50 I think) the helena's Skipper, or the actual task force commander?
crying bug is way too early here.

I can assume because there is no screen shot.

I assumed it was set to 0 as well. I have tracked back and find it actually on 6 - duh!

As for the TF commander, it was a single ship, he was the TF commander.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 18
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 11:27:28 AM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline 		I certainly give you credit for admitting this.

So, to recap, everything worked per the settings:

P/DNR, react range 6 and she reacted to Noumea.

I guess the pitchforks can go back to the barn for the moment...

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 19
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/16/2007 12:42:00 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		Roger, do you have a message on the turn replay saying "TF XXX reacting to ..." ?

If not your cruiser didn't react, and you probably clicked on the bad button at some time while giving orders, with the result that she stayed off Noumea or sailed there, for whatever reason.

By the way where was she in the evening former ?

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 20
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 2:14:44 AM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		I've been a fan of this game since I bought it, there never has been any rule/feature/bug whatever you want to call it that has happened in any of my games that made me make a face and say, this game is unplayable/bugged.
I have not played a pbem yet, all of my games are against the AI.
Some folks like to bitch and moan about the game but in the end the game is a solid title and is the best sim of the pacific war available and has payed for itself countless times over in enjoyment for me, which I have owned now for three years running..
I'd pay twice the cost of this game if I had to.
I am very grateful to the devs/playtesters for all of the work done on this great game.

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 21
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 2:58:24 AM   
grumpyman


Posts: 105
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I've been a fan of this game since I bought it, there never has been any rule/feature/bug whatever you want to call it that has happened in any of my games that made me make a face and say, this game is unplayable/bugged.
I have not played a pbem yet, all of my games are against the AI.
Some folks like to bitch and moan about the game but in the end the game is a solid title and is the best sim of the pacific war available and has payed for itself countless times over in enjoyment for me, which I have owned now for three years running..
I'd pay twice the cost of this game if I had to.
I am very grateful to the devs/playtesters for all of the work done on this great game.


I agree with this post for the most part. I bought 2 games when I bought this one. Forge of Freedom is the other. I have become so addicted to Witp I have yet to the other game. I would pay double also for the game if a second version comes out. That being said, there is no complex software that does not have bugs and features. To point them out is not necessarily bitching and moaning. I think a good company, I think Matrix is good company, welcomes pointing bugs out. I also realize that not every complaint is a bug. My complaints are more wishes for things in the next version, if there is a next version, than complaints and have nothing to do with bugs. I will also buy the next version and like I said pay much more than the going price now even if these wishes are not met. Really if the interface were improved and waypoints ( I know, I know, I ain't going to get them!) were added it would be a near perfect game instead of a magnificent game.

(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 22
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 5:16:13 AM   
Riva Ridge

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 9/17/2006
Status: offline 		I am Roger's opponent in this particular match and I was absolutely surprised to see the Helena make her run at Noumea.  He had previously made two seperate raids with CLs and they proved to me a terribly nusiance though the coastal guns he placed there, strafing runs by a motley assortment of fighters, and the recent addition of submarine laid mines is proving alot more vexing.  I am about to take the place but this is the first sea-launched invasion where he has really bled me.

(in reply to grumpyman)
Post #: 23
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 9:12:53 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

I certainly give you credit for admitting this.

So, to recap, everything worked per the settings:

P/DNR, react range 6 and she reacted to Noumea.

I guess the pitchforks can go back to the barn for the moment...

Well I'd hate to cause a major argument and bug search when its not necessary. Reaction should have been 0, so I don't know why it wasn't, but its a simple, though costly mistake on my part.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 24
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 9:13:50 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Roger, do you have a message on the turn replay saying "TF XXX reacting to ..." ?

If not your cruiser didn't react, and you probably clicked on the bad button at some time while giving orders, with the result that she stayed off Noumea or sailed there, for whatever reason.

By the way where was she in the evening former ?

Yes, looking back at the combat replay there was a message saying the TF was reacting. She was 6 hexes map south of Noumea.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 25
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 9:17:59 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I've been a fan of this game since I bought it, there never has been any rule/feature/bug whatever you want to call it that has happened in any of my games that made me make a face and say, this game is unplayable/bugged.
I have not played a pbem yet, all of my games are against the AI.
Some folks like to bitch and moan about the game but in the end the game is a solid title and is the best sim of the pacific war available and has payed for itself countless times over in enjoyment for me, which I have owned now for three years running..
I'd pay twice the cost of this game if I had to.
I am very grateful to the devs/playtesters for all of the work done on this great game.

For the record, I wasn't moaning, I was asking if such a thing does happen. As a player I expect my forces to do more or less what i ordered them to do, so to see a TF do the very opposite was a little worrying. I was asking the collective wisdom if this can happen. The answer is in fact human error on my part. Whilst this does not make me feel brilliant in that I missed it, it does confirm that there was a logical explanation for my TF commander doing what he should not have done.... so I'm content (sort of) with that.

I wouldn't be spending upwards of 3 hours per day on this game if i wasn't a big big fan....

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 26
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 10:54:44 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Glad it's all sorted out!

And add me to the chorus of those who appreciate this mammoth game. I know it's far from perfect, but it's still my favorite computer wargame. It's quite an achievement.

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 27
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 3:07:44 PM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		Same here, sorry for the misunderstanding, Roger.

_____________________________

It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?


Banner By Feurer Krieg

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 28
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 7:47:16 PM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		I simply wanted to clearly state I never intended to complain, I was merely looking for opinion from the forum - about what apeared at the time to be odd.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Gem35)
Post #: 29
RE: Direct disobedience of orders - 7/17/2007 9:53:48 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		No worries, Roger, I never thought you were complaining.

Also, I'm enjoying your AAR. I'm following one of them, anyway; I don't know if you have more. You write well. :)

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Direct disobedience of orders 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

1.813