Bombardment bug??

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Bombardment bug??

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> Bombardment bug??

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Bombardment bug?? - 4/1/2003 11:20:15 AM

Philwd

Posts: 285
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Arizona
Status: offline

In my new PBEM game I just saw a wierd occurance with a bombardment TF that seems unusual in the least.

I ran a TF of CAs and DD into PM on around turn 5 in Scen 17. The TF did a pretty good job but failed to withdraw during the day. As I had shut down the airfield I got lucky and no airstrikes.

Now comes the wierd part. I saw an AK sitting in GG and I thought to give my ships some more target practice. I had home port set to Rabaul. So my ships head off and are attacked by a sub off Basilaki. They break off the bombardment(understandable) but head back to PM!! Not to Rabaul. In other words they headed back to the staging hex rather than go home. Is this intended?

Now they are sitting a hex off PM almost out of fuel sitting ducks.

Thanks for your help
Quark

Post #: 1

- 4/1/2003 12:47:56 PM

Attack Condor

Posts: 425
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chicago
Status: offline

Unfortnately, yes it can happen. Page 27 of the UV manual refers to the chance that a TF that aborts may return to its original DH if a new DH was entered on a subsequent turn.

Whether a sub attack would cause the abort is something I don't know, the manual refers to air or surface forces causing aborts - maybe the abort happened because of the attack in conjunction with a low fuel status. lots of permutations: retirement setting, low fuel causing an abort, the setting of the second DH, TF commander aggressiveness (?), the sub attack....seems almost too many to factor in.

_____________________________

"Shouldn't we be leading the shark into shore...instead him leading us out to sea?"

(in reply to Philwd)

Post #: 2

Re: Bombardment bug?? - 4/1/2003 8:48:18 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quark
[B]... I had home port set to Rabaul...

...but headed back to PM!! Not to Rabaul. [/B][/QUOTE]Do you own PM?

If you had them set HP to Rabaul, and strike GG, even if they abort, they should have headed to their HP (Rabaul).

I can't even make a reasonable guess as to what's happening here.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Philwd)

Post #: 3

- 4/1/2003 9:13:55 PM

Philwd

Posts: 285
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Arizona
Status: offline

Admiral,
No my opponent still owns PM.

Attack Condor,
Re-reading this portion of the manual could it mean you can re-set the original bombardment the next turn by picking the destination hex again? I didn't reset anything. The original attack on PM wasn't aborted either. After the GG abort the TF went back to its staging point. I do think you may have hit on why my TF did what it did. In other words I bet its that code that moved my TF back but it should have taken an additional reset of the destination hex by me to do it. Looks like I have to live with it. Please be gentle with them:D

Quark

(in reply to Philwd)

Post #: 4

Well...um....uh..... - 4/1/2003 11:37:34 PM

Attack Condor

Posts: 425
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chicago
Status: offline

Quark,

From what I can discern from reading the "abort" section on page 27, if you change DH's; which I'm assuming you did to send the SC TF after my bait.. I mean...ah...um.... "transport" at GG the turn after it carried out it's bombardment of PM [I]and it aborts the same turn as the DH change[/I] then it may return to the DH it was set for previously and (ulp) automatically - in this case PM. I don't understand the logic behind the rule - perhaps a TF commander returning to the previously ordered hex (thinking if he can't go to the new target, then back to the old one) to await new orders?
It's beyond this country boy's understanding ;)

And I will endeavour to be quick about what must be done. Ordinarilly, I'd feel bad about preying on the helpless (guess they cut that part out of the John Wayne movies, eh?), but I'd feel worse if they manage to escape and return to haunt me later.

And thanks for announcing to the whole world that AC now has to kill a helpless TF - and boy, if he screws this up... :eek: (j/k) :)

_____________________________

"Shouldn't we be leading the shark into shore...instead him leading us out to sea?"

(in reply to Philwd)

Post #: 5

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> Bombardment bug??

Page: [1]