Problem with Carrier TFs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Problem with Carrier TFs

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 >> Tech Support >> Problem with Carrier TFs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 7:47:50 PM

RayYoung

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2015
Status: offline

Hi,

I have been playing for about a year. Scenario 1 Allied vs Japan AI.

I have started/stopped and restarted several times as I have learned more about the game. In fact, in my current iteration I am in Jan. 1942.

I have been holding on to Wake for all this time and now trying to reinforce it. I sent 2 carrier TFs to support the effort along with three(3) separate Amphibious TFs. I sent the carriers from PH first.

The problem I encountered was that midway to their location near Wake the two(2) carrier TFs suddenly turned around and wanted to head for the North Pacific toward Canada. Some spot on the map well away from the coast. I had them on computer control with I first noticed this as they were falling behind the Transports. So, I shifted them to manual control and reset the destination to my original target only to find that they had once again shifted to that same spot in the North Pacific area.

Is there a bug affecting this or something that I should watch for? I have been playing the game long enough but never saw this activity occur previously.

Please advise.

Ray

_____________________________

525MI Saigon 67/68 TET VET

Post #: 1

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 8:12:03 PM

jwolf

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

What is their home port?

(in reply to RayYoung)

Post #: 2

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 8:19:41 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Also, are they reacting? Check their reaction orders. Also, do you have them going to Wake, or to a point just off of Wake with orders to Remain On Station? As this is an AI game, perhaps an attached save would help. I don't believe this to be a bug. Most likely, just something overlooked

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 3

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 8:24:17 PM

RayYoung

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2015
Status: offline

jwolf,

Thanks for the reply.

All the TFs started out at Pearl Harbor. For the Carriers, I wanted the extended ability to go to full speed (wasn't doing it yet) so I set the Home Port to Midway for both Carrier TFs. The destination was two hexes immediately above Wake. The Amphibious TFs home port was changed to Wake to insure that they kept going.

The carriers were set to "Remain on Station" near Wake and they were NOT trying to head to Midway. They were south east of Midway when they changed direction on their own.

Again, I manually took them off Computer Control and set their destination to the spot North of Wake but they again shifted to the North East during the order execution phase.

_____________________________

525MI Saigon 67/68 TET VET

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 4

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 8:34:40 PM

RayYoung

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2015
Status: offline

Of course, the real problem here is that my Amphibious TF first arriving got plastered by Bettys mean while the carriers were still off in la la land and never did get to Wake.

Frustrated, I decided to restart the game from my initial save. However, I didn't delete the game with the carriers searching for Klingons. If it would help I can send that save.

Ray

_____________________________

525MI Saigon 67/68 TET VET

(in reply to RayYoung)

Post #: 5

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 9:16:26 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Well, if there were Klingon's about, I might change course too...

(in reply to RayYoung)

Post #: 6

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 9:28:45 PM

RayYoung

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2015
Status: offline

_____________________________

525MI Saigon 67/68 TET VET

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 7

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 11:28:01 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Sounds like your CVs are shying away from the air threat or an unseen surface threat. Make sure their routing in Direct/Absolute so that they will be willing to go in harms way. Also make sure the captains and TF commander have good aggressiveness stats.

Make sure your CAP is set for the approach to Wake. As you saw those Betties/Nells have a long reach.
Since the aircraft are coming from the south, your amphib TF should approach from the NE to be in range as short a time as possible.
As you approach Wake be prepared for the possibility the Japanese are also bringing in an invasion force. Have your DBs set to naval strike range 5. No escort should be required unless you have intel there is an IJN carrier in the area. Arm your TBs with bombs unless you have definite info there is a CA or larger in the area.

RE: the "Follow" command, I find it quite unreliable and do not use it for critical operations like an Amphib one. In these circumstances I do not want the carriers slowed down by the Amphib TF so what I do is figure out how many hexes the Amphib TF will travel next turn and send the carriers to that hex. They will still provide CAP for the Amphibs and will not be as easy a target for IJN subs.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to RayYoung)

Post #: 8

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/18/2016 11:36:07 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

Why?

Again, I manually took them off Computer Control and set their destination to the spot North of Wake but they again shifted to the North East during the order execution phase.

Why would you put your CVTFs on Computer control? That is the path to disaster as you found out.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 9

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/22/2016 10:07:07 PM

RayYoung

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2015
Status: offline

BillBrown,

I am not really certain that I understand the issue with the CV TF being on Computer Control.

But, I am really confused that, even after I switched them back they both took off from the North East.

I Don't believe it is a threat response. That "threat" would surely have eaten up my Amphibious TFs. But they were hit by Betty Bombers.

I don't know why they wouldn't go to the Wake location set to fight and in direct mode. I double checked the destinations before I executed the turn. They shifted on their own during the phase. They were also far enough back and apart at the time they did this that any threat would have been detected by Midway or PH.

I have resigned myself that it was some blip and I will just try to watch for it more closely.

I had them on computer control because they were still pretty much well away from the action at Wake, probably closer to Midway.

_____________________________

525MI Saigon 67/68 TET VET

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 10

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/22/2016 10:16:53 PM

RayYoung

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2015
Status: offline

BBFanboy,

You may have hit on something.

I did have the Amphib TFs set to "follow" the CV TF. The got ahead of the carriers and that was what initially caught my attention. So, I changed the CV destination back from going toward Canada instead of Wake initially thinking I messed up something. After the execution phase they were headed back toward Canada again. So, then I changed them to Manual control and again set the destination to Wake. After the next execution phase (during which my now naked Amphib TF was plastered just off shore of Wake, the Carriers were again bound for the North East instead of Wake.

At that point I got so discouraged at the losses at Wake that I started over.

_____________________________

525MI Saigon 67/68 TET VET

(in reply to RayYoung)

Post #: 11

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/23/2016 3:11:45 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Firstly, I would not put CVTF under 'Computer control'.
In the the original WITP, there were several map zones that could be set up under AI control, and the AI would control any units that had the 'computer controlled' option on.
This does not apply to AE as there is more detail and finer control was not really possible (and the AI zones didn't work that well

)
All the code handling the zones was disabled, but the core AI may still refer to the zones.
Some simple functions still can work with the AI - like automated supply and convoy runs, sub operations.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to RayYoung)

Post #: 12

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/23/2016 4:26:15 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Firstly, I would not put CVTF under 'Computer control'.

+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 13

RE: Problem with Carrier TFs - 4/25/2016 5:57:20 PM

RayYoung

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/22/2015
Status: offline

Sincere thanks to any and all who took the time to look at this thread and particularly to those who commented.

I have never failed to learn from this forum and the wisdom from those who really KNOW this game always impresses me.

Many thanks.

Carrier TFs never to see Computer Control again!!!

_____________________________

525MI Saigon 67/68 TET VET

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 14