Bug, limitation or user error

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Bug, limitation or user error

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 >> Bug, limitation or user error

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Bug, limitation or user error - 10/14/2003 10:31:31 AM

rich91a

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/27/2002
From: Sydney
Status: offline

1. It is a bug - the programming is at fault
2. It is user error - the player needs to find a better way of playing
3. It is a limitation - the commander target selection AI is not sophisticated enough
4. Other

A recent thread in the bug reports and problems section has two opposing views on an important subject.

See: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46177

This poll is to try and find the majority view and alternative views on the issue.

Post #: 1

Strikes - 10/14/2003 11:45:41 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, If the bombers are attacking a target with CAP and not seeing the CAP before they are assigned it is a bug.

There are a few details missing that would help.

The bombers are attacking TF's in same hex as aircombat TF without escort?

If you assign escorts do they attack the CV TF or continue attacking surface TF?
All the strikes are without escort?

It does not matter if there are no escorts, the bombers might still attack into CAP (there is just a morale check to pass before they will. The higher their morale the more likely they are to fly.) CV should always be targets of CV airgroups (When CV TF are in range they should attack each other and ignore non CV TF's in range.) LBA given the choice might attack the non CV TF.
It has to engage the CAP no matter which TF it targets but it might feel the non CV TF has less AA and a value close to that of of the aircombat TF.

In the search phase (when airgroups aquire targets to launch strike at) Is the Aircombat TF reported as well as TF the strikes launch at? (The airgroups might not see the enemy aircombat group)

Even though this sounds like an exploit of a bug how many bombers are getting through CAP to attack ships? (are they hitting anything?)

By the above question I am asking could they have harmed the CV groups if they had targeted it instead?

Both exploits can be circumvented by normal means while waiting for fix from Matrix.

CAP exploit. Rather then placing 2 groups on 20 percent CAP and hoping for radar scramble (radar is not 100 percent effective in getting aircraft to scramble) Put enough fighters from 1 group in the air every turn to have decent odds. Put other group on 20-30 percent as before. Change groups every day.

(If you need 12 fighters in the air place 1 group on 50 percent CAP )

Bombers: Since even if there was no exploit bomber groups will attack targets with CAP without escorts (when bombers have good morale) be careful about setting missions. Try to base bombers by type and range to cover areas you want them to fly. (place shorter range bombers forward. They are the easiest to provide escort for. Also fighters forward will escorts bombers from rear bases. (as Japan placing fighters at Munda will provide escorts for bombers from Rabaul over Lunga)
Don't assign long range bombers to strike missions in range of targets with heavy CAP. (They might just fly) It is better to leave groups on training and spot enemy TF's and track them over a period of turns. Change mission orders when situation favors their flying. (Groups at sea can still have CAP over them.
The A6M2 has a normal range of 17. The A6M3 a range of 13) Allied P-38s have long ranges. When ever you fly without escort you are in danger of fighters.

This is not an excuse for any bug or exploit. Just pointing out the results of a bug or exploit can be achived by normal means and avoided by normal means.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rich91a)

Post #: 2

- 10/14/2003 3:46:13 PM

pfnognoff

Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

I went with choice number 3 here.

That kind of thing didn't happen to me alot, but one funny thing occured in a recent scenario 2 PBEM.
I'm USN and adm. Mitcher is given all my carriers to engage the enemy. He reacts towards Shortlands where enemy CVs were spoted, and then launches full strikes (both morning and afternoon) against a huge IJN surface TF at Lunga. He was offcourse engaged both morning and afternoon by IJN AC coming from the carriers suffering medium damage to Saratoga.
Maybe in this scenario Lunga is so high priority for AI that it can be justified move on his part. I would like, though, that in this type of situation he doesn't react towards the enemy CVs, but rather away from them if his plan is to go after the surface group.

(in reply to rich91a)

Post #: 3

My 2 cents - 10/15/2003 1:02:05 AM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

I put other... I would think that Carrier admirals would want there pilots to go after his counterparts CV's. Like Halsey at Leyte Gulf. Unless the pilots were told to go after other targets- which we can't do in the game so its a moot point. Same can be said of Land based SBD's/TBM's etc. However, I can see how a unit with low moral wouldn't be so eager to press home an attack on the Carrier, but would instead opt for a softer target. Also, historical note, at the Battle of the PH sea, Ozawa's pilots attacked Lee's battle line (TG 58.7) with there first 2 waves (@200 total) rather then continuing on to the carriers, which were only 15 miles beyond. Why did they do it? Don't know, as they all pretty much wiped out so we can't know what what there thinking was. But as the distance of Lee's TG and the other 4 carrier TG's scale wise would all be in one hex, this gives us an historical example of where the pilots didn't do what there commander wanted. I also think Yamamoto pushed out a surface group some miles ahead of his carriers at Santa Cruz, in hopes of having them bear the brunt of the the USN's carrier attacks. I guess what I am saying is that I would like to tell my pilots to only go after the carriers, but as we don't have that option, I can see how the system- at times- sends my planes elsewhere.

(in reply to rich91a)

Post #: 4