Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support



Message

Ranse -> Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/26/2005 1:55:36 AM)


I have played as the Japanese and captured bases that were unusable to me because they still remained under allied commands (Changsa, Lunga, and Soerabaja). Every time I expended political points to change them, the game changed them back to an Allied command. I remember reading that others had this bug and reported it and I thought it was fixed by now. Now I am playing as Allied (version 1.6) and I captured Bangkok, but it keeps changing back to Japanese 15th Army command. Wasn't this bug fixed in 1.6?
Also, I had a surface taskforce at sea in a hex when it was captured by the Japanese, and the computer scuttled the whole 15-ship combat TF when the base was captured. Isn't that a bug? Would a surface TF at sea scuttle itself just because the base was captured? I sent the TF to the hex and it arrived the same turn the base was captured. The TF may have automatically docked itself, but they were definitely not in port when this happened. The TF did not have auto-disband orders; they just happen to be in the same hex with a base when it was captured.
Also, I have been searching the manuals for this info but I could not find it: Is there a replenishment TF I can form to resupply a CV TF with avgas and ordinance, or is the only way to set the sortie count back to 100% is to return to base?



michaelm75au -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/26/2005 2:48:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranse


I have played as the Japanese and captured bases that were unusable to me because they still remained under allied commands (Changsa, Lunga, and Soerabaja). Every time I expended political points to change them, the game changed them back to an Allied command. I remember reading that others had this bug and reported it and I thought it was fixed by now. Now I am playing as Allied (version 1.6) and I captured Bangkok, but it keeps changing back to Japanese 15th Army command. Wasn't this bug fixed in 1.6?

Yes., this bug was addressed in 1.6.
For some reason though, ( in the latest patch) Bangkok still is reverting back to original command. Has been reported.

quote:

Also, I had a surface taskforce at sea in a hex when it was captured by the Japanese, and the computer scuttled the whole 15-ship combat TF when the base was captured. Isn't that a bug? Would a surface TF at sea scuttle itself just because the base was captured? I sent the TF to the hex and it arrived the same turn the base was captured. The TF may have automatically docked itself, but they were definitely not in port when this happened. The TF did not have auto-disband orders; they just happen to be in the same hex with a base when it was captured.

This apparently is working as designed.
In my opinion, the definition of "at anchor" used by the auto-scuttle command seems to be incorrect. It includes not only ships disbanded in port but also ships in TFs in the base hex. This is not what "at anchor" means in the rest of the manual.
My worst case was an Allied 13-ship TF with two CVs and escorts which stopped in Gilli base, which was then captured by Japanese on the same turn.

quote:


Also, I have been searching the manuals for this info but I could not find it: Is there a replenishment TF I can form to resupply a CV TF with avgas and ordinance, or is the only way to set the sortie count back to 100% is to return to base?

Only way to replenish sortie points is to return to a base.

Michael



Lt. Calley -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/26/2005 1:36:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


This apparently is working as designed.
In my opinion, the definition of "at anchor" used by the auto-scuttle command seems to be incorrect. It includes not only ships disbanded in port but also ships in TFs in the base hex. This is not what "at anchor" means in the rest of the manual.
My worst case was an Allied 13-ship TF with two CVs and escorts which stopped in Gilli base, which was then captured by Japanese on the same turn.

Will subs on patrol in the same hex as the base auto-scuttle too?








michaelm75au -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/26/2005 2:49:21 PM)

I don't think I have ever seen a sub auto-scuttle when a base has been captured.
Will need to try it with a sub of >10 SYS in a TF.
The rule says that a sub with < 10 SYS "at anchor" will get away.

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lt. Calley

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


This apparently is working as designed.
In my opinion, the definition of "at anchor" used by the auto-scuttle command seems to be incorrect. It includes not only ships disbanded in port but also ships in TFs in the base hex. This is not what "at anchor" means in the rest of the manual.
My worst case was an Allied 13-ship TF with two CVs and escorts which stopped in Gilli base, which was then captured by Japanese on the same turn.

Will subs on patrol in the same hex as the base auto-scuttle too?










Ranse -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/26/2005 10:27:44 PM)


Let me get this straight: ANY and ALL friendly TFs in the same hex as a friendly base when it is captured by the enemy, as well as ships in port at that base, will automatically scuttle all its ships? Even those Surface TFs stationed there to defend the base? I don't remember ever seeing this happen before the incident mentioned in my original post, and I have logged hundreds of hours playing the game. (But then, this is my first time playing the Allies. I never lost a base while playing the Japanese.)



rtrapasso -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/27/2005 4:32:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranse


Let me get this straight: ANY and ALL friendly TFs in the same hex as a friendly base when it is captured by the enemy, as well as ships in port at that base, will automatically scuttle all its ships? Even those Surface TFs stationed there to defend the base? I don't remember ever seeing this happen before the incident mentioned in my original post, and I have logged hundreds of hours playing the game. (But then, this is my first time playing the Allies. I never lost a base while playing the Japanese.)



This seems to be a bug, but it does happen. It is unclear (to me, at least) how often this occurs...



ADavidB -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/27/2005 5:29:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranse


Let me get this straight: ANY and ALL friendly TFs in the same hex as a friendly base when it is captured by the enemy, as well as ships in port at that base, will automatically scuttle all its ships? Even those Surface TFs stationed there to defend the base? I don't remember ever seeing this happen before the incident mentioned in my original post, and I have logged hundreds of hours playing the game. (But then, this is my first time playing the Allies. I never lost a base while playing the Japanese.)


"I never lost a base while playing the Japanese"...

Somehow, I keep on thinking that this should be a sig, but then I start to think that maybe, just maybe, it ought to be the motto of the game... [;)]

Dave Baranyi



Ranse -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/27/2005 7:19:30 AM)


To quote the manual (9.3.2), "...SOME ships at anchor at that base are automatically scuttled..." (emphasis mine). Subs are boats, not ships. Ask an old navy guy (i.e., a guy who has been in the navy, not one wearing an Old Navy shirt).
Furthermore, it wasn't untill I played the Allies (current game) that I heard the victory cry when the Allies capture a base. Sounds kinda wimpy, doesn't it? Almost sarcastic in its lack of enthusiasm.
Also, did anybody ever win the game as Allies on the first victory check (1 Jan 43)? The first two times I played as the Japanese, I won scenario 15 by 1 Jan 43. Seems the AI is too predictable.



rtrapasso -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/27/2005 4:36:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranse


To quote the manual (9.3.2), "...SOME ships at anchor at that base are automatically scuttled..." (emphasis mine). Subs are boats, not ships. Ask an old navy guy (i.e., a guy who has been in the navy, not one wearing an Old Navy shirt).
Furthermore, it wasn't untill I played the Allies (current game) that I heard the victory cry when the Allies capture a base. Sounds kinda wimpy, doesn't it? Almost sarcastic in its lack of enthusiasm.
Also, did anybody ever win the game as Allies on the first victory check (1 Jan 43)? The first two times I played as the Japanese, I won scenario 15 by 1 Jan 43. Seems the AI is too predictable.



The problem is that ships NOT at anchor (i.e. not disbanded) can also scuttle. One guy had all his carriers scuttle one time. I don't recall the circumstances, but it was really hard to figure out what had happened, and no really good explanation of events ever was given.

And, as you have pointed out, your 15 ships were AT SEA when this happened. There is really a problem here, i think.



Lt. Calley -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/27/2005 8:50:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
And, as you have pointed out, your 15 ships were AT SEA when this happened. There is really a problem here, i think.

It's possible that the TF auto-docked when it arrived. I've seen TFs auto-dock even if they have not arrived at their final destination but happen to end their turn at a port.



rtrapasso -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/27/2005 9:07:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lt. Calley

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
And, as you have pointed out, your 15 ships were AT SEA when this happened. There is really a problem here, i think.

It's possible that the TF auto-docked when it arrived. I've seen TFs auto-dock even if they have not arrived at their final destination but happen to end their turn at a port.



Yes, that was the argument that went on in other cases. But DOCKED ships shouldn't scuttle - disbanded ships maybe should (although if they are not badly damaged, i don't think they should, personally). But the ways of WITP are mysterious...[8|]



Ranse -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/28/2005 12:57:11 AM)


It seems that a TF at sea or docked is still a TF ready for action if required, especially if the TF commander knew that the base was likely to be captured. Those disbanded ships in port would individually have to fire up thier boilers and recall crew before they could get under way, which means each captain would have to decide whether to try to flee or scuttle, depending on time. The game distinguishes between disbanded ships and docked TF ships if air attacked (disbanded ships are sitting ducks with no steam up and some crew ashore). Also, docked TFs can only be naval attacked by surface combat TFs whereas disbanded TFs can only be naval attacked by bombardment. Shouldn't it also distinguish when the base is captured?
Also, shouldn't we have at least some chance of capturing an enemy ship in port, or a lone AK surrendering when confronted with 25 cruisers and destroyers? Wasn't the heavily damaged Hornet scuttled because it could have been captured by the Japanese?
And where are the captured Chinese cruisers Ioshima and Yasoshima in the game?



Yamato hugger -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/28/2005 5:02:01 AM)

Its been my experience that docked ships can scuttle, while ships at sea wont. Want to be sure your ships dont scuttle when they are defending a contested base? Set their home port elsewhere, turn on "do not withdraw" if you wish, but most important, turn "refueling OK" to "no refuel". It is my guess that the ships pop into port to reload, and refuel (reloading even 1 AA round uses 1000 op points) and ships docked with all their op points used are the ones that scuttle.



el cid again -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/31/2005 5:59:37 PM)

quote:

Also, I had a surface taskforce at sea in a hex when it was captured by the Japanese, and the computer scuttled the whole 15-ship combat TF when the base was captured. Isn't that a bug? Would a surface TF at sea scuttle itself just because the base was captured?


It would depend on lots of factors, many not knowable to us at the high level. But it sounds perfectly reasonable as a possibility.



el cid again -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/31/2005 6:03:24 PM)

quote:

This apparently is working as designed.
In my opinion, the definition of "at anchor" used by the auto-scuttle command seems to be incorrect. It includes not only ships disbanded in port but also ships in TFs in the base hex. This is not what "at anchor" means in the rest of the manual.
My worst case was an Allied 13-ship TF with two CVs and escorts which stopped in Gilli base, which was then captured by Japanese on the same turn.


USN ships operate under a doctrine "do not mess with shore batteries" as SOP. While we DO attack them, it is ALWAYS pre planned, and never ad hoc, unless we are surprised. Depending on the actual situation, which may not be understood in a semi-abstract game, it is perfectly reasonable to say that control of the base controls ships anchored near that base. More the rule than the exception. And code needs a normal case.



el cid again -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (12/31/2005 6:06:32 PM)

quote:

And where are the captured Chinese cruisers Ioshima and Yasoshima in the game?


First, suffer no illusions:

These are DEs!!! Big ones, to be sure. Japan REMOVED their six inch guns and replaced them with 3 4.7 inch guns!!!

You want em- I will put em in. They are ASW escorts as serving in the WWII IJN.



bradfordkay -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/1/2006 6:21:00 AM)

I'm not positive, but I think I recall seeing a TF that was both physically in the port and homeported at Palembang scuttle upon the base changing hands. I thought that it scuttled rather than sail away because it was homeported there. Ever since, I have tried to make sure that important TFs (anything other than AKs and TKs) are no longer in endangered ports.



medicff -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/2/2006 5:00:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'm not positive, but I think I recall seeing a TF that was both physically in the port and homeported at Palembang scuttle upon the base changing hands. I thought that it scuttled rather than sail away because it was homeported there. Ever since, I have tried to make sure that important TFs (anything other than AKs and TKs) are no longer in endangered ports.


I have had this happen to me and it is ABSOLUTELY (tested) tied to the HOMEPORT designation. If the TF has the base set as homeport (docked or undocked) it is susceptible to scuttle. If you need to base there, set your Destination to the base, do not retire, and homeport somewhere else! [:-][:@]

Oh, we learned by mistakes here - just glad there are many reincarnated allied CVs[:D][:D]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/2/2006 5:07:31 AM)

Why would anyone in their right mind homeport ships at a contested base? Think about it...scary idea in real life I'd expect. Perhaps to game the system and have the ships magically rearm and refuel after every turn?



bradfordkay -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/3/2006 1:24:50 AM)

Ron, in my case it was a transport TF that was trying to load oil in Palembang and take it to Perth before the base fell. In order to make sure that the TF unloads and returns to Palembang, I typically have it homeported there...


BTW: another reason to use the contested port (or SOON to be contested port) as a homeport is to make sure that a ship in danger of sinking goes to that nearest port rather than trying to reach a homeport thousands of miles away...



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/3/2006 4:19:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Ron, in my case it was a transport TF that was trying to load oil in Palembang and take it to Perth before the base fell. In order to make sure that the TF unloads and returns to Palembang, I typically have it homeported there...


BTW: another reason to use the contested port (or SOON to be contested port) as a homeport is to make sure that a ship in danger of sinking goes to that nearest port rather than trying to reach a homeport thousands of miles away...


Ron, in my case it was a transport TF that was trying to load oil in Palembang and take it to Perth before the base fell. In order to make sure that the TF unloads and returns to Palembang, I typically have it homeported there...

Well, one must admit this is extremely hazardous duty for a civilian vessel. I see your point but I have no problem with the game scuttling all the ships in port or not in this case.



bradfordkay -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/3/2006 10:48:54 PM)

I never said that I had a problem with it, just that it surprised me when it first happened and that now I am prepared for it. And, yes, it is extremely hazardous duty for a civilian vessel - but any duty in the SRA was hazardous duty in that time period. Now if I had run away with all my ships then someone would be complaining about that as well...my theory is that the oil executives demanded that their employees evacuate every drop of profit they could before having to blow up the refinery!



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/4/2006 1:05:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I never said that I had a problem with it, just that it surprised me when it first happened and that now I am prepared for it. And, yes, it is extremely hazardous duty for a civilian vessel - but any duty in the SRA was hazardous duty in that time period. Now if I had run away with all my ships then someone would be complaining about that as well...my theory is that the oil executives demanded that their employees evacuate every drop of profit they could before having to blow up the refinery!


It does not help that we can't start the dismantling process early or blow it early. Nothing like extracting all that oil and refining all that fuel just so the Japs can have it.[8D] Be nice if we could roll for it's destruction early (like blowing bridges in CC2).



erstad -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/4/2006 6:59:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It does not help that we can't start the dismantling process early or blow it early. Nothing like extracting all that oil and refining all that fuel just so the Japs can have it.[8D] Be nice if we could roll for it's destruction early (like blowing bridges in CC2).



Yeah, but there does seem to be pretty significant attrition of the oil stockpiles when a base changes hands. I don't have exact figures, because I'm never sure how much was deliberately removed, but even on minor bases like Kuala (level 1 port, takes forever to load so I doubt my opponents spend a lot of time there versus other sites) the amount of oil seems to always be much less than one would predict based on 6*oilpoints*scenario days.

Not complaining, mind you (even though I play Japan). Seems very reasonable to me.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/4/2006 8:00:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It does not help that we can't start the dismantling process early or blow it early. Nothing like extracting all that oil and refining all that fuel just so the Japs can have it.[8D] Be nice if we could roll for it's destruction early (like blowing bridges in CC2).



Yeah, but there does seem to be pretty significant attrition of the oil stockpiles when a base changes hands. I don't have exact figures, because I'm never sure how much was deliberately removed, but even on minor bases like Kuala (level 1 port, takes forever to load so I doubt my opponents spend a lot of time there versus other sites) the amount of oil seems to always be much less than one would predict based on 6*oilpoints*scenario days.

Not complaining, mind you (even though I play Japan). Seems very reasonable to me.



I find I'm compelled to extricate the resources and oil from Palembang as long as I can because of this continuous production. Darned if I'm going to let the Japs have all this stuff. lots of work trying to keep these ships safe however. When Singapore is gone it gets too risky.



el cid again -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/4/2006 1:34:08 PM)

quote:

It does not help that we can't start the dismantling process early or blow it early. Nothing like extracting all that oil and refining all that fuel just so the Japs can have it. Be nice if we could roll for it's destruction early (like blowing bridges in CC2).


IF my theory is correct (fingers crossed) in RHS it should go to 100% damaged when it changes hands. One writer says that takes a very long time to fix. This will happen wether or not you contest the place with military units. I have created civil infrastructure that does this for you, as well as eats the supplies that should not be there.



bradfordkay -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/4/2006 7:07:49 PM)

el cid... I think that you'll find having the oil production going to 100% destruction in a base that changes hands will handicap the Japanese player far too heavily. Of course, if you're talking about 100% stockpile destrcution with the same die roll for production facilities that we already have - then that's something we can live with.



medicff -> RE: Base Bug and Auto-scuttle (1/5/2006 3:27:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why would anyone in their right mind homeport ships at a contested base? Think about it...scary idea in real life I'd expect. Perhaps to game the system and have the ships magically rearm and refuel after every turn?


I also do not have a problem with it and actually was facing a very aggressive opponent and just happen to homebase on as waypoint never thinking that he would attack so quickly and far ahead. I learned and now I never expect the unexpected (or try not to)[:'(]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375