Direct disobedience of orders

Direct disobedience of orders (Full Version)

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

Message

Roger Neilson II -> Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 8:36:10 AM)
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

Feinder -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 8:38:59 AM)
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-

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 8:44:27 AM)
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

Grotius -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 9:22:14 AM)
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?

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 11:29:05 AM)
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

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 11:30:29 AM)
Duplicated post removed

DSwain -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 12:11:30 PM)
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.

Grotius -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 8:08:26 PM)
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. :)

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 8:27:06 PM)
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

rtrapasso -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 10:09:31 PM)
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.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 10:20:06 PM)
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

dtravel -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/15/2007 10:46:08 PM)
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>

rtrapasso -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 12:07:47 AM)
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.

dtravel -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 6:16:52 AM)
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.

Gem35 -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 6:53:31 AM)
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.

grumpyman -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 6:54:09 AM)
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! [:D][:D][:D]

rtrapasso -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 7:37:01 AM)
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! [:D][:D][:D] yep - then it is only "poor documentation" rather than a bug. [:D]

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 10:02:12 AM)
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

tabpub -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 11:27:28 AM)
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...

AmiralLaurent -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/16/2007 12:42:00 PM)
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 ?

Gem35 -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 2:14:44 AM)
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.

grumpyman -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 2:58:24 AM)
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[:D][:D][:D].

Riva Ridge -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 5:16:13 AM)
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.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 9:12:53 AM)
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

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 9:13:50 AM)
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

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 9:17:59 AM)
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

Grotius -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 10:54:44 AM)
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.

Gem35 -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 3:07:44 PM)
Same here, sorry for the misunderstanding, Roger.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 7:47:16 PM)
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

Grotius -> RE: Direct disobedience of orders (7/17/2007 9:53:48 PM)
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. :)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.375