Bombardment bug?

Bombardment bug? (Full Version)

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

Message

shaade -> Bombardment bug? (6/17/2002 6:52:12 AM)
Great game and great patch! However, I just noticed a problem with a bombardment mission which I cannot explain. I've sent a surface fleet to Gili Gili to bombard (retirement allowed, react to enemy). The fleet performed its mission but after that it did NOT retreat, and therefore it was torpetoed by japanase LBA. I reloaded and sent it again to GG, but this time with no bombardment mission. It went there and then returned without any problems. Therefore the distance doesn't seem to cause the above mentioned problem. Any ideas? Maybe a dreaded 'bug'?

Huskalator -> (6/17/2002 7:23:49 AM)
I noticed the same thing. I sent a bombardment TF from Rabual to Port Moreby and it just sat there at its destination. The first time this happended I figured I had forgotten to set the TF to "retirement". But then I tried it again and got the same results. Is this a bug or was this done on purpose?

FirstPappy -> (6/17/2002 9:25:20 AM)
More people are having the same problems. There are similar posts in the bug forum.

Didz -> (6/17/2002 3:15:29 PM)
Looks like the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. In V1.0 Bombardment Groups enjoyed almost total immunity from air attack due to the retirement option and turn phasing now they have almost no immunity. Sounds like divine justice to me;)

jhdeerslayer -> (6/17/2002 8:06:26 PM)
Ditto. I have seen the same issue in 1.10. Is this intentional? Seems odd if it is.

Didz -> (6/17/2002 9:19:12 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deerslayer [B]Ditto. I have seen the same issue in 1.10. Is this intentional? Seems odd if it is. [/B][/QUOTE] I wonder if someone has adjusted the Bombardment missions so that they can only complete 12 hours movement under cover of darkness. That would be a sensible change but I didn't think there were any plans to do it.

Sonny -> (6/17/2002 9:27:54 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B] I wonder if someone has adjusted the Bombardment missions so that they can only complete 12 hours movement under cover of darkness. That would be a sensible change but I didn't think there were any plans to do it. [/B][/QUOTE] Well if the did adjust it they should also adjust where the 12 hour run starts (and ends) too.:D Without that I'd prefer to have it the old way.

Erik Rutins -> Comments... (6/17/2002 9:37:23 PM)
As far as I know, this was completely unintentional and must have appeared in the last day's build, but was not caught by testing. I've duplicated it here with 1.10 as have some testers, so we'll do our best to get this addressed quickly. Hopefully, it will be a simple fix. Regards, - Erik

Wilson ESQ -> Re: Comments... (6/17/2002 10:19:12 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins [B]As far as I know, this was completely unintentional and must have appeared in the last day's build, but was not caught by testing. I've duplicated it here with 1.10 as have some testers, so we'll do our best to get this addressed quickly. Hopefully, it will be a simple fix. Regards, - Erik [/B][/QUOTE] Are these problems only for saved games (pre-1.10 patch games)? Do we know yet? Thanks for all your work. Great Game:)

elmo3 -> Re: Re: Comments... (6/17/2002 11:24:04 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilson ESQ [B] Are these problems only for saved games (pre-1.10 patch games)? Do we know yet? Thanks for all your work. Great Game:) [/B][/QUOTE] Nope. I started a new game with 1.10 and had the problem. It strikes me as a game breaker so hopefully Mike can spot the problem and we can get a qucik 1.11 release.

sitkis -> (6/17/2002 11:33:29 PM)
Probably related. Transport TFs, with retire, used to go to their target port, unload, then return to the home port. After the patch they do not unload unless told and do not return to home unless told. This just adds a bunch of busy work and results in lots of "dead" time for convoys that are almost empty. At the start of a day they may have only 100 supplies to unload but must wait for you to tell them the next day before they set sail. Liked it the other way better. The CS convoys kinda work, but they seem to switch from load to unload every day. In other words if you check on the CS convoys they say "idle", but if you leave them alone you get an unloading message during the execution phase. They switch back to idle at the end of the turn, but you can see that supplies were unloaded. However, they also never seem to finish unloading and then set sail the same day; for some reason a move order only gets implimented if it is all the TF is planning on doing the start of each day.

Wilson ESQ -> Re: Re: Re: Comments... (6/17/2002 11:39:53 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3 [B] Nope. I started a new game with 1.10 and had the problem. It strikes me as a game breaker so hopefully Mike can spot the problem and we can get a qucik 1.11 release. [/B][/QUOTE] I think you're right about this being a game breaker! I lost a bunch of ships at the 'Canal before I realized the problem. And if the transports are having the same problem, it could be a bookkeeping nightmare as well. I think I'll wait for the fix, before I play again.

Admiral DadMan -> (6/17/2002 11:41:04 PM)
Lunga was just hit by [I]Yamato[/I] et. al., and stayed around for daylight too, where I hammered it with LBA. I think it is doing it to both sides.

jhdeerslayer -> (6/18/2002 12:00:58 AM)
Definitely both sides in my experience. I've never seen the Jap AI hang out at Lunga after a bombardment until I went to 1.1. Hope this is a quick fix as it does affect game play a tad bit with no work around like some of the other patched issues out there.

Wilson ESQ -> (6/18/2002 2:55:50 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deerslayer [B]Definitely both sides in my experience. I've never seen the Jap AI hang out at Lunga after a bombardment until I went to 1.1. Hope this is a quick fix as it does affect game play a tad bit with no work around like some of the other patched issues out there. [/B][/QUOTE] Anybody hear about any fixes for this? I need my UV fix tonight;)

jhdeerslayer -> (6/18/2002 3:49:04 AM)
Maybe a 1.11 patch is coming our way soon... I feel guilty jumping on the AI with my AG's when it does this as it normally would not be an opportunity you'd get and I'll have to hold off on bombardment on my side until this is fixed. Not sure what else to do.

Didz -> Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments... (6/18/2002 4:37:50 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilson ESQ [B] I think you're right about this being a game breaker! I lost a bunch of ships at the 'Canal before I realized the problem.[/B][/QUOTE] Personally I don't see this as any more of a problem than the 1.0 scenario where bombardment groups were allowed total immunity from air attack. At least under the 1.1 regime proper precautions now have to be taken to ensure that the LBA at the target base is neutralised before the bombardment mission goes in and that the Bombardment TF has an adequate LRCAP over it during extraction. I agree that neither situation is perfect but at least under the 1.1 scenario I am not forced to use 'gamey' tactic's like laying mines or posting submarines in the middle of the Solomon Sea to try and stop the AI doing it.

Wilson ESQ -> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments... (6/18/2002 5:28:46 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B] Personally I don't see this as any more of a problem than the 1.0 scenario where bombardment groups were allowed total immunity from air attack. At least under the 1.1 regime proper precautions now have to be taken to ensure that the LBA at the target base is neutralised before the bombardment mission goes in and that the Bombardment TF has an adequate LRCAP over it during extraction. I agree that neither situation is perfect but at least under the 1.1 scenario I am not forced to use 'gamey' tactic's like laying mines or posting submarines in the middle of the Solomon Sea to try and stop the AI doing it. [/B][/QUOTE] This is a question of a programing bug, not a historical one. I have read a great deal in this area and agree with the designers of this game. They 've done their homework. The titles of the best books were mentioned in an earlier thread. Esp see Frank's book on the G'Canal. The night naval actions off G'Canal would never have taken place if what you say is true. Sorry, Didz. I hope we get our fix soon. Wilson ESQ:)

brisd -> Tokyo Express happened (6/18/2002 5:49:20 AM)
Deal with it - I don't understand why we are even discussing it. The way the designers made the original design of fast moving TF's sailing in, dispensing death and then escaping into the night is right on everything I have read on the subject. The game is broke in its version 1.10 state. :(

Caltone -> (6/18/2002 6:24:32 AM)
This is a huge problem IMHO. Any news on a fix? It afects transport TF's as well.

Didz -> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments... (6/18/2002 3:02:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilson ESQ [B] This is a question of a programing bug, not a historical one. I have read a great deal in this area and agree with the designers of this game. They 've done their homework. The titles of the best books were mentioned in an earlier thread. Esp see Frank's book on the G'Canal. The night naval actions off G'Canal would never have taken place if what you say is true. Sorry, Didz. I hope we get our fix soon. Wilson ESQ:) [/B][/QUOTE] I agree we seem to be dealing with a programming bug in 1.1 whereas the 1.0 issue was a design feature. However, as far as I can determine from my own limited research neither situation can be historically justified. The bombardment missions conducted on Henderson Field during the battle of Guadacanal took place between August42 and November 42 when according to the Marine Corps history websites there were less than 40 planes operating from the island (most of which were fighters) and these were fully committed to local ground support and CAP duties during daylight hours and were not in a position to conduct air patrols over the slot. At the same time the Japanese had air superiority over the slot for the entire of this period which is the main reason that Nimitz refused to leave his carriers in the area to support the marines. As far as I am aware there were no bombardment missions conducted against Guadacanal after the Bomber strip was operational in December. So! it appears from what I have read that the IJN bombardment missions and the 'Tokyo Express' were conducted in situation where there they were relatively safe from air interdiction anyway and darkness was mainly being used to cover the final approach both from air and surface interdiction. At the same time without risking their carriers the USN had no choice but to sacrifice ships in order to try and interdict these missions. Unfortunately, the phasing in UV allows those same missions to be sent in against any base even if it has a fully developed LBA and air superiority over the entire area including what ought to be their intial assembly and extraction points.

mjk428 -> Re: The Tokyo Express Happened (6/18/2002 3:36:50 PM)
To be fair, the Tokyo Express was specific to actions around Guadalcanal. BB's suddenly appearing at Port Morseby and being out of LBA range before anyone can react certainly never happened. If this is an abstraction in order to properly simulate the campaign on the whole, I can live with it. However, I'd certainly prefer it to be improved. mjk428

Didz -> Re: Re: The Tokyo Express Happened (6/18/2002 4:09:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428 [B]To be fair, the Tokyo Express was specific to actions around Guadalcanal. BB's suddenly appearing at Port Morseby and being out of LBA range before anyone can react certainly never happened. If this is an abstraction in order to properly simulate the campaign on the whole, I can live with it. However, I'd certainly prefer it to be improved. mjk428 [/B][/QUOTE] Exactly! I'm quite happy to accept it as design feature and live with the need to use mines and subs inappropriately to stop it. It just annoys when it gets sold as historically accurate. IMO its the only really poor feature of UV which is pretty good going for a game of this complexity.

Wilson ESQ -> Re: Re: Re: The Tokyo Express Happened (6/18/2002 8:52:19 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz [B] Exactly! I'm quite happy to accept it as design feature and live with the need to use mines and subs inappropriately to stop it. It just annoys when it gets sold as historically accurate. IMO its the only really poor feature of UV which is pretty good going for a game of this complexity. [/B][/QUOTE] This is the "Bug" forum. No one is selling you anything. You came over here to sell your view on issues that really don't fit under this forum. I am interested in getting this bug fixed so I can get off this forum and get back to my books, fly fishing, chasing the wife around the back pasture, and, of course, UV. ;) Wilson ESQ

mjk428 -> Bug and PROBLEMS Forum (6/19/2002 1:55:31 AM)
Wilson, This is the bug and PROBLEMS forum actually. The thread topic is "Bombardment bug?". The question mark seemed to open this thread to concerns about bombardments being unrealistic. They were unrealistic in 1.0 and they're unrealistic in 1.1. If we should have a new thread, fine. I'd prefer to hear it from a moderator. Why do you have a problem with someone giving an honest and informed opinion in a polite way? mjk428

Wilson ESQ -> Re: Bug and PROBLEMS Forum (6/19/2002 2:46:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428 [B]Wilson, This is the bug and PROBLEMS forum actually. The thread topic is "Bombardment bug?". The question mark seemed to open this thread to concerns about bombardments being unrealistic. They were unrealistic in 1.0 and they're unrealistic in 1.1. If we should have a new thread, fine. I'd prefer to hear it from a moderator. Why do you have a problem with someone giving an honest and informed opinion in a polite way? mjk428 [/B][/QUOTE] I did not mean to be imploite, not at all. I'm sorry. BUT I don't like people telling me I'm selling ideas, because I'm not. To be honest with you, I'm just not very interested in changing your viewpoint, and I hope you keep your current view. This thread was about a "bug," until some folks came on and changed the topic, so they could attack some folks they were mad at (not me by the way. I didn't have a dog in that fight). Please reread the thread and I'm sure you will see my point. From what I have read Mike Wood is working to fix this new "bug," and I'll be back to my own interests shortly. Good luck, and surely the next patch will have the fixes you so desire.

mjk428 -> (6/19/2002 4:29:50 AM)
Hi Wilson, I didn't think you were impolite. I didn't think any other posters were impolite either. I agree that the bug in 1.1 affects gameplay more negatively than the design choice in 1.0. Thanks and I hope you're correct when you say that the patch following the next "fix" will tweak movement a bit. mjk428

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078125