|
Alfred -> RE: A few newbie questions (6/21/2015 8:30:54 AM)
|
I wasn't going to respond to the nonsense, worthless "facts" and contradictory material that is being posted here but other newbies might actually think there is some substance to this nonsense.
No, the scenario is not bugged. The fault lies entirely with SilentHunter who has no idea what he is doing and wants to find excuses for his very poor play.
1. Anyone who knows anything about computer wargames, knows that the only thing different between each scenario is the database. The game code remains the same. It is the same game code which drives scenario 1, or scenario 5 or scenario 26. Every modder who makes a scenario is applying his own database to the game code. Not a single "issue" identified by SilentHunter is database derived. Ergo, there is no bug in the scenario.
2. As there is no bug, why should any dev respond to the request outlined in post #474. Devs and experienced players have better things to do than waste their time answering nonsense. Devs and experienced players do assist new players who make an effort in the first place and present material in a logical manner and with sufficient detail to identify the issues. That has not been the case here. Nor does the 14 hour delay between posts #469 and #470 engender a sympathetic attitude.
3. In post #462 it is clearly stated that SilentHunter is playing the Japanese side. Yet in all the subsequent posts it is clear they are raised from the Allied perspective. Either he is being economical with the truth or he is playing the scenario Head to Head. If it is the latter, that is a very important factor which has been omitted which combined with what he said in post #466 of adopting a purely defensive game, goes a very long way to explaining the lack of action in the 47 turns to date.
4. SilentHunter keeps on throwing about terms such as Combat Report as "evidence" that things are being seen but then not being placed on the map. In post #469 he provides the latest "Combat Report" which shows 2 Allied and 2 Japanese sightings. The problem is that is not a Combat Report. The information he provided there is not what one sees when the true Combat Reports, which are accessible by hitting the short cut key "C", are fetched. In a sense this lack of attention to detail is not at all surprising for it was he who in post #455 wanted to reduce the time for turn resolution and in post #460 stated that he had reduced all delays to zero. Time after time, experienced players point out that the true Combat Reports do not disclose all the important information. Very important information is contained in the Combat Animations. Devs and I have regularly pointed out that no third party software is necessary to understand this game. Over reliance on such third party software often stunts a player's AE awareness. Perhaps SilentHunter would like to become a brain surgeon but not be bothered with the years of training required. Are there institutions in the USA which, upon receipt of the appropriate sum of money, reward such individuals with the mailing of a certificate attesting to their surgical skills.
5. Post #469 is just nonsense. The basic complaint is that after 47 turns he hasn't had combat and can't find the enemy. Yet in post #472 he does admit that he can get combat if he deliberately flies to the enemy airbase. A rather important piece of information he omitted from post #469. He states that he is reading the manual. I see no evidence that he is or if he is, he certainly isn't reading the sections of the manual which address his concerns. Section 7.4 of the manual on page 171, which is titled "Air Combat", opens with the sentence "Air combat occurs when opposing aircraft meet in the same hex ...". Where is the evidence that Japan (which presumably is he himself) is sending aircraft to Adak or Dutch. Or for that matter he is sending aircraft to Kiska or Attu. And before you attempt to justify your position about sightings, they are something else quite different which I deal with below
6. More nonsense from #469. Allegedly all aircraft are flying 100% sweeps. Really?[&:] The fighters are flying sweeps at 4 hex range at 5k alt and the bombers are flying sweeps at 10 hex range at 9k altitude. Let's put aside for the moment that it is impossible to assign a bomber the sweep mission, and if he believes I don't know what I'm talking about, let he try to explain the absence of sweeps for bombers in the tables on pages 158 and 159 of the manual. Let's also put aside for the moment that in post #472 the altitudes now seem to have become 25k and 1k, and also 15k and 2k. Being generous I will say he is totally confused and has no idea what he is doing or more importantly what a sweep is in the game.
(a) Page 150 of the manual states what the game's "Sweep" mission does. How does he expect any air unit, assuming it has been given a "sweep" mission, is going to have any interaction with enemy ships or submarines.
(b) Note how he has limited his fighters on sweep to a 4 hex range (and for what it is worth, his bombers to a 10 hex range). The distance between Kiska and Adak is 5 hexes, and the distance is 14 hexes to Dutch Harbor. Even if the sweep mission was being assigned correctly to his fighters, they cannot undertake it successfully because Kiska is too far away. Unless of course he has given them Kiska as the target when the normal range limit would be overridden. But of course no mention has been made whether any of his air units have been given targets.
7. Again from that treasure trove which is post #469. His 3 sub task forces and 2 BB/DD "surface combat patrol" have had no combat in 47 turns. No mention of how they have been structured, eg what sort of patrol parameters have been assigned. More importantly, silence on what exactly he expects them to find; enemy surface ships, enemy subs, flotsam, plastic bags?. The so called sightings from the "Combat Report" which is the only material he has actually posted, are consistent with sub activity. Since when do sub or surface combat task forces primarily concern themselves with locating and then prosecuting contact with subs. That is what the dedicated ASW task force is supposed to do. Of course that would entail having read as a minimum pages 76-78 of the manual where all the different types of task forces are identified.
8. Then there is the so called constant sighting of enemy task forces but their non appearance on the map. Once again I draw attention to chapter 10 of the manual. Nothing particularly surprising here, especially when one takes into account the very low ASW ratings of the Allied at start patrol airplane pilots. Heaven forbid we should have been given any details as to whether they had continued their at start training and what their current ASW ratings are. We don't even know if air units have been assigned ASW missions. Some mention is made of naval search but that is not the same thing, even assuming we can trust that statement. If, as per #472 but not mentioned in #469, search arcs (assuming they are on ASW search, a big if)are being made night and day, there is still no mention of the parameters such as range, percentage set to search etc. Personally I don't believe his assurance that it has been taken care off properly. The scenario starts with 2 patrol units only. Two more additional units come in as reinforcements. he therefore has 4 units, apparently operating out of two bases on day and night. These are not monster sized units. He cannot have 360 degree ASW coverage, 24/7. Nor can he be coopting the bomber units if they are on naval attack/naval search and even if they are coopted the pilots suck at ASW. Then there is point 9 below.
9. Both Adak and Dutch start off with very small sized airfields. Dutch has a small surplus of aviation support but Adak is already in the red re av sup on 15 April 1943. No evidence that the airfields have been built up to accommodate the existing at start units, let alone the air units set to arrive. No evidence that the necessary supplies have been sent to Adak to sustain effective air operations from that airfield. We are completely left in the dark as to the situation on turn 47 at Adak re airfield size, amount of av sup, actual units located there, how many airframes remain serviceable etc etc.
There are many other things not provided, such as weather conditions, but I've already spent far too many hours on this nonsense. Unlike many, I research my answers before I post. A few screenshots would accurately disclose the situation. But that would entail too much effort. Far better to misinform us, expect us to guess, complain if no one responds within 14 hours, or better still clutch at any suggestion that the fault lies in the game itself.
Alfred
|
|
|
|
