RE: naval bombardment.

RE: naval bombardment. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support

Message

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/5/2013 3:46:00 PM)
I don't know the background of the game. But two thoughts: 1) Range does not equal effective fire-control for hitting moving ships at that range. 2) A bug is something that is broken. A design decision one does not like is not a bug.

JocMeister -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/5/2013 3:58:27 PM)
Do take note of the fact that michael has been logged on and not responded here. Thats probably a good indication that he won´t touch this. Couple that with Don Bowens comment and I don´t think you will get your way with this. As Miller points out even if your CD guns fired back it wouldn´t have changed one bit. Your are talking 20 Cruisers against a couple of peashooters. Its not the Truk fortress... Here is the effect on some bigger guns than what you have shooting back a much, much smaller force. If you think you CD guns would have changed anything you have the wrong expectations. quote: Naval Gun Fire at Bataan - Coastal Guns Fire Back! 54 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Allied Ships CA San Francisco, Shell hits 1 CA Minneapolis CA Chicago, Shell hits 1 CA Chester, Shell hits 1 CL Miami CL Mobile CL Birmingham CL Montpelier DD Yarnall DD Wickes DD Waller DD Walker DD Twining DD Fletcher DD Lyman K. Swenson DD Brush

Symon -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/5/2013 5:02:55 PM)
Briefly, michaelm won't respond to this because it is not a bug. Don Bowen wrote the code for the Naval Team, including this part. We all still chat. CD return fire algorithm hasn't changed much since day 1. We also play the game. It has worked and still works as designed for us and everybody else. Your issue is not a bug and the game isn't broken. Perhaps an apology to Miller and a bit less overheated rhetoric, yeah? ps, look at the credits at the end of the manual. You will find that many of the developers are still active and, depending on the algorithms being discussed, have opinions that are quite definitive, thank you very much. pps, your original premise is wrong. Naval forces can hit other targets without regard to whether shore guns are defeated, or even if they are engaged, first. Shore guns respond on the basis of a die roll. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. From your panel, I can see two reasons why they may not have fired. Acting the a$$hole as you are, I don’t think I want to help you. Apologize to Miller, publicly, and I might see my way clear to answering your question. JWE

MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/6/2013 3:52:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I don't know the background of the game. But two thoughts: 1) Range does not equal effective fire-control for hitting moving ships at that range. 2) A bug is something that is broken. A design decision one does not like is not a bug. So, just so I understand this. The design decision is that naval DP guns do NOT shoot at bombarding naval vessels, or any other guns in the hex for that matter, and so it is working as designed. Note, your item number 1 is moot, because they didnt fire. The complaint isnt that they didnt hit, it is that they didnt even fire. And the ships never fired at them either. Just a little more background. My night Emily patrol planes spotted his TF before they left their base. My night Bettys attacked twice before he even bombarded as well, so the question of him "sneaking up" on the base is also moot. They were spotted well in advance. So the only questions are, do Jap DP guns fire at bombarding ships? And you, and Don, and JWE say "no", they are not supposed to fire back at bombarding ships. And do bombarding ships have to shoot at defending coastal guns before anything else in the hex, and you, Don, and JWE also say "no" to that question as well. Do I understand you correctly? The design of the game is that guns that were designed to shoot at ships and airplanes only fire at airplanes. Does this work the same for allied DP guns? Oh, and since my Hong Kong CDU failed to fire at ships in the straights off Java, Im assuming that means IJA coastal guns also wouldnt fire at bombarding ships as well (since they didnt months ago). If this isnt a bug, then it certainly is a design flaw, and Michael should correct this. 99% sure this isnt the way it worked in stock WitP, so it would have been a change made for AE.

witpqs -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/6/2013 4:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I don't know the background of the game. But two thoughts: 1) Range does not equal effective fire-control for hitting moving ships at that range. 2) A bug is something that is broken. A design decision one does not like is not a bug. So, just so I understand this. The design decision is that naval DP guns do NOT shoot at bombarding naval vessels, or any other guns in the hex for that matter, and so it is working as designed. Just a little more background. My night Emily patrol planes spotted his TF before they left their base. My night Bettys attacked twice before he even bombarded as well, so the question of him "sneaking up" on the base is also moot. They were spotted well in advance. So the only questions are, do Jap DP guns fire at bombarding ships? And you, and Don, and JWE say "no", they are not supposed to fire back at bombarding ships. And do bombarding ships have to shoot at defending coastal guns before anything else in the hex, and you, Don, and JWE also say "no" to that question as well. Do I understand you correctly? The design of the game is that guns that were designed to shoot at ships and airplanes only fire at airplanes. Does this work the same for allied DP guns? Oh, and since my Hong Kong CDU failed to fire at ships in the straights off Java, Im assuming that means IJA coastal guns also wouldnt fire at bombarding ships as well (since they didnt months ago). If this isnt a bug, then it certainly is a design flaw, and Michael should correct this. No, you do not understand and you are not even making an effort to understand. What you seem to want is something as simple as checkers. Wrong game. Good luck.

LoBaron -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/6/2013 6:08:31 AM)
quote: Ailinglaplap quote: Japanese aircraft losses Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 351 damaged Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 9 destroyed on ground A6M2 Zero: 310 damaged A6M2 Zero: 16 destroyed on ground E13A1 Jake: 70 damaged E13A1 Jake: 5 destroyed on ground [X(][sm=Crazy-1271.gif]

PaxMondo -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/6/2013 11:18:55 AM)
removed after consideration. [;)]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/6/2013 12:13:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I don't know the background of the game. But two thoughts: 1) Range does not equal effective fire-control for hitting moving ships at that range. 2) A bug is something that is broken. A design decision one does not like is not a bug. So, just so I understand this. The design decision is that naval DP guns do NOT shoot at bombarding naval vessels, or any other guns in the hex for that matter, and so it is working as designed. Note, your item number 1 is moot, because they didnt fire. The complaint isnt that they didnt hit, it is that they didnt even fire. And the ships never fired at them either. A developer with knowledge of the code--no, two of them--have told you it's working as designed. There is a die roll. Random chance. You didn't get the roll. If you had, as has been pointed out (look at the penetration number for your guns in the DB), next to nothing would have happened. I predict this will be the last post in this thread, unless you want to make a fool of yourself some more.

Miller -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/6/2013 5:19:25 PM)
Well I hope this information has resolved the issue and I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt of my opponent, he believed he was in the right (he may still do) and is entitled to his opinion. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I am not after any apology, I would just like our game to continue and have informed MDDgames of this. The decision is his now.

erstad -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/8/2013 5:21:00 AM)
quote: So, just so I understand this. The design decision is that naval DP guns do NOT shoot at bombarding naval vessels, or any other guns in the hex for that matter, and so it is working as designed. Not accurate. Naval DP guns WILL shoot at bombarding naval vessels. That doesn't mean they will always shoot. No-one authoritative has said they "do NOT shoot" (let alone that it was a design decision for them not to shoot). Here's a screenshot showing a DP gun shooting. [image]local://upfiles/13407/EFB1D8A1F7B143879259EFD85AD12041.jpg[/image]

MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 7:48:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I don't know the background of the game. But two thoughts: 1) Range does not equal effective fire-control for hitting moving ships at that range. 2) A bug is something that is broken. A design decision one does not like is not a bug. So, just so I understand this. The design decision is that naval DP guns do NOT shoot at bombarding naval vessels, or any other guns in the hex for that matter, and so it is working as designed. Note, your item number 1 is moot, because they didnt fire. The complaint isnt that they didnt hit, it is that they didnt even fire. And the ships never fired at them either. A developer with knowledge of the code--no, two of them--have told you it's working as designed. There is a die roll. Random chance. You didn't get the roll. If you had, as has been pointed out (look at the penetration number for your guns in the DB), next to nothing would have happened. I will repeat myself: quote: If this isnt a bug, then it certainly is a design flaw, and Michael should correct this. 99% sure this isnt the way it worked in stock WitP, so it would have been a change made for AE. Dons, and JWEs input at this point means nothing more than yours does. Michael is the one with the code, and to the best of my knowledge the only one that updates the code anymore. I could of course be wrong on this. And I have yet to see him comment 1 way or the other on the matter. I do have to admit, I would LOVE to hear Don and or JWE try to explain the logic behind not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ships though. But the development stomp of the foot, and the "its that way because thats the way I wanted it" is the best we are going to get Im afraid. So again, I call on Michael to fix this shortcoming. And until Michael says it is like it is, nothing is final in my mind. quote: I predict this will be the last post in this thread, unless you want to make a fool of yourself some more. This is a personal attack IMHO, and is against the forum rules, as I understand them. Is this not so?

witpqs -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 7:54:08 PM)
quote: ...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship... This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up.

LoBaron -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 8:04:48 PM)
Chances are that your teeny weeny CD guns got suppressed within the first seconds of the battle just by looking the force relation. If not theres a couple of other perfectly legal reasons why they did not fire. That you are still pressing the 'issue' is pretty pathetic. Good luck anyways.

MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 8:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Chances are that your teeny weeny CD guns got suppressed within the first seconds of the battle just by looking the force relation. If not theres a couple of other perfectly legal reasons why they did not fire. That you are still pressing the 'issue' is pretty pathetic. Good luck anyways. And again I say: quote: And those that dont offer a possible explanation think that attacking the poster is the answer to the problem. Such petty people.[8\|]

MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 8:32:02 PM)
double post, sorry

MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 8:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship... This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up. You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it. And if you want to look at the die rolls (which I can do, I have the save, but no one asked for that), I also have a command HQ within 2x its command radius which makes die rolls more favorable.

witpqs -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 8:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship... This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up. You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it. It doesn't matter if it was the only unit or not.

MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 8:40:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship... This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up. You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it. It doesn't matter if it was the only unit or not. And if you want to look at the die rolls (which I can do, I have the save, but no one asked for that), I also have a command HQ within 2x its command radius which makes die rolls more favorable. Again, something for michael to check.

witpqs -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 9:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship... This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up. You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it. It doesn't matter if it was the only unit or not. And if you want to look at the die rolls (which I can do, I have the save, but no one asked for that), I also have a command HQ within 2x its command radius which makes die rolls more favorable. Again, something for michael to check. The die rolls don't matter. You are claiming - or have you changed your mind? - that the guns are not allowed to fire. It works fine for other people. And as they have explained, it is far from guaranteed that CD guns in any given situation will be able to engage, or will engage on that turn in that situation.

PaxMondo -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 9:58:55 PM)
This is still going on? [:D][:D][:D] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 10:07:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo This is still going on? [:D][:D][:D] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif] Well, something is still going on, yeah. What is the sound of one hand clapping?

MDDgames -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/10/2013 11:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs The die rolls don't matter. You are claiming - or have you changed your mind? - that the guns are not allowed to fire. It works fine for other people. And as they have explained, it is far from guaranteed that CD guns in any given situation will be able to engage, or will engage on that turn in that situation. Well, when I look at something that happens in the game, when I am trying to decide if something is "gamey", I look at history for examples. In this case, the bombarding ships were spotted by Emilys leaving their base at night. The bombarding ships were attacked not once, but TWICE, at night, prior to their bombardment. Now, explain why shore guns, that are in range of the enemy blasting away at them wouldnt fire back? Seriously. I need the laugh. I am not talking game crap and die rolls. Im talking HISTORY. Never happened. Would never happen. Time for someone to attack me again, because you CANT explain it away, without admitting the design is flawed and should be fixed...

erstad -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/11/2013 2:45:55 AM)
Well, you won't find a post where I attacked you. However, you made the statement that you understood that there was a design decision that Jap DP guns never fire at bombarding ships. I posted objective evidence that at least under my version (last official patch, IIRC) the DP guns do file at least sometimes. quote: Now, explain why shore guns, that are in range of the enemy blasting away at them wouldnt fire back? I'm not a dev, and am not an authoritative source in any way, shape, or form. However, I can think of at least one possible reason off the bat. With the DP guns and the bombarding force having almost the same range, it is not necessarily the case the DP guns are in range of the bombardment force just because some other land target is.

witpqs -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/11/2013 3:22:32 AM)
quote: In this case, the bombarding ships were spotted by Emilys leaving their base at night. The bombarding ships were attacked not once, but TWICE, at night, prior to their bombardment. Now, explain why shore guns, that are in range of the enemy blasting away at them wouldnt fire back? Seriously. I need the laugh. If you really want to laugh, read lots of history and then try again to imply that all those forces had perfect and prompt communications with each other. You won't be able to because you will be laughing so hard.

CyrusSpitama -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/11/2013 4:23:24 AM)
Before I fully patched the game and was using vanilla only, I discovered an AI bug that caused the Allied AI to load up transports and then beeline to Tokyo... This transport group was typically unescorted by anything else other than a few small escort boats. More often than not, the CD guns at Yokosuka would hammer this small transport task force and sink it before it landed anything at Tokyo. Rarely, a small number of ships survived to attempt a landing or at least entered the Tokyo hex to sink from CD gun damages... One time, the CD guns failed to fire a single shot and the transport group charged head first into my CS task force ( that is, the Chitose and Chiyoda plus escorts) parked at Tokyo. I was just about to disband them for conversion you see. Luckily for me, the CSs plus DDs blew this transport group out of the water. My CS then retired to the docks for their conversion with a nice experience and morale booster. I no longer play vanilla so unsure if this AI flaw still exists or if it only occurs with certain triggered events.

LoBaron -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/11/2013 5:52:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Chances are that your teeny weeny CD guns got suppressed within the first seconds of the battle just by looking the force relation. If not theres a couple of other perfectly legal reasons why they did not fire. That you are still pressing the 'issue' is pretty pathetic. Good luck anyways. And again I say: quote: And those that dont offer a possible explanation think that attacking the poster is the answer to the problem. Such petty people.[8\|] If you paint yourself as a target don´t be surprized if you get shot at. The answer to the problem would you be simply calling it quits. Or read to the relevant parts of all the resoponses, grasp them intellectually, and then calling it quits. It is all there, you just have to count two and two together and integrate into your game situation, this might be the easiest way to deal with reality. You learned that CD guns don´t need to be defeated to enable a bombardment TF to shoot at other targets. You learned that not all DP guns in all unit types are capable of firing at bombardment TFs. You know (I hope at least) that there is a repair phase between the bombardment and you looking at the turn, so disabled guns might be repaired in between. You learned that defensive guns can be suppressed by enemy fire. You know that there are die rolls involved to initiate counterfire against a bombardmant TF You know that your guns were outranged for a large part of the engagement. You know that the weight of fire relation vs. Miller´s TF was ridiculous (looks like 20:1-something). So, these are just the obvious ones, and I surely have missed some. Jumping up and down and crying for mum does not help you there. It just makes you look ridiculous.

JocMeister -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/11/2013 6:55:15 AM)
MDD, I would take a closer look at what Symon (JWE) wrote. As I understand it they have talked about your issue. quote: ORIGINAL: Symon Briefly, michaelm won't respond to this because it is not a bug. Don Bowen wrote the code for the Naval Team, including this part. We all still chat. If the guy who wrote the code tells you its not a bug its time to get out of the denial stage and move into the acceptance stage. Two developers and a myriad of very experienced players have told you repeatedly this is clearly NOT a bug. You have been given a very detailed explanation many times now. Your stubborn refusal to accept this do make you look kind of childish. Learn from this and move on. This time Miller simply outplayed you. All things considered it was a pretty cheaply bought lesson. You lost perhaps 50 planes on the ground. So what? You have plenty more where those came from. If you have a hard time dealing with petty non issues like this I think you will struggle even more as your game progresses. I think you will have a much more fun time playing the game if you changed your attitude towards it. The mentality that the game and everyone else is wrong while you are right will not get you far and only cause you grief. Learn from this, play on and enjoy the game instead? [:)] From what I can tell Miller is a highly experienced and skilled player. Use the opportunity you have been given to learn from him instead of wasting time on the forum trying to change the game. Good luck! [:)]

Miller -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/11/2013 6:43:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MDDgames In the same vein, this unit was sitting in the Merak hex (straights off the left side of Java) and never fired at ships passing through the straight. This was several months back. [image]local://upfiles/45200/DFC965E55E8643498876760F56CD354D.jpg[/image] How did this end up there? Isn't it perma restricted to China?

HansBolter -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/11/2013 8:24:00 PM)
Miller it appears you may have more issues with your opponent than his inability to accept that randomizer results(ie...die rolls) are not always gonnna go his way.

JocMeister -> RE: naval bombardment. (11/12/2013 9:30:05 AM)
Whoops. Busted?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8129883