When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (Full Version)

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



Message

Walker84 -> When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/3/2015 8:33:36 PM)

I have just had one of those horrible moments when you watch the combat replay and your naval bombardment force turns up somewhere it was not supposed to be. Although I have asked Apbarog not to view this post we have had several (friendly) discussions about it already.

Here's the situation. I ordered a night naval bombardment of my opponent's base at Tagula Island and all looked well until I saw that the TF had sailed in the wrong direction to Rennell Island where, after I sank a couple of TKs, my opponent's LBA had a field day as my TF was left a sitting duck in the daylight, a few hexes from Lunga.

Now, I can accept that orders get misconstrued in war and commanders embark on suicidal missions (Charge of the Light Brigade?) but it still irks me that this could happen so arbitrarily in the game. If I had decided to raid Rennell and got it wrong so that my ships were still there in daylight to get bombed I could live with it.

So I had to go back to the saved turn to check if I might have targeted Rennell by mistake and this wasn't the case. However, I realised I forgot to set the TF reaction setting to zero which may be the root cause of this. I don't think the TF could have diverted to Rennell to bombard so it must have been some kind of reaction, even though the TF path was nowhere near 6 hexes of Rennell at any point. Would it really react that far in response to say a Mavis sighting a couple of Allied ships near Rennell?

As you can imagine, I'm disappointed and very wary about bombardments now so thought I would raise this in the forum in case anyone can shed any more light on this. I have also provided a map below summarising the movements as well as the task force settings I had used.


[image]local://upfiles/32198/10E41DD3C98948349768CE22552511F3.jpg[/image]



witpqs -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/3/2015 9:34:35 PM)

My thoughts:

• Reaction Range 6 is a likely culprit. What is the aggressiveness rating of that TF CO?
• Your TF probably reacted to one of the Allied TFs that came within (or even closer than) 6 hexes and chased it to Rennell Island. I have seen my TFs 'react' several times during a turn and chase an enemy TF.



Lokasenna -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/3/2015 11:07:26 PM)

I don't think reaction did this. To my knowledge, BBTFs don't react. Nor do SCTFs when you set a destination. Reaction range is for patrol only. Maybe someone can correct me on that.

Did you run into any TFs at Rennell? The trouble with the route that you took is that you are forced to move THROUGH Rennell to get to Tagula.

Another possibility is that your TF is set to Full Refuel. With the fuel levels shown, it shouldn't be an issue, but it's possible that some mid-movement refueling of the smaller ships happened, which burns up Ops Points and causes you to not make it all the way to your destination. This is a frequent culprit, although I don't think that's what happened here.



I'm 99% certain that your force contacting the TKs at Rennell, which you sunk, caused your ships to burn up enough Ops Points for the phase to not be able to make it to Tagula for the bombardment, so they remained at Rennell - their mission hadn't been completed, and they were going to do it next turn, during the night. It's also possible that they burned up all of their Ops Points in getting entangled at Rennell entirely, and didn't have enough to retreat. Did you get any messages such as "Bombardment TF 438 returning to Rabaul" during the replay? It would be in little white-text-on-black-banner in the midst of the map so if you don't look closely you will miss it.

In sum, it's very important that you clear the path of your BBTFs prior to them going in, or else you risk this happening. It's an expensive lesson, and it sucks, I know.



witpqs -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 12:41:28 AM)

It is "Remain on station" that cancels reaction. Having a destination does not cancel reaction.



Shark7 -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 1:21:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My thoughts:

• Reaction Range 6 is a likely culprit. What is the aggressiveness rating of that TF CO?
• Your TF probably reacted to one of the Allied TFs that came within (or even closer than) 6 hexes and chased it to Rennell Island. I have seen my TFs 'react' several times during a turn and chase an enemy TF.


Same here. And a BBTF will react if you give it a reaction range. If it finds a juicy target it turns itself into a Surface Combat TF.



BBfanboy -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 5:10:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Did you run into any TFs at Rennell? The trouble with the route that you took is that you are forced to move THROUGH Rennell to get to Tagula.

In sum, it's very important that you clear the path of your BBTFs prior to them going in, or else you risk this happening. It's an expensive lesson, and it sucks, I know.

Methinks maybe you are confusing Rossel Island and Rennell Island? Rossel is next to Tagula, but Rennell is down past Guadalcanal.



Sardaukar -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 11:13:50 AM)

"Escorts bombard" is also bad thing that can "bite your butt" if there is anything like coastal defences. It takes "tin cans" into range of CD units.



PaxMondo -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 11:59:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

My thoughts:

• Reaction Range 6 is a likely culprit. What is the aggressiveness rating of that TF CO?
• Your TF probably reacted to one of the Allied TFs that came within (or even closer than) 6 hexes and chased it to Rennell Island. I have seen my TFs 'react' several times during a turn and chase an enemy TF.


Same here. And a BBTF will react if you give it a reaction range. If it finds a juicy target it turns itself into a Surface Combat TF.

+1



PaxMondo -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 12:00:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It is "Remain on station" that cancels reaction. Having a destination does not cancel reaction.

+1



Lowpe -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 2:13:02 PM)

I have lost 4 BB and several CA/CLs in my game with Tiemanj to screwed up bombard missions.[:D] It happens all the time.[:(]

Lessons I learned: Don't set the speed to full, it is not required as they will do better with mission speed.

Use direct/absolute. Otherwise the commanders might dilly and dather along the way to the bombardment especially if there is a substantial air force present. Enemy planes can really screw up the TFs routing. Also ships can alter their course around sub infestations.

Makes sure you have enough fuel for the mission (assume you are using flank speed because for part of the mission they will). Then set the TF to Do Not Refuel.

Maximize your recon.

Don't go thru one enemy base to hit another base unless it is empty.

Always use a low numbered TF with destroyers to sweep ahead the base.

Don't let the destroyers bombard..you need their AA and ops points.

Set intercept range to 0.

Always have LRCAP up if there is any chance of an aerial attack. Something, anything and keep it low.

Check your TF leader and ship leaders.

Don't ever use waypoints.

Triple check to make sure the remain on station is off!

Try to get within 5 hex with plentiful fuel and no ops points spent and undetected. For very fast TF try to get within 6 hexes.

Realize that subs, pt boats, surface engagements, air attacks (day or night) will eat up ops points and slow the get away or potentially divert the TF. Bombardment TFs are very vulnerable to surface engagements...




HansBolter -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 2:37:02 PM)

As an add to Lowpe's excellent post above when you absolutely have to use waypoints to approach a bombardment target, send the TF out as a Surface Combat TF with a destination of the desired waypoint and a Remain on Station order.

After it arrives convert it to a Bombardment TF for the run in at Mission Speed with Direct and Absolute routing orders.




Alfred -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 3:16:07 PM)

On the "facts" provided to date, I am not convinced that this is a bug.

Bombardment task forces are very prone to going very wrong.  Invariably due to human error and not the code.  Essentially human players expect to get too much benefit.  IRL there was a reason why shore bombardments, other than in support of amphibious landings, were extremely rare.  that reason being the risk/reward equation was rarely favourable.

Back in May of 2014 I spent several hours searching the forums re why players failed so often with their shore bombardments.  I suggest readers pay close attention to my post in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3608983&mpage=1&key=bombardment&#3609323

Armed with what I wrote, the OP might care to revisit his saved turn and look closely at all the relevant factors.  Lowpe's list of dos takes into account the relevant factors.

Alfred



Walker84 -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 5:11:34 PM)

Thanks to one and all for the careful consideration of my post and the very insightful comments that have accumulated overnight. I'm going to have to nail this to the wall next to my PC - especially Lowpe's 'how to guide' [&o]

Having now read more about the history of the complex game code surrounding bombardment and the multiple variables involved, I tend to agree with Alfred that this is probably not a bug and I will need to put it down to experience and move on. The war must go on!

Thanks again, guys.



Lokasenna -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/4/2015 6:12:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Did you run into any TFs at Rennell? The trouble with the route that you took is that you are forced to move THROUGH Rennell to get to Tagula.

In sum, it's very important that you clear the path of your BBTFs prior to them going in, or else you risk this happening. It's an expensive lesson, and it sucks, I know.

Methinks maybe you are confusing Rossel Island and Rennell Island? Rossel is next to Tagula, but Rennell is down past Guadalcanal.



Oops. Yes, this.



Mike McCreery -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/5/2015 2:52:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Thanks to one and all for the careful consideration of my post and the very insightful comments that have accumulated overnight. I'm going to have to nail this to the wall next to my PC - especially Lowpe's 'how to guide' [&o]

Having now read more about the history of the complex game code surrounding bombardment and the multiple variables involved, I tend to agree with Alfred that this is probably not a bug and I will need to put it down to experience and move on. The war must go on!

Thanks again, guys.


If you want to feel comparatively better go find my first campaign against NJP where my carrier fleets decided to take on his naval fortresses multiple times after blundering into his minefields when I simply wanted to sail past at a very secure distance... This game can be so FUN sometimes ;]



BBfanboy -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/5/2015 3:41:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Thanks to one and all for the careful consideration of my post and the very insightful comments that have accumulated overnight. I'm going to have to nail this to the wall next to my PC - especially Lowpe's 'how to guide' [&o]

Having now read more about the history of the complex game code surrounding bombardment and the multiple variables involved, I tend to agree with Alfred that this is probably not a bug and I will need to put it down to experience and move on. The war must go on!

Thanks again, guys.


If you want to feel comparatively better go find my first campaign against NJP where my carrier fleets decided to take on his naval fortresses multiple times after blundering into his minefields when I simply wanted to sail past at a very secure distance... This game can be so FUN sometimes ;]

I remember that one! [:D]
I was impressed by your equanimity in not asking for a do-over after the AI screwed you over!



Dragoastro -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/5/2015 5:15:35 AM)

Why do you want low LRCAP? Can you get by with using some of float planes on CAP?



JocMeister -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/5/2015 8:54:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Thanks to one and all for the careful consideration of my post and the very insightful comments that have accumulated overnight. I'm going to have to nail this to the wall next to my PC - especially Lowpe's 'how to guide' [&o]

Having now read more about the history of the complex game code surrounding bombardment and the multiple variables involved, I tend to agree with Alfred that this is probably not a bug and I will need to put it down to experience and move on. The war must go on!

Thanks again, guys.


Keep in mind though that despite doing everything "right" things still go south sometimes. I lost a lot of ships due to unexplained behavior like ships stopping for no reason and other "odd" behaviors. This problem becomes more frequent the later in the war you get which I can only speculate is the engine struggling with all the added factors.

Obvert lost his entire BB fleet because it suddenly stopped in the middle of nowhere after moving just 4 hexes instead of 18. Reran the turn with the exact same settings and it went where it supposed to. In late 44 and 45 it was more common to have TFs move erratically then not to. Always plan for the worst possible outcome. [:)]



Walker84 -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/5/2015 4:52:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoastro

Why do you want low LRCAP? Can you get by with using some of float planes on CAP?


Most cruisers and capital ships only carry a couple of spotters and they are not much of a deterrence when 20+ dive bombers escorted by modern fighters are on your case. Also, if you are doing bombardment some float planes should be set to recon the hex with the rest performing naval search.



Walker84 -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/5/2015 4:56:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Thanks to one and all for the careful consideration of my post and the very insightful comments that have accumulated overnight. I'm going to have to nail this to the wall next to my PC - especially Lowpe's 'how to guide' [&o]

Having now read more about the history of the complex game code surrounding bombardment and the multiple variables involved, I tend to agree with Alfred that this is probably not a bug and I will need to put it down to experience and move on. The war must go on!

Thanks again, guys.


Keep in mind though that despite doing everything "right" things still go south sometimes. I lost a lot of ships due to unexplained behavior like ships stopping for no reason and other "odd" behaviors. This problem becomes more frequent the later in the war you get which I can only speculate is the engine struggling with all the added factors.

Obvert lost his entire BB fleet because it suddenly stopped in the middle of nowhere after moving just 4 hexes instead of 18. Reran the turn with the exact same settings and it went where it supposed to. In late 44 and 45 it was more common to have TFs move erratically then not to. Always plan for the worst possible outcome. [:)]



Thanks to all who have given examples of sharing the pain when bombardments go wrong- each one makes me feel a little bit better!



Lokasenna -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/5/2015 5:57:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walker84


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoastro

Why do you want low LRCAP? Can you get by with using some of float planes on CAP?


Most cruisers and capital ships only carry a couple of spotters and they are not much of a deterrence when 20+ dive bombers escorted by modern fighters are on your case. Also, if you are doing bombardment some float planes should be set to recon the hex with the rest performing naval search.


You don't actually need to set the target. Just set them to a Recon mission and you'll be fine.



Walker84 -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...EDIT Apbarog may read now (11/7/2015 4:20:03 PM)

EDIT - Apbarog is now cleared to read this thread as my dispositions have been changed.



BBfanboy -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...EDIT Apbarog may read now (11/7/2015 9:09:25 PM)

I took Lowpe's post #10 above and put it in a txt document to save in my Matrix Games/WITPAE/Docs folder. Here it is for any others who want to do the same:

EDIT: I also did it in Rich Text Format (RTF - readable in WordPad) but cannot upload this to the forum, so just open the text file in WordPad, format it how you like and save it as an RTF file.




apbarog -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/8/2015 1:11:10 AM)

Thanks to Walker84 for opening up this thread to me. This was obviously a good discussion. I can add just a couple of things. I've never set a reaction range for a bombardment task force. I do think that this had something to do with the unexpected movement. Also, setting the task force to Full Speed changes what is expected to happen. The bombardment mission set with Mission Speed has the task force move at mission speed to a hex where the task force will make a full speed run into the target at night, then run toward home full speed during the day. It will then proceed at mission speed. Setting the task force to Full Speed, for me, makes the run in to target less predictable. I may get there during the night, maybe during the day.

I've had problems, using mission speed, when I assigned the bombardment mission when I was closer than the full speed run-in distance to the target. If the target was 6 hexes away, and my task force full speed was 9 hexes, and I then set the task force to bombard, I've had strange things occur. I've seen my task force move away from target in order to get to the desired full speed distance from the target. I've also had it just sit there and do nothing. Walker84's setting was Full Speed, so this may not apply.

My recommendation is to use Mission Speed, and assign the mission as far away from the target as possible, helping the AI come up with a reasonable approach.

Just my experiences, nothing definite. Good discussion though.



BBfanboy -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (11/8/2015 1:28:08 AM)

I have been bombarding a trapped Japanese unit on a small island one hex away from my bombardment TF home base. No problems at all making the round trip.

The only time the bombardments seem to draw a blank (retire without firing) is if lack of recon drops the D/L on the enemy too low or the weather is horrible (heavy rain or severe storms).



marky -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (1/1/2016 2:56:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walker84

I have just had one of those horrible moments when you watch the combat replay and your naval bombardment force turns up somewhere it was not supposed to be. Although I have asked Apbarog not to view this post we have had several (friendly) discussions about it already.

Here's the situation. I ordered a night naval bombardment of my opponent's base at Tagula Island and all looked well until I saw that the TF had sailed in the wrong direction to Rennell Island where, after I sank a couple of TKs, my opponent's LBA had a field day as my TF was left a sitting duck in the daylight, a few hexes from Lunga.

Now, I can accept that orders get misconstrued in war and commanders embark on suicidal missions (Charge of the Light Brigade?) but it still irks me that this could happen so arbitrarily in the game. If I had decided to raid Rennell and got it wrong so that my ships were still there in daylight to get bombed I could live with it.

So I had to go back to the saved turn to check if I might have targeted Rennell by mistake and this wasn't the case. However, I realised I forgot to set the TF reaction setting to zero which may be the root cause of this. I don't think the TF could have diverted to Rennell to bombard so it must have been some kind of reaction, even though the TF path was nowhere near 6 hexes of Rennell at any point. Would it really react that far in response to say a Mavis sighting a couple of Allied ships near Rennell?

As you can imagine, I'm disappointed and very wary about bombardments now so thought I would raise this in the forum in case anyone can shed any more light on this. I have also provided a map below summarising the movements as well as the task force settings I had used.


[image]local://upfiles/32198/10E41DD3C98948349768CE22552511F3.jpg[/image]



how did u make the game look like that pic? wat mod?



Trugrit -> RE: When naval bombardment missions go badly wrong...No Apbarog (at this stage) please (1/1/2016 10:56:55 AM)


Map Mods by chemkid:

JATM Project:
'Just Another Topo Map'
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3696410

chemkid’s Topo Map Thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3599038
Ref Page 4 post 109 for downloads:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3611473





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875