Lost two AOs to friendly fire

Lost two AOs to friendly fire (Full Version)

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

Message

huda0816 -> Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 7:34:26 PM)
In my current PBEM Guadalcanal game I probably lost two AOs to friendly fire. Or is there another explanation for that outcome: Submarine attack near Milne Bay at 100,136 Japanese Ships SS I-11, hits 18, and is sunk Allied Ships DD Dunlap DD McCall AO Kanawha, Shell hits 1, on fire AO Cuyama, Shell hits 1, heavy fires SS I-11 launches 6 torpedoes at DD Dunlap DD Dunlap fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Dunlap attacking submerged sub .... SS I-11 forced to surface! DD Dunlap firing on surfaced sub .... DD McCall firing on surfaced sub .... AO Kanawha firing on surfaced sub .... AO Cuyama firing on surfaced sub .... DD Dunlap firing on surfaced sub .... DD McCall firing on surfaced sub .... AO Kanawha firing on surfaced sub .... AO Cuyama firing on surfaced sub .... DD McCall firing on surfaced sub .... AO Kanawha firing on surfaced sub .... AO Cuyama firing on surfaced sub .... DD McCall firing on surfaced sub .... AO Kanawha firing on surfaced sub .... AO Cuyama firing on surfaced sub .... DD Dunlap firing on surfaced sub .... DD McCall firing on surfaced sub .... AO Kanawha firing on surfaced sub .... AO Cuyama firing on surfaced sub .... DD Dunlap firing on surfaced sub .... DD McCall firing on surfaced sub .... AO Kanawha firing on surfaced sub .... AO Cuyama firing on surfaced sub .... DD Dunlap firing on surfaced sub .... Sub slips beneath the waves

dr.hal -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 7:43:38 PM)
Absolutely not, the Sub's CO did what any good sub commander would do and that's fire at the High Value targets that he is presented with. And they were the AOs NOT the DDs. Clearly during this battle the Sub CO decided to not engage the DDs as that was a losing proposition and to fire on the AOs which, if full of fuel oil, would do exactly what they are doing, BURN.

DConn -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 7:44:09 PM)
Doesn't look like friendly fire--from the combat report, the sub was forced to surface, and likely began using deck gun. --Dave

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 7:59:19 PM)
That is an interesting combat report. There is no sign of the sub engaging the AOs with its deck gun, though I suspect that is what happened. My guess is the DD captains will be pretty clear in their to report to the admiral's staff that they did indeed see the sub using its deck gun...

huda0816 -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 8:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace That is an interesting combat report. There is no sign of the sub engaging the AOs with its deck gun, though I suspect that is what happened. My guess is the DD captains will be pretty clear in their to report to the admiral's staff that they did indeed see the sub using its deck gun... The DD captains made sure that there are no survivors to tell a different story. As you said the combat report did not say anything about the sub firing at the AOs. When the next turn is in I will have at look at the ships sunk list. On the bright side I do no longer need those AOs because they belonged to Wasp's TF which was completely annihilated in the same turn. [8D] (Wearing glasses to hide my tears)

BBfanboy -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 9:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huda0816 quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace That is an interesting combat report. There is no sign of the sub engaging the AOs with its deck gun, though I suspect that is what happened. My guess is the DD captains will be pretty clear in their to report to the admiral's staff that they did indeed see the sub using its deck gun... The DD captains made sure that there are no survivors to tell a different story. As you said the combat report did not say anything about the sub firing at the AOs. When the next turn is in I will have at look at the ships sunk list. On the bright side I do no longer need those AOs because they belonged to Wasp's TF which was completely annihilated in the same turn. [8D] (Wearing glasses to hide my tears) I have seen a report of a sub brought to the surface which then torpedoed three ships before it finally sank itself. The combat report does not mention the torpedo attacks, only the results on the target ships.

HansBolter -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 9:15:37 PM)
This is where ACTUALLY WATCHING the combat take place instead of playing a game of lists can be PRICELESS. It was definitely NOT friendly fire. Why wouldn't the sub commander, knowing he is going down, endeavor to take the most valuable targets down with him? I recall an encounter in an Ironman game, that I posted an account of, where I had three crippled British CAs limping to a shipyard. The TF was intercepted by a U-Boat that sunk one of the CAs in the initial encounter. The escorts hammered the sub, forcing it to surface. Did the sub commander waste his last shots on the DDs? Of course not. He laid down a spread of fish that sunk the remaining two CAs. I praised that Nazi U-Boat commander as the baddest bastard on the battlefield as he managed to take three CAs down with him. p.s. Being forced to play a 'game of lists' is a making WITE2 a huge disappointment.

huda0816 -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 9:34:10 PM)
Naval High Command (if there is such a thing) accounted the submarine for the loss of the AOs as you can see in the screenshot below. What I am wondering is, why did the submarine attack the DDs with it's torpedoes instead of attacking the Oilers in the first place. [image]local://upfiles/81275/B9846289A2244FAD85CB757E5A09415D.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 9:53:11 PM)
Oilers are the prime targets in that TF, not the DDs.

RangerJoe -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 9:53:48 PM)
A dang double post and ASP 500 errors!

huda0816 -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 9:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Oilers are the prime targets in that TF, not the DDs. Yeah, but why did the submarine-commander use the torpedoes to attack DD Dunlap instead of the much slower oilers?

RangerJoe -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 10:02:05 PM)
edit: A dang triple post! Because loaded oilers only need a little fire started an the deck gun works fine for that.

Leandros -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 10:21:12 PM)
Hmm, the combat report does not specifically say the tankers were sunk....? Fred -----

huda0816 -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 10:28:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leandros Hmm, the combat report does not specifically say the tankers were sunk....? Fred ----- They were. They sank in the same turn. I was surprised they went down that fast. But I am new to the game and obviously that is what oilers do when burning.

huda0816 -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 10:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe edit: A dang triple post! Because loaded oilers only need a little fire started an the deck gun works fine for that. So the sub-commander did not want to waste the torpedoes on the oilers?

HansBolter -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 10:58:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huda0816 quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Oilers are the prime targets in that TF, not the DDs. Yeah, but why did the submarine-commander use the torpedoes to attack DD Dunlap instead of the much slower oilers? The game engine, more often than not, forces subs to attack escorts if they are present. Presumably, this is done to reflect the difficulty subs have in getting into an attack position on their primary targets when escorts are present creating a situation where the sub commander decides to take his shot at the escorts instead. The escorts don't even have to be equipped with ASW devices. This can be a bit of a break in the early days for the Allies when ASW capable escorts are in very short supply.

witpqs -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/27/2021 11:30:36 PM)
The developers made it clear a long time ago that friendly fire is not in the code. Whatever is in the combat report = some other interpretation.

Sardaukar -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/28/2021 1:47:25 AM)
Only "friendly fire" is collisions. Those are quite frequent in large TFs.

BBfanboy -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/28/2021 3:48:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huda0816 quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Oilers are the prime targets in that TF, not the DDs. Yeah, but why did the submarine-commander use the torpedoes to attack DD Dunlap instead of the much slower oilers? The job of escorts is to be in the way of subs. In the sub's initial submerged attack, it would have tried to get into position on the tankers (if it could see them) but the DD was well positioned to guard them so rather than let them pass unmolested he shot the torpedoes at the DD. Turned out to be a mistake, but using his deck gun on the tankers when he surfaced was not. EDIT: Didn't see that Hans had already provided this answer. Part of the issue is that your question did not make it clear that the attack on the DD was the initial attack before the sub was counter-attacked and forced to surface. Your initial post was all about what happened after surfacing and you suddenly brought up the DD attack which most replies took to mean during the surfaced and sinking phase. Please try and fully describe the circumstances or post screenshots if you want people to help you with appropriate answers.

Alfred -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/28/2021 3:58:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: huda0816 quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Oilers are the prime targets in that TF, not the DDs. Yeah, but why did the submarine-commander use the torpedoes to attack DD Dunlap instead of the much slower oilers? The game engine, more often than not, forces subs to attack escorts if they are present. Presumably, this is done to reflect the difficulty subs have in getting into an attack position on their primary targets when escorts are present creating a situation where the sub commander decides to take his shot at the escorts instead. The escorts don't even have to be equipped with ASW devices. This can be a bit of a break in the early days for the Allies when ASW capable escorts are in very short supply. Threat assessment is a factor taken into account. Leader stats feed into the interpretation. Alfred

Alfred -> RE: Lost two AOs to friendly fire (9/28/2021 4:04:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter This is where ACTUALLY WATCHING the combat take place instead of playing a game of lists can be PRICELESS... Very much worth repeating. Combat Reports do not cover everything which actually occurred in the combat itself. Nothing fully replaces watching the combat animation. Alfred

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.71875