Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (Full Version)

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



Message

Tcao -> Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/27/2021 9:59:43 PM)

EDIT:
Sorry for my poor English. I am a new player, I have a hard time to describe some of the action in a proper way so that the original post caused some of the confusion.

Here is what happened
May 7th
TF 14 CV Lexington Air combat group locates at Hex 101, 138
TF 18 CA Australia Surface combat group locates at Hex 101, 138

TF 16 CV Yorktown Air combat group locates at Hex 102, 138

[image]https://i.imgur.com/C1wEXrN.jpg[/image]

order issued
1, TF 14 CV Lexington goes to Hex 105, 148
2, TF 18 CA Australia follow TF 14

3, TF 16 CV Yorktown goes to Hex 106, 148

on May 8th
TF 14 and TF 18 refused to move, they stayed at Hex 101, 138

TF 16 moved toward hex 106,148






***********************************************************************************************************

A question from a WITP AE newbie

Tiny scenario Coral sea, played from Allied side. TF11 and TF17 both issued order to rendezvous with AOs, TF18 follow with TF11. Then I hit execute the order. The next day cycle I found out the TF17 set sail without any problem, but both TF11 and TF18 stay on station (and they were attacked by IJN CVs)






Tcao -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/27/2021 10:00:59 PM)

TF 18's order

[image]local://upfiles/46440/B1EC452720DE48EFA97A138C4A587605.jpg[/image]



Tcao -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/27/2021 10:01:32 PM)

and here is what happened next day on May 8th


[image]local://upfiles/46440/F96585689C2B436BB1A4BD3D76A2AC5E.jpg[/image]



dcpollay -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/27/2021 10:24:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tcao

TF 18's order

[image]local://upfiles/46440/B1EC452720DE48EFA97A138C4A587605.jpg[/image]

It looks like TF 18 is set to follow TF 14. Who is TF 14? Is that the AO group? Perhaps they did not complete refueling, and so remained with the AO group to finish?



Nomad -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/27/2021 10:29:50 PM)

Tcao, I assume that English is not your mother tongue. I am having some trouble following what you did and what is the problem.



Tcao -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 12:33:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcpollay

It looks like TF 18 is set to follow TF 14. Who is TF 14? Is that the AO group? Perhaps they did not complete refueling, and so remained with the AO group to finish?

ahhhh, just noticed that each of the Task Groups on the map has two different names. I got confused by these TF numbers now. :(

US Navy TF 14 (Air combat group with CV Lexington) has a different group name as TF 11
Australian TF 18 (Surface combat group) has a different group name called TF 44
the flattop group 1 hex away on the right is US Navy TF 16 (also called TF 17)

So the order issued to Australian TF 18 is to follow with US Navy TF 14. AO groups are 10 hex away. More details will follow below


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Tcao, I assume that English is not your mother tongue. I am having some trouble following what you did and what is the problem.


Nomad, yes, you are right. English is not my first language. I was also distracted by kids when I was typing :)
Let me put this simple.

on May 7th order phase
Both US Navy TF 14 and Australian TF 18 are in Hex 101, 138
order issued as:
1, US Navy TF 14 goes to Hex 105,148
2, Australian TF 18 follow with US Navy TF 14

on May 8th, they are still at hex 101,138 . I don't understand why they refused to move.





btd64 -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 1:24:55 AM)

If TF14 has remain on station orders then TF18, with follow orders, will stay with 14 because that's the lead task force....GP



ishtarin -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 1:54:08 AM)

I've also encountered this bug twice, though unfortunately I did not keep a save file around. The first time was a naval resupply of India with two troop transport task forces, an air transport group and three carrier task forces. There were no oilers involved but the group would stall north of Singapore for multiple days. I eventually fixed it by setting Chittagong as their home port and telling them all to return. The second time involved a resupply force of one troop and one supply task force with three carrier divisions and an oiler TF. I sent the supply force on its own mission as it was too slow to keep up with the other task forces, but it ended up being the only one moving. I had to resort to sending all of the forces on their own paths instead of following each other. The convoluted orders I sent may have been the issue, but the orders were quite clear. Two carrier divisions followed a third which was in turn followed by the replenishment. The carrier division being followed would follow the amphibious forces, while in the first scenario two of the transports followed the air transport.



RangerJoe -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 2:33:55 AM)

Never have a TF 1 followed by a TF 2 followed by a TF 3 and so on. Have one lead TF and then have all of the rest follow that one. If something happens to one TF then the chain is broken and bad things can happen.



jdsrae -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 5:02:24 AM)

TF14 may have been out of ops points



Ian R -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 5:23:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ishtarin

I've also encountered this bug twice, though unfortunately I did not keep a save file around. The first time was a naval resupply of India with two troop transport task forces, an air transport group and three carrier task forces. There were no oilers involved but the group would stall north of Singapore for multiple days. I eventually fixed it by setting Chittagong as their home port and telling them all to return. The second time involved a resupply force of one troop and one supply task force with three carrier divisions and an oiler TF. I sent the supply force on its own mission as it was too slow to keep up with the other task forces, but it ended up being the only one moving. I had to resort to sending all of the forces on their own paths instead of following each other. The convoluted orders I sent may have been the issue, but the orders were quite clear. Two carrier divisions followed a third which was in turn followed by the replenishment. The carrier division being followed would follow the amphibious forces, while in the first scenario two of the transports followed the air transport.


It's not a bug - if you have a daisy chain of task forces following one another things get FUBAR. have a look at the proposed path of a following TF - it usually only runs a few hexes, although the lead TF has the whole path displayed. Then daisy chain something following the follower, and have a look at its proposed movement path. If you have enough daisies in the chain the last one won't have any proposed movement path. What all that means in terms of coding has not been disclosed, but the developer comment was 'don't do that'.

Also, if you have a lead TF, followed by others, you need to make sure none of the followers are set to remain on station - this can also cause things to go FUBAR, IME. The lead TF's "remain on station" order will be followed by the others, with one well known exception - surface combat/bombardment TF's that expend ammo and are at winchester state reset their orders to RTB.

Another FUBAR provocation is having a TF really low on fuel in the group, causing it to take fuel from another in the hex, expending operations points and slowing everyone down.



HansBolter -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 12:30:09 PM)

You might want to consider the confusion caused for us and yourself by using player created TF names with number designations different than the game assigned TF numbers.

I assign names (using acronyms) that make some semblance of sense to me such as:

USN Car Div 1 (carrier division)

USN Bat Div 1 (battleship division)

USN Cru Div 1 (cruiser division)

USN Des Ron 1 (destroyer division)

USN Rep Div 1 (replenishment fuel oiler TF)

USN Rep Car Div 1 (replenishment carrier division)

Pearl Supply (Continuous Supply TF tasked to Pearl)

Pearl Fuel (Continuous Supply tanker TF tasked to Pearl)




BBfanboy -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 3:19:19 PM)

There is another possibility here - the Carrier React feature.

Regardless of the react setting in the lower right side of the TF screen, Air Combat TFs (ACTF) with an aggressive leader can decide to move toward detected enemy ships. In your case, since one TF moved toward the AOs and the other did not, the difference could have been in the leader, or even their fuel state (TFs will retire when low on fuel or ammunition).

There could also be a problem with meeting the AO TF if it is set to "Patrol" in its area. The game tries to predict where the target TF will be so it can send others to meet it, but if the TF is on patrol orders it may be constantly moving and the game does not read the patrol orders to figure out where it will be. When I try to get ships to join a patrolling TF, they usually just sit there with no movement toward the target TF patrol zone.

These kinds of "strange behaviour" are the reasons to play these scenarios and find out how your settings in game affect the forces you are commanding. If you are playing against the Computer Japanese, just go back to the start of the last turn and change those movment orders for your TFs to see what happens. And as Hans suggested, rename your TFs to something that describes their purpose - for example I would call one ACTF CV Lexington TF and the other CV Yorktown TF.



Tcao -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 9:23:42 PM)

Thanks all. Sorry for my poor English. I am a new player, I have a hard time to describe some of the action in a proper way so that it increases the confusion.

Here is what happened
May 7th
TF 14 CV Lexington Air combat group locates at Hex 101, 138
TF 18 CA Australia Surface combat group locates at Hex 101, 138

TF 16 CV Yorktown Air combat group locates at Hex 102, 138

[image]https://i.imgur.com/C1wEXrN.jpg[/image]

order issued
TF 14 CV Lexington goes to Hex 105, 148
TF 18 CA Australia follow TF 14

TF 16 CV Yorktown goes to Hex 106, 148

As you can see the pic below, neither TF 14 nor TF 18 are out of ops points. They also have good fuel status.
[image]https://i.imgur.com/7SU4g4o.jpg[/image]

[image]https://i.imgur.com/bNXmzCW.jpg[/image]

[image]https://i.imgur.com/329FMVa.jpg[/image]

on May 8th
TF 14 and TF 18 refused to move, they stayed at Hex 101, 138

TF 16 moved without any problem

Here is the save file

https://www.dropbox.com/s/72wzrlyfsgk0wl7/wpae025.pws?dl=0



quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

There is another possibility here - the Carrier React feature.

Regardless of the react setting in the lower right side of the TF screen, Air Combat TFs (ACTF) with an aggressive leader can decide to move toward detected enemy ships. In your case, since one TF moved toward the AOs and the other did not, the difference could have been in the leader, or even their fuel state (TFs will retire when low on fuel or ammunition).



I thought about this too, so I did a testing. Changed the TF 14 CV Lexington 's reaction range to 0. But unfortunately the result is the same. TF 14 and TF 18 refused to move.





I am doing several other tests now, change the order to follow other groups. At this moment, all I can say is, the results are absolutely weird. I will summarize and send a report tomorrow.




BBfanboy -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 10:06:41 PM)

As I mentioned, Carrier React is a different thing than the setting on the TF Screen. That one applies to other types of patrolling TFs like Surface Combat. I guess the programmers didn't want to make a new TF screen for an Air Combat TF with the react setting removed. There is no setting for Carrier React - the game engine decides whether to react to the enemy based on various factors including estimated strength of the enemy.

When I suggested changing settings I was thinking of changing your follow orders. Also, make your TF Routing screen settings 'Direct' and 'Absolute' to help increase chances the orders will be followed.



Nomad -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/28/2021 11:32:47 PM)

I downloaded the file and yes it does not seem to be working right. I ran it a few times changing things and it worked as you wanted.
I had the SCTF follow the ACTF and gave the ACTF orders to go to the hex the AO was in and they moved properly.

I also set both TFs to move independently to the AO and they both moved.

I do not understand why they did not move properly. I will look at the situation again a bit later.



Ian R -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/29/2021 7:44:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I downloaded the file and yes it does not seem to be working right. I ran it a few times changing things and it worked as you wanted.
I had the SCTF follow the ACTF and gave the ACTF orders to go to the hex the AO was in and they moved properly.

I also set both TFs to move independently to the AO and they both moved.

I do not understand why they did not move properly. I will look at the situation again a bit later.


I haven't had a chance to open the save - what are the retirement, and threat tolerance settings (if any) on the SCTF?



Nomad -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/29/2021 12:41:33 PM)

The two TFs in question had basically normal settings. Note that I did not change any other settings
for them except to reverse the follow orders and things worked like I would expect.



Nomad -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/29/2021 5:59:56 PM)

As a further test, I only changed the SCTF. I removed the follow command and set it to go to the same hex as the ACTF.
When I ran the turn both TFs moved. To me that indicates that the problem is with the SCTF and not the ACTF.

I would have to say that this is a bug but I have no idea why it is happening. It falls under one of those "who knows?" things.

BTW, the SCTF has react of 0, normal threat tolerance, mission speed, follow the ACTF
at 0 distance.
When you select the SCTF, it shows a movement thread of 3 hexes just like it should, it just doesn't move during the turn.

Both TFs show 0 ops expended. Neither is short on fuel. Neither has remain on station selected.



Ian R -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/29/2021 7:11:12 PM)

I'm not convinced it's a bug. If by "normal" settings, you mean threat tolerance normal, is it possible the lacklustre Admiral Crace is failing a die roll or something?



Nomad -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/29/2021 7:46:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I'm not convinced it's a bug. If by "normal" settings, you mean threat tolerance normal, is it possible the lacklustre Admiral Crace is failing a die roll or something?


What failure of a die roll would keep him from moving away from the enemy? And why will he move on his own when he is relived of his follow command?



tolsdorff -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/29/2021 10:50:55 PM)

I did some testing as well and came across a weird result, indicating a possible bug. I am using the true WITPAE TF Numbering, not the TF-names created by the OP. *edit: In all cases the SCTF will be following the Air combat TF.

Notice that the Australian cruiser TF 18 has a higher number than the Lexington TF 14. Rerunning the turn without changing anything will result in the Lexington TF not moving.

If you delete TF 18 (the Australian cruiser group) and replace it with the newly created TF 4 (the first available TF number, lower than the air combat TF number) with the same orders as the previous TF 18 -> follow TF 14, (the Lexington group), everything will turn out fine. All TF's will be safe.

If, however, you delete TF 18 and replace it with a number higher than TF 14. (again TF 18, or TF 27, the first available number after TF 18), both groups will not move and will get attacked.

The same trick goes for the Yorktown group! TF 16 is the air combat TF from the Yorktown, if you create a SCTF in this hex with a number lower than 16 (TF 4 for instance) and set it to follow the Yorktown group, than all ships are fine. If, however, the SCTF you created in the Yorktown hex has a higher number than 16. The Yorktown group will barely move and be attacked.

The last tests I did were (After some fiddling and creating of TF's):

quote:

Test 1 :
TF 4 (2 destroyers from the Yorktown group)in the Yorktown hex with TF 27 (air combat, Yorktown). TF 4 was following TF 27.
TF 14 (australian cruiser group) and TF 16 (air combat, Lexington). TF 14 was following TF 16.

Result : All ships in all TF's were a safe distance away.


quote:

Test 2 the other way around:
TF 14 (air combat Lexington) and TF 18 (australian cruiser group) TF 18 following TF 14
TF 4 (air combat Yorktown) and TF 16 (2 destroyers from the Yorktown group. TF 16 following TF 4.

Result : In the Lexington hex, nothing moved. A lot of damage. In the Yorktown Hex, everything moved 3 hexes and all ships were attacked. Yorktown left in sinking condition.


On the surface of it, in this small setting with a lot of unknown parameters :
If the higher numbered TF is following the lower numbered TF, problems result on the same day that the orders were given (that's all I tested, I never tested a day later).
If, everything else being equal, the lower numbered TF is following the higher numbered TF, things will go as expected.

It seems that TF orders inside the code are being processed starting from TF 1 and going up.
When the TF, that is being followed, check's if it's being followed it apparently needs some info or a setting from the TF that is following it, before it can process it's own actions appropriately. A setting or piece of info that the following TF hasn't processed or set yet, because of it's higher number.

Anyway, I might be wrong, but it is a testable theory.





edit: added that in all cases the SCTF is following the air combat TF.





BBfanboy -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 1:40:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

I did some testing as well and came across a weird result, indicating a possible bug. I am using the true WITPAE TF Numbering, not the TF-names created by the OP. *edit: In all cases the SCTF will be following the Air combat TF.

Notice that the Australian cruiser TF 18 has a higher number than the Lexington TF 14. Rerunning the turn without changing anything will result in the Lexington TF not moving.

If you delete TF 18 (the Australian cruiser group) and replace it with the newly created TF 4 (the first available TF number, lower than the air combat TF number) with the same orders as the previous TF 18 -> follow TF 14, (the Lexington group), everything will turn out fine. All TF's will be safe.

If, however, you delete TF 18 and replace it with a number higher than TF 14. (again TF 18, or TF 27, the first available number after TF 18), both groups will not move and will get attacked.

The same trick goes for the Yorktown group! TF 16 is the air combat TF from the Yorktown, if you create a SCTF in this hex with a number lower than 16 (TF 4 for instance) and set it to follow the Yorktown group, than all ships are fine. If, however, the SCTF you created in the Yorktown hex has a higher number than 16. The Yorktown group will barely move and be attacked.

The last tests I did were (After some fiddling and creating of TF's):

quote:

Test 1 :
TF 4 (2 destroyers from the Yorktown group)in the Yorktown hex with TF 27 (air combat, Yorktown). TF 4 was following TF 27.
TF 14 (australian cruiser group) and TF 16 (air combat, Lexington). TF 14 was following TF 16.

Result : All ships in all TF's were a safe distance away.


quote:

Test 2 the other way around:
TF 14 (air combat Lexington) and TF 18 (australian cruiser group) TF 18 following TF 14
TF 4 (air combat Yorktown) and TF 16 (2 destroyers from the Yorktown group. TF 16 following TF 4.

Result : In the Lexington hex, nothing moved. A lot of damage. In the Yorktown Hex, everything moved 3 hexes and all ships were attacked. Yorktown left in sinking condition.


On the surface of it, in this small setting with a lot of unknown parameters :
If the higher numbered TF is following the lower numbered TF, problems result on the same day that the orders were given (that's all I tested, I never tested a day later).
If, everything else being equal, the lower numbered TF is following the higher numbered TF, things will go as expected.

It seems that TF orders inside the code are being processed starting from TF 1 and going up.
When the TF, that is being followed, check's if it's being followed it apparently needs some info or a setting from the TF that is following it, before it can process it's own actions appropriately. A setting or piece of info that the following TF hasn't processed or set yet, because of it's higher number.

Anyway, I might be wrong, but it is a testable theory.





edit: added that in all cases the SCTF is following the air combat TF.


Yes, the AI handles the movement in order of TF#. This is not a new discovery - I've advocated it for years as part of the discussion of follow failures from daisy-chained TFs. When someone mentioned daisy-chained follow near the start of this thread I assumed everyone knew about the TF# being part of the explanation so I did not rehash that. But I forget that this issue hasn't come up in a while and newer players may not know those discussions from a couple of years ago. Sorry for not posting on that detail which led to your testing for the same result!

[image]local://upfiles/35791/8182A77EEB10429BA1ECA33EC53CDCA2.gif[/image]



Nomad -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 1:52:33 AM)

I guess I never have run into this situation. I work to get my ACTFs with as low a number as I can then they often follow a SCTF with a higher number.

This really was not a daisy-chain of TFs, only one TF following another.



Ian R -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 7:39:49 AM)

I have had a similar problem where I have an amphib command TF (AGC plus ASW escorts) with everything following it to an atoll assault - lower (by which I mean lesser) numbered TFs following the AGC don't always do what they are supposed to during the unload phases.

After a little searching, I found this from many years ago:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I've read that you need to have the transports follow the surface fleets. Or, you have to try and create a surface fleet with a low task force number. One of those two options help to have the surface fleet engage first, instead of the transport task force.



Surely there is a way of programming the game so that the TF number is not the deciding factor[&:] And it still does not explain why neither SCTF even got a shot at the Allied ships[:@]


Unless the player gives some other instruction, the TFs do indeed move in the order created. Follow allows the player to control the order of move and the spacing between the TFs.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2530951&mpage=1&key=don%2CBowen%2Cfollow%2Corders�



A bit more searching turned this up, from 2013:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The options here are pretty straight forward and, I think, very logical.

Remain On Station, No Reaction.
Orders the TF to stay somewhere, with no options. TF will remain "on station" until forced to retire by low fuel/ammo, accumulated damage, defeat by enemy, or orders by player. This was the only option in original WITP.

Remain On Station, Reaction ordered
Orders are generally contradictory but might be useful in some circumstances. TF will remain on station until something causes it to react (or any of the things above). Once it reacts it will retire. Sort of like a picket.

Patrol Zone(s), No Reaction
TF will patrol the specified hexes until forced to retire (damage, fuel, etc. - as above).

Patrol Zone(s), Reaction ordered
TF will patrol as above, will react to enemy as required. After reaction will either retire or resume patrol, depending on (you guessed it) fuel, ammo, damage.


A separate item is Reaction and follow. Follow is mutually exclusive with Patrol so there is no interaction there.

Follow with no Reaction
Just Follows, ignores enemy if possible and just tags along.

Follow with Reaction Ordered
Follows but will react to enemy when conditions are met. After reaction will return to follow.


Glad to know I'm a Guru. I'll bring that up next cocktail party.


https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3445936&mpage=1&key=follow%2Corders�


Then I found a discussion between Alfred and WITPQS from 2015 which indicated Mr Bowen might have decided the issue of whether reaction cancels a follow, or visa-versa, might be more complicated than it first appeared.... [To be continued]



Ian R -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 8:18:56 AM)

The answer here, may as BBFB said, to do with TF reactions canceling your best laid plans, including, in this case, the auto reaction of CV TFs.... and there can be multiple such reactions. Noting that Aubrey Fitch has a good enough aggression rating that he might have passed a die roll where Black Jack Fletcher wouldn't, a CVTF doesn't always do what you tell it when other CVTFs are nearby, and blaming the unspectacular Mr Crace may have been premature on my part.

As posters here may have read before, I am fond of the saying "always the farmer, never the dog". I remain unconvinced that there is any bug here, and reading this thread:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3981268&mpage=1&key=don%2CBowen%2Cfollow%2Corders
has possibly confirmed my skepticism.

Please read Alfred's post #14. The key paragraphs are 4, 6, & 8 -especially the last line of 8.

The answer to Tcao's initial question: I think there is a distinct possibility this is WAD, and WAD is complicated. The IJN CVTF is TF1 in this scenario. So, according to Mr Bowen it moves first, and comes sniffing around your guys. If you rerun the turn, and Aubrey Fitch, sniffing the IJN CVTF, passed the reaction die roll that pulled him back towards them. Crace just followed orders.




tolsdorff -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 8:50:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

....


Yes, the AI handles the movement in order of TF#. This is not a new discovery - I've advocated it for years as part of the discussion of follow failures from daisy-chained TFs. When someone mentioned daisy-chained follow near the start of this thread I assumed everyone knew about the TF# being part of the explanation so I did not rehash that. But I forget that this issue hasn't come up in a while and newer players may not know those discussions from a couple of years ago. Sorry for not posting on that detail which led to your testing for the same result!



Ah, ok, makes sense you already knew that! Don't worry about it. I don't mind wasting time testing things myself. It's how I learn best.



HansBolter -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 9:20:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

....


Yes, the AI handles the movement in order of TF#. This is not a new discovery - I've advocated it for years as part of the discussion of follow failures from daisy-chained TFs. When someone mentioned daisy-chained follow near the start of this thread I assumed everyone knew about the TF# being part of the explanation so I did not rehash that. But I forget that this issue hasn't come up in a while and newer players may not know those discussions from a couple of years ago. Sorry for not posting on that detail which led to your testing for the same result!



Ah, ok, makes sense you already knew that! Don't worry about it. I don't mind wasting time testing things myself. It's how I learn best.


While apparently not common knowledge, this info is not hard to find.

All you have to do is read one of the umpteenth number of posts of mine regarding the need to create minesweeping TFs FIRST at Manila on December 8th, 1941.

What the OP has experienced is something I don't.

I learned a long time ago not to daisy chain follow orders.

I constantly work to lower the TF number of my air and surface combat TFs.

The result of the above action typically means my Death Star leading TF has a very low TF number and the same is true of any Surface Combat TF that may be leading.

Where things can get dicey for me is when I need the gaggle to follow a Minesweeping TF.

It can take a lot of disbanding and creating TFs to get an MSW TF with a low number to do the leading.

Establishing standardized methodologies for manipulating the TF number movement sequence mechanism goes a long way toward establishing standardized performance.



tolsdorff -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 10:30:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The answer here, may as BBFB said, to do with TF reactions canceling your best laid plans
....
The answer to Tcao's initial question: I think there is a distinct possibility this is WAD, and WAD is complicated. The IJN CVTF is TF1 in this scenario. So, according to Mr Bowen it moves first, and comes sniffing around your guys. If you rerun the turn, and Aubrey Fitch, sniffing the IJN CVTF, passed the reaction die roll that pulled him back towards them. Crace just followed orders.




As always excellent info by Alfred. How is he doing, does anyone know?
I never really understood any of the reaction mechanics that well and in the interesting link you provided, there are 100's of possible reasons why the Lexington group could have stayed where it was.

What still puzzles me though : if the outcome of this particular setup is determined by a reaction roll of a leader, why do apparently all TF's consistently reach safety when a lesser numbered TF follows the higher numbered one, and vice versa consistently meet disaster when a higher numbered TF follows the lesser numbered one?
I would assume every commander has to pass the same die rolls in both setups and the other reaction-checks still need to be made as well, right?
When the Lexington TF and the Australian cruiser TF combine to form 1 larger Air Combat TF, with the same commander and unchanged overall settings, it will also consistently reach safety. Again, every commander has to pass the same die rolls as before and all the other reaction-checks still need to be passed as well.


It is hard to do any sensible testing in these small setups however, when the underlying mechanics are not known and pre-determined random die rolls are in play.








Sardaukar -> RE: Is this a bug or WAD, follow TF order cause both two TFs remains on station (12/30/2021 10:48:10 AM)

Yea, the classic mistake in Manila is to create Minesweeping TF last/later than important TFs...when comes it's turn to move, all others already have had their time with mines in Bataan already... [:'(]

I think most of us have made that mistake...[8D]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375