RE: Fiasco at Davao (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Tophat -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 12:27:36 AM)



This was several days ago now,the japs have:

Day Time Surface Combat at 33,64

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Haruna
CA Takao
CA Atago
CA Mogami
CA Mikuma
CA Suzuya
CA Kumano
CL Jintsu
DD Maikaze
DD Nowaki
DD Arashi
DD Hagikaze
DD Asashio
DD Oshio
DD Michishio
DD Arashio
DD Akatsuki
DD Hibiki

Allied Ships
DD Peary, Shell hits 6, and is sunk

This TF 3 hexes off baliakpappen,its Dec 23rd or 24th now and things are gettin abit sporty!

Mogami,do you actually think this is a bug or a case of very unfortunate timing for me and a lucky break for my fine opponent? Any way you look at it the game is very interesting!



rtrapasso -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 1:15:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Tophat,

You should post this on the support forum. This smells of a bug. I think Mogami is correct in that only disbanded ships scuttle when the base is captured. This shouldn't happen. I think Mike/Joel would agree.



Here is the rule (home now to check):


9.3.2 Ships Caught in Captured Ports
When a base is captured some ships at anchor at that base are automatically scuttled (sunk), while some may escape to the nearest friendly port. Submarines with less than 10 System damage will automatically get away.

At anchor is not further defined in this section. I'll see if it is defined elsewhere...



rtrapasso -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 1:20:01 AM)

6.1.6 Disbanding Task Forces
A TF may disband itself if it is in a hex with a friendly port with a current size of at least 3. When a TF is disbanded, each of the ships that were in the TF will replenish its ammunition. Ships at a friendly port with a current size of at least 3 may exist in the port separate of a task force in which
case they will maximize their repair capability at the expense of additional vulnerability to enemy air and ship bombardment attacks (this is considered being at anchor).

So, DISBANDED = AT ANCHOR. Not docked!

EDIT: So this DOES appear to be a BUG!!!

DOUBLE EDIT: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for my contributing to the confusion on this one by misremembering and/or misinterpreting the rule.



Tophat -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 7:23:07 PM)



My TF was set to "patrol,do not retire,also i did not disband it. I'll put it down to bad luck as none of my undamaged ships escaped from the port to other ports!



rtrapasso -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 7:24:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat



My TF was set to "patrol,do not retire,also i did not disband it. I'll put it down to bad luck as none of my undamaged ships escaped from the port to other ports!



I have to think this is a horrible bug! Sorry for the prior confusion!![&o]



Tophat -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 7:29:52 PM)



No problem....I could almost understand if they were not already in a TF,that was supposed to "patrol" that hex. Anyway,i'll see what Mogami or Frag say before I start saying there is a bug.



mogami -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 8:41:21 PM)

Hi, It looks like bug to me. Send a save to Frag. (before the event)



Tophat -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 9:17:36 PM)



It was several turns ago now.....slot 38,which has now been overwritten 4-6 times now.Let me go see what i can digup......



AlexCobra -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/20/2005 10:21:47 PM)

Hi!

Tophat, I kept all the turns... so I'll check the right one and send it to autorities. Tomorrow. Need to sleep right now. Bye!

PS Mmm... nice bug we have found...[:'(]

Alex.

Next day edit: sent the right file to Mr. Frag, but just thought he was moving to Canada... should I send it to another mod or just wait?



Tophat -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/21/2005 3:33:47 PM)



I certainly could use those ships now my friend!



AlexCobra -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/21/2005 11:18:15 PM)

Well, suppose it'll not help u in current state of things... but still, whether I did the right thing or not? Probably if u need this file too, I can send it to ya... Good luck fighting my BBs[;)]

Alex.



medicff -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/22/2005 4:50:24 AM)

I lost an entire carrier tf to transports that ran in and captured an undefended base. My lesson - if the home base is the same as the captured base they will be scuttled, NEVER leave TF home base to bases in danger, use "do not retire" instead to keep them there. [:@] Luckily my opponent was understanding and we replayed. [&o]



rtrapasso -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/22/2005 3:35:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

I lost an entire carrier tf to transports that ran in and captured an undefended base. My lesson - if the home base is the same as the captured base they will be scuttled, NEVER leave TF home base to bases in danger, use "do not retire" instead to keep them there. [:@] Luckily my opponent was understanding and we replayed. [&o]


Well, in this case the Home port was not the same as the captured base, and the player DID use "DO NOT RETIRE". He did everything right and still got shafted.

Were you the person that had the thread about losing his carriers to scuttling?



Tophat -> RE: Fiasco at Davao (7/25/2005 4:03:10 PM)



I had them set not to retire,but there is a fuel status question on some of the DD's.........

anyway,bumped for Frag! Then this thread can sink like my Asiatic squadron!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.09375