Possible TF movement bug?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Possible TF movement bug?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Possible TF movement bug? - 2/12/2011 3:02:31 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Not sure whether this is the appropriate place to post this, but since I can't seen any obvious error on my part I am treating this as being a bug/not WAD issue.

This incident occurred whilst playing the BabesLite mod, which I have further modified by introduction of 3 additional Japanese ships and a couple of changes to ships' data. However, none of the added or changed ships played any part in the incident, so I am discounting the likelihood of data modifications being the cause. Game version is 1.0.4.1106g.

The problem arose during a Japanese amphibious assault upon Palembang. Reconnaissance indicated that an invasion might be met by a horde of Dutch MTB's and possibly an RN force built around 'D' class CL's. I also feared that the base might be mined.

To deal with these contingencies I juggled the composition of the attacking TF's when they reached hex 49,90, 40 miles out from the Palembang landing site.

First to go in would be minesweeping TF 57 composed of of 3 DMS, under command of Lt Cdr Sakai with an aggression rating of 70. Orders were to proceed to Palembang and remain on station. Threat tolerance: Absolute; Max React: 0.

To handle the surface threat I set up a SCTF comprising 1 CA, 1 CL, 3 DD and 3 TB under command of no less than Tanaka Raizo - you don't get better than his 91 aggression rating! Orders were to patrol the Palembang hex with a loiter time of 4 days. As with Sakai's minesweepers, threat tolerance: Absolute; Max React: 0.

'Distant' cover was to be provided by V. Adm Moizumi's force of battleships, cruisers and destroyers, which were to remain on patrol in hex 49,90 for 5 days.

The Palembang landing force was under command of R Adm Nakasawa (aggression 59). It included 1 CA and 1 CL but little else for suppression of defending guns.

All participating TF's were home-ported at Kuching. None had full bunkers, but OTOH none were near being so fuel-starved as to prevent them carrying out their missions.

As the turn ran, a group of three tankers attempted a night breakout from Palembang. Moizumi's battleships summarily disposed of all three. Nothing was seen of the Dutch MTB's or any other naval forces assigned to guard Palembang. There was no sign of any mines having been laid to protect the base. Nakasawa's force arrived off Palembang and landed its troops in the face of negligible resistance. It remained in situ, continuing to unload stores at the turn's end.

Unfortunately, it is the only Japanese TF remaining at Palembang at the turn's end. Sakai's minesweepers are back at Kuching. Their orders have been changed by the game from 'Remain on station' to 'Retirement Allowed'.

Curiously, the 5th entry in the ops report is: "Task Force 57 arrives at Kuching" - this is Sakai's minesweeping force. Significant?

Tanaka's SCTF is likewise back at Kuching. Its patrol orders have been cancelled by the game.

Nakasawa's landing force has been stripped of the protection it should have received from these forces against the depredations of the Dutch MTB's, which apparently remain in the vicinity at Palembang.

I've been through a checklist of settings I might have missed. TF Commander aggression - OK. No retirement allowed - OK. Remain on patrol at target hex for sufficient time - OK. Tolerate any threat - OK. Sufficient fuel for task - OK. Adequate air cover - OK (LRCAP mounted from Djambi). Absence of threat from superior enemy surface force - OK. Can't think of any other factors likely to be relevant - is there something I have missed?

If I had overlooked any of the above I could have better understood Sakai's and Tanaka's retreat to Kuching, though I would still regard it as unsatisfactory conduct on the part of such aggressive commanders. I take quite a lot of care to ensure my amphibious ops receive adequate cover, and at first sight the game seems to have responded with a two-fingered salute.

Comments? Explanations? Pre- and post-turn saves available, but since this is a mod anyone wanting to take a look will also need the mod file + added ship art.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/12/2011 5:32:48 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Obviously I can't say too much about your specific situation, but from what I've seen in my games and heard from others this is far from a unique situation. In some situations there was combat that would cause a SCTF to retire for more ammo, that sort of thing. In one case there was dispatching of an xAK followed by a legitimate fight against combatants, after which the SCTF (that was charged with protecting the invasion TF) retired, most likely low on ammo. Perhaps in your game three incidents of dispatching tankers depleted the SCTF's ammo?

The game does have a limitation with ammo for surface combats. For one thing, dual purpose guns (AA & surface) the ammo pool is the same and results in either too little ammo for AA or too much for surface combat. For another thing, the developers had to be careful about how ammo was expended for surface combat or they ran into the problem of one combat ship/TF wiping out an ocean full of merchants (I mean way beyond realistic). Maybe this issue is at the root of what you saw?

I don't know why the minesweepers retired.

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 2

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/12/2011 5:55:45 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

There would be no complaints on my part if Tanaka had actually got into a scrap and had decided to retire for ammunition replenishment!

However, the tankers were dispatched by Moizumi's battlewagons (very economically!), and Tanaka's SCTF played no part in that action.

Excessive ammunition expenditure in earlier turns cannot be the explanation either, because both Sakai's minesweepers and Tanaka's SCTF are both showing 92% gun ammunition, and Tanaka's ships have 96% of their torpedo loadout. This following their arrival back at Kuching, where they haven't replenished.

I'm all too well aware of the frustrations of seeing a SCTF emptying its magazines on low value targets, and the need to get a reload capability forward quickly. But ammunition expenditure definitely wasn't the cause of the problem in this case.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 3

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/12/2011 7:31:38 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I'm pretty sure others have had similar complaints, so if you have the goods in terms of saves and such for them to find and solve the problem that would be great!

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 4

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/12/2011 9:20:36 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

OK, as I just had to upgrade to a flashy new computer (YOU try running WitE on a 64MB graphics adapter!

), the number of ways in which this could go wrong are probably numerous.

Will have to do this in three parts: Save files, scenario files and art files. The scenario file looks suspiciously small as zipped: it's basically a slightly modified BabesLite scenario assigned to slot 26. If it doesn't unzip coprrectly, or if I haven't included all the right files I will be happy to try to remedy this. Art files are new shils and backgrounds for 5 ships in appropriately named directories. The save files take up slots 44 and 45. Some name and slot juggling may be required.

Anyhow, here goes with the 2 save files.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 5

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/12/2011 9:22:42 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Here come the suspect scenario files...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 6

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/12/2011 9:25:28 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Finally the ship art files. May find a use elsewhere - Teia Maru ex-Aramis is so-so, but I'm pleased with Kotobuki Maru ex-Conte Verde.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 7

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/13/2011 12:12:30 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Looking at the TFs, 3 of the TFs have a patrol zone AND a meet TF 57 (the minsweeping TF) command. Where as TF57 says it is followed by the 3 TFs.

Not sure if this is a problem - have a patrol zone and another routing instruction.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 8

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/13/2011 1:10:06 AM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Michael,

In my saves I can't see any TF's that have instructions to meet TF 57.

However, in the pre-invasion turn I note that TF 57's routing screen does say that it's being followed by TF's 9, 104 and 236, despite the fact that none of those TF's were left with such 'follow' orders by the end of the turn.

TF 9 is Moizumi's battleship force, which remained in its hex 49,90 patrol zone and engaged the tankers.

TF 104 is a 2-DD ASW group from which the torpedo boats assigned to Tanaka were drawn - I can tell that from its label. This TF also returned to Kuching, although, like Moizumi's BB's, it was ordered to patrol hex 49,90 for 5 days - it's as if it 'remembered' the instruction to follow TF57, even though the only indication of such instruction appears in TF 57's screen, and none in the screen for TF 104 itself.

TF 236, Tanaka's SCTF, is shown as ordered to patrol Palembang for 4 days, but, like TF 104, returned to Kuching with TF 57.

TF 62 betrays no sign of having been ordered to follow TF 57, and was also ordered to patrol hex 49,90 for 5 days, like TF's 9 and 104. It conformed to those orders.

In the post-invasion save, I note that TF 57, arrived back at Kuching, is still shown as being followed by Moizumi's TF 9, which has actually remained on patrol in hex 49,90 as intended.

It's quite possible that in the turn before the the first for which I have posted saves all Palembang-bound TF's except Tanaka's TF 236 were ordered to follow TF 57. The group of TF's proceeded initially to hex 54,89, as a feint towards Pontianak. I'm in the habit of ordering multiple TF's to follow my slowest ASW group when multiple ASW groups are present, to prevent faster ASW ships drawing ahead. When the group of TF's arrived at 54,89 I probably just ordered TF 57 forward to 49,90, expecting the remainder of the group to keep up, including the slow transports. This was because I had planned to juggle TF compositions for the final run in when I was one hex distant from the invasion target.

Tanaka's TF 236 rendezvoused with them at 49,90 having assumed a flank guard position off Billiton whilst the invasion group transited to the Palembang approaches. I don't recall ordering TF 236 either to meet or to follow TF 57 at any time, though it's possible that I did, but later thought better of it - the posted pre-invasion save represents the final state of orders issued.

I hope this detail may be of some help in working out what's taken place. It does look to me as though the game retains some 'memory' of 'follow me' orders, even though the TF's ordered to follow have subsequently had their orders changed to 'patrol' or 'go to x,y and remain on station'.

Thank you for taking a look at this - hope you can make sense of my ramblings!

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 9

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/13/2011 1:23:14 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Traced it through.
The Sweep TF meet an Allied TF in the Palemburg hex and although no combat shown, turned around and went home - the strength of the Allied TF was much bigger than the Japanese one.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 10

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/13/2011 1:46:10 AM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Interesting...

I've now taken a look at the Allied side of things for the first time. In the pre-invasion turn the only naval force likely to oppose Tanaka at Palembang is the 12-strong contingent of Dutch MTB's already present there. He can only be matched by equivalent firepower if damaged Prince of Wales comes down from Singapore - in which case she's got to run the gauntlet of Moizumi's battleships, which is why they are where they are.

Anticipating that I would have have to fend off a mass of MTB's I set up Tanaka with plenty of destroyers and torpedo boats. He had a Mogami and a light cruiser in case anything more potent was present.

If a leader of Tanaka's calibre can be frightened into retreating to his home port by a dozen plywood mosquito craft that don't even fire a single shot then I think that is a cause for concern. Sure it was 12 MTB's to 8 Japanese warships - but just compare the firepower!

Or is there another Allied naval force I haven't noticed?

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 11

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/13/2011 5:51:11 AM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

The MS TF of 3 ships (the one being followed) encountered the PTs in the hex, but did not sight/engage them. However, they still withdrew 'after combat'.
I am trying to understand why this withdraw is happening even there was no real combat in the hex.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 12

RE: Possible TF movement bug? - 2/13/2011 4:17:53 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

On re-running the turn I too noticed the report that the minesweeping force had met an enemy TF and was retiring to Kuching, even though, as before, no fire was exchanged between the minesweepers and the Dutch MTB's.

This time, however, I managed to keep Tanaka's force on patrol in the Palembang hex, where a daylight engagement took place, and Suzuya 'obliterated' six of the 12 Dutchmen at long range, mostly with 8" rounds.

If the code is retaining a trace of a 'follow' instruction issued to a TF but superseded before end-of-turn, then taking steps to erase that trace probably accounted for my success in keeping Tanaka on station at Palembang. The only indication of this phantom 'follow' instruction apparent to me was the note on TF 57's routing screen that it was still being followed by multiple TF's, including Tanaka's TF 236.

I seem to have succeeded in clearing the phantom 'followed by' record simply by ordering Tanaka's TF 236 to return to Kuching. The number 236 then dropped out of the list of TF's said to be following the minesweepers in TF 57's routing screen.

There is a further problem, however. As noted above, when TF 57 returned to Kuching, it was still annotated as being followed by Moizumi's battleship force, TF 9. Unlike TF 236, ordering TF 9 to return to Kuching did not result in removal of its number from the list of 'following' TF's shown on TF 57's routing screen. I speculated that this might be a side effect of it being the lowest numbered TF in the 'followed by' list. To cure this, I created a lower numbered TF (TF 3) from the ships in the hex, and then attempted to get TF 9 out of the 'followed by' list by ordering it back to base. This did not work, and the attached image shows that there are now four TF's supposedly following TF 57 (though none are actually ordered to do so!)

I wonder whether there may be some significance in the fact that the TF's are not listed in ascending numerical order, but instead 9, 3, 104, 236. Could this be a failure of the code to iterate all the elements in an ordered array, possibly because the original lowest value in the array is being skipped over? Indeed, I note that if this is the case then the new TF 3 has been inserted into the array out of its correct ordinal position.

I too would like to understand why TF 57 withdrew to Kuching, despite the absence of any combat and the high aggression attribute of its commander. If you can't take steps to encourage a minesweeping force to remain in its destination hex, the effect may be to make minesweeping operations off an enemy base a practical impossibility.