Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Fiasco at Davao

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Fiasco at Davao Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 12:27:36 AM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline

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!

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 31
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 1:15:56 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
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...

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 32
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 1:20:01 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/20/2005 4:01:56 PM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 33
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 7:23:07 PM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline

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!

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 34
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 7:24:25 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
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!!

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 35
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 7:29:52 PM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 36
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 8:41:21 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, It looks like bug to me. Send a save to Frag. (before the event)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 37
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 9:17:36 PM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline

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......

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 38
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/20/2005 10:21:47 PM   
AlexCobra

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Russia
Status: offline 		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?

< Message edited by AlexCobra -- 7/21/2005 2:44:48 PM >

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 39
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/21/2005 3:33:47 PM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline

I certainly could use those ships now my friend!

(in reply to AlexCobra)
Post #: 40
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/21/2005 11:18:15 PM   
AlexCobra

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Russia
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 41
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/22/2005 4:50:24 AM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 42
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/22/2005 3:35:19 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
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.


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?

(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 43
RE: Fiasco at Davao - 7/25/2005 4:03:10 PM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline

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!

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 44
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Fiasco at Davao Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.766