2by3 NEEDS YOUR HELP.

m0ngoose · Post by **m0ngoose** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:27 am

I think I saw this one too.

And of course I didn't save the turn it happened so consider this additional hearsay to add to the research effort.

As the IJN I have about 650 planes based on lunga. About 250 of those are a mix of Bettys and Nells. I put the flights on naval attack-commander discretion. I put about 6 squadrons (120+) A6M2s on escort.

They went after a TF sitting in Luganville and were intercepted by CAP. About 30 A6M2s went along with just over 200 bombers.

The defending cap was 98 F4Fs and 18 F4Us. I lost all my fighters, 98 Bettys, and 35 Nells. The following pulse (in the same turn) my leftover bombers made another run and I lost about 30 more fighters and another 50-60 bombers.

This was LR CAP over a TF mind you.

Is this normal? I'm not sure if this quite fits the parameter of the bug but all of my squadrons had morale in the teens after this stupid stunt...not to mention about 9 months worth of casualties.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:02 am

Hi, 650 Aircraft at one base? A size 9 can handle 450 aircraft before all airgroups lose 25 percent (of planes that would fly)

Japanese fighter group 24-27 aircraft minus 25 percent
means around 36 escorting fighters were lost due to over crowding.

m0ngoose · Post by **m0ngoose** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:04 am

Lose them in battle or they just don't take off?

I really haven't seen any problems yet with getting them off the ground....

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:08 am

Hi, They don't take off.
Thats the reason you had so few escorts

m0ngoose · Post by **m0ngoose** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:30 am

Oh, hell.

Thanks.

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:10 pm

Any updates on how the response to the opening post is going? Given how much of a prob it seems to be, I would hope people are taking advantage.

I've witnessed a lot of examples like the one asked for. Trouble is, it never seems to happen when you want it to (but will happen when you don't).

I'd be happy to set up a situation representative of what I've seen in the past and run it till it (inevitably) occurs. Something like B25s on Naval Strike at Port Moreby. That's always good for a laugh - defended base, here we come).

Would that be acceptable? Should be no different to what occurs in a regular game.

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:43 pm

Originally posted by Drongo
Any updates on how the response to the opening post is going? Given how much of a prob it seems to be, I would hope people are taking advantage.

I've witnessed a lot of examples like the one asked for. Trouble is, it never seems to happen when you want it to (but will happen when you don't).

I'd be happy to set up a situation representative of what I've seen in the past and run it till it (inevitably) occurs. Something like B25s on Naval Strike at Port Moreby. That's always good for a laugh - defended base, here we come).

Would that be acceptable? Should be no different to what occurs in a regular game.

If you've been reading the postings, you've probably noticed
that very few people have "saved" the turns that "ruined their
game" or "increased the acreage of their ulcers". Your idea
is probably a good one---set up a situation that has caused
past problems and wait for them to show up again. In fact,
if the game HAS developed the "bug" they fear, the wait should
not be a long one. If we can prove to 2by3 that the mere act
of providing the opportunity for the AI to make suicidally stupid
attacks is enough to trigger them then they'll know something
is wrong with the "descriminator logic" in the package. This is
especially true if they trigger foolish attacks the majority of the
time.

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:45 pm

No wuckens.

I'll post the situation that shows the prob and if its what you want, I'll shoot off an email with attachment straight away.

Should be done within 24 hours (and a dozen stubbies).

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:28 pm

Originally posted by Drongo
No wuckens.

I'll post the situation that shows the prob and if its what you want, I'll shoot off an email with attachment straight away.

Should be done within 24 hours (and a dozen stubbies).

OUTSTANDING!!!
ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE WHO'S WILLING TO INVEST A FEW
HOURS?

Oh.., and am I stupid.., or just not Austrailian? What the Devil
is a "wuckens"?

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:36 pm

I thought I had a saved game from the beta testing that could be easily modified for the test. Unfortunately, it was over-ridden by the latest PBEM game I started.

To re-create from scratch the situation I was thinking of would take a few hours of play just to get started (need to build up some of the IJN bases north of New Guinea, transfer engineers, supplies, create target TFs, move a/c etc). Don't have enough time for all that this weekend. Might try it during the week if I get time.

Mike, are you able to post a copy of what 2X3 specifically asked to see? Might help in getting the examples.

No wuckens is short for "no wucking forries" (transpose the f and w).

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:14 pm

Originally posted by Drongo
I thought I had a saved game from the beta testing that could be easily modified for the test. Unfortunately, it was over-ridden by the latest PBEM game I started.

To re-create from scratch the situation I was thinking of would take a few hours of play just to get started (need to build up some of the IJN bases north of New Guinea, transfer engineers, supplies, create target TFs, move a/c etc). Don't have enough time for all that this weekend. Might try it during the week if I get time.

Mike, are you able to post a copy of what 2X3 specifically asked to see? Might help in getting the examples.

No wuckens is short for "no wucking forries" (transpose the f and w).

I'm going to paraphrase Joel's request because I can't figure
out how to copy in and move it to this forum:

"I'm interested in the really terrible attacks which cost lots
of aircraft for little or no result, more than those that simply hit
a 'wrong' Task Force."

I've generalized these as the AI's "suicidally stupid" attacks.
Seems there is supposed to be some descrimination on the AI's
part about making attacks that have virtually no chance of
producing anything but losses for the attacker---and the reports
we've been making have them thinking that it's not functioning.
That's what they want to look into.... I just happened to be the
one talking to Joel when they began to suspect it, and volunteered to start a Thread to illicit some test examples for them.

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 5:35 am

"I'm interested in the really terrible attacks which cost lots of aircraft for little or no result, more than those that simply hit a 'wrong' Task Force."

Interesting. That's casting a very wide net.

While looking for an alternative game to test with, I used one which had an allied PM and a Jap Lae (7 hex range). Lae had 3 high quality (75-80 exp) squadrons of A6m2s on CAP. I set an allied squadron of B25s at PM on Naval Attack (6000 ft). There was no escort for them. I had 4 squadrons of PBYs on 100% naval search and 1 squadron of F-5s flying continuous recon of Lae for several turns, prior to setting the B25s on Naval Strike. The intention was to determine the presence and strength of CAP at Lae (average of 48 A6m2s on CAP at any one time).

A small IJN transport TF was sitting in harbour. As soon as the B25s were set on Naval Strike, they went straight for the bait. They made 2 attack runs (first of 12 a/c, second of 9 a/c). 3 A6m2s were damaged. 4 B25s were shot down and 7 were damaged (in total). They hit 2 of the 4 transports with bombs.

I did not think this would interest 2X3 as :
1) The range was very short.
2) While the B25s suffered about 50% casualties, their durability meant they only lost 4 a/c.
3) The majority of each strike got through despite being outnumbered 4 to 1 (typical of allied bombers).
4) They hit half the transports in the TF (typical of allied bombers).

Hardly a suicide mission but you'd still be pissed at the risk they took (since I had placed another IJN TF at sea, 12 hexes away and without CAP. It was definitely spotted but not attacked).

Might be nice if Matrix or 2X3 could comment to save players making the effort to collect and send examples that could just end up being dismissed for one reason or another.

CommC · Post by **CommC** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:47 am

I agree that this may be a bug that has crept in. Before v2.2, unescorted IJN LB bombers would not attack a naval target that had any (even a modest) CAP. Now they attack (to the extreme of their range) even when a CAP is present over the target.

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 12:33 pm

Originally posted by Drongo
Interesting. That's casting a very wide net.

Might be nice if Matrix or 2X3 could comment to save players making the effort to collect and send examples that could just end up being dismissed for one reason or another.

At this point we haven't gotten any saves. I would like to get saves of unescorted attacks against seemingly well protected targets, especially when there are other targets that appear to be available. Long range is good, but I'll take short range as well. In fact the situation you described above would be great.

We've already realized that the uncoordination of strikes against naval TF's at a base was higher than we intended, and have made an adjustment for that in WitP. If it tests out ok, that change will no doubt get into the next UV patch. Now we'd like to look into the target selection and how it is impacted by enemy CAP and friendly escort availability. So please, if you've got one, send me a save at 2by3@2by3games.com. Thanks.

Joel

Deathifier · Post by **Deathifier** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 1:19 pm

Does this include friendly bombers bombing friendly transports?

I've just managed to generate a situation (as USN) where I have:

2 Transport TF's unloading a pile of stuff to a Jap Held Shortland Island.
3 CV's and a CVE (the Long Island) with about 3/4 their total AC following the transports.

2 Squads of P-38G's flying out of Lunga on LRCAP over the transports.

A pile of Bombers in Lunga on Port Attack against Shortland Island, who've been bombing the port into oblivion as well as whatever ships the AI has docked there. Primarily Medium bombers right now though, as the B-17E's and B-24D's fly out fine, bomb fine (no more enemy CAP over target now) and fly back with 1/4 of their aircraft damaged...

What happens is the Bombers that are currently set for Port Attack may or may not bomb the transports instead - after a fresh restart of UV they made a small Port Bombing run, then gathered just about every avaialble aircraft to go and bomb one of the transport TF's.

I'm using a customised scenario though, basically Scen 17 with a bunch of USN aircraft and ships I don't want removed - no changes to the IJN side.

If it'll be useful I'll send the save in

- Deathifier

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 1:36 pm

Sure, we'd be interested in looking at friendly fire, although that could be a different issue so we still need the saves for attacks against enemy TF's.

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 1:45 pm

Posted by Joel Billings

Long range is good, but I'll take short range as well. In fact the situation you described above would be great.

No wuckens.

I'll shoot you an emailed attachment tomorrow.

CommC · Post by **CommC** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:50 am

Joel,
I have sent you a save where unescorted IJN Nells attacked a TF protected by CAP. This is from the Coral Sea scenario #1. Human Allied, Computer IJN.

Here is the combat report:

Air attack on TF, near Cairns at 7,56

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 9

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 2 destroyed
G3M Nell x 7 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
0 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
CommC

CapAndGown · Post by **CapAndGown** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:07 am

Originally posted by CommC
Joel,
I have sent you a save where unescorted IJN Nells attacked a TF protected by CAP.

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage

And your complaint?????

CommC · Post by **CommC** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:55 am

I don't have a complaint with these results. I sent them in because Joel wanted an example of unescorted bombers attacking into CAP.

I think these results are probably close to historical, but perhaps it was only luck on the part of the IJN that the CAP was light, allowing them to complete their attack successfully.

The issue at hand is the case of unescorted bombers flying into heavy CAP to attack insignificant naval targets. In the case I just posted, I think the IJN commander is completely justified to risk his Nells against a light CAP to bag a carrier.

But apparenlty this situation is rare and many people are seeing unescorted bombers flying into heavy CAP attacking minor naval targets and taking a beating. I personally haven't seen this yet, but I will send it in if I see it. Maybe it is pretty rare.

2by3 NEEDS YOUR HELP.

kinda sorta....

airbase size

um....

Don't fly

Feedback?

Re: Feedback?

GREAT!!

Appologies

Re: Appologies