naval bombardment.

Post bug reports and ask for help with other issues here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

MDDgames
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 am

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by MDDgames »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't know the background of the game. But two thoughts:

1) Range does not equal effective fire-control for hitting moving ships at that range.

2) A bug is something that is broken. A design decision one does not like is not a bug.

So, just so I understand this. The design decision is that naval DP guns do NOT shoot at bombarding naval vessels, or any other guns in the hex for that matter, and so it is working as designed. Note, your item number 1 is moot, because they didnt fire. The complaint isnt that they didnt hit, it is that they didnt even fire. And the ships never fired at them either.

A developer with knowledge of the code--no, two of them--have told you it's working as designed. There is a die roll. Random chance. You didn't get the roll. If you had, as has been pointed out (look at the penetration number for your guns in the DB), next to nothing would have happened.

I will repeat myself:
If this isnt a bug, then it certainly is a design flaw, and Michael should correct this. 99% sure this isnt the way it worked in stock WitP, so it would have been a change made for AE.

Dons, and JWEs input at this point means nothing more than yours does. Michael is the one with the code, and to the best of my knowledge the only one that updates the code anymore. I could of course be wrong on this. And I have yet to see him comment 1 way or the other on the matter.

I do have to admit, I would LOVE to hear Don and or JWE try to explain the logic behind not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ships though. But the development stomp of the foot, and the "its that way because thats the way I wanted it" is the best we are going to get Im afraid. So again, I call on Michael to fix this shortcoming. And until Michael says it is like it is, nothing is final in my mind.
I predict this will be the last post in this thread, unless you want to make a fool of yourself some more.

This is a personal attack IMHO, and is against the forum rules, as I understand them.

Is this not so?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by witpqs »

...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship...

This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by LoBaron »

Chances are that your teeny weeny CD guns got suppressed within the first seconds of the battle just by looking the force relation. If not theres a couple of other perfectly legal reasons why they did not fire. That you are still pressing the 'issue' is pretty pathetic. Good luck anyways.
Image
MDDgames
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 am

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by MDDgames »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Chances are that your teeny weeny CD guns got suppressed within the first seconds of the battle just by looking the force relation. If not theres a couple of other perfectly legal reasons why they did not fire. That you are still pressing the 'issue' is pretty pathetic. Good luck anyways.

And again I say:
And those that dont offer a possible explanation think that attacking the poster is the answer to the problem. Such petty people.[8|]
MDDgames
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 am

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by MDDgames »

double post, sorry
MDDgames
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 am

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by MDDgames »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship...

This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up.

You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it.

And if you want to look at the die rolls (which I can do, I have the save, but no one asked for that), I also have a command HQ within 2x its command radius which makes die rolls more favorable.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
ORIGINAL: witpqs
...not allowing coastal guns to fire at bombarding ship...

This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up.

You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it.
It doesn't matter if it was the only unit or not.
MDDgames
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 am

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by MDDgames »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: MDDgames
ORIGINAL: witpqs



This is a false assertion and no one has given you any reason to believe it is the case, in fact you have been advised that such is not the case. There is a difference between {always firing under all circumstances} and {firing when the circumstances allow plus random factors are favorable}. You have gone even beyond that by alleging that they are not allowed to fire, which you have just made up.

You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it.
It doesn't matter if it was the only unit or not.

And if you want to look at the die rolls (which I can do, I have the save, but no one asked for that), I also have a command HQ within 2x its command radius which makes die rolls more favorable.

Again, something for michael to check.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: MDDgames



You are making the mistake of assuming that the one unit I posted was the only unit in the hex with DP guns in it. It wasnt. It was just the first unit I clicked on that had them. And the point of posting it was to show that the unit wasnt even damaged, not its impressive array of guns in it.
It doesn't matter if it was the only unit or not.

And if you want to look at the die rolls (which I can do, I have the save, but no one asked for that), I also have a command HQ within 2x its command radius which makes die rolls more favorable.

Again, something for michael to check.
The die rolls don't matter. You are claiming - or have you changed your mind? - that the guns are not allowed to fire. It works fine for other people. And as they have explained, it is far from guaranteed that CD guns in any given situation will be able to engage, or will engage on that turn in that situation.
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10491
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by PaxMondo »

This is still going on?


[:D][:D][:D]



Pax
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

This is still going on?


[:D][:D][:D]




Well, something is still going on, yeah.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The Moose
MDDgames
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:52 am

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by MDDgames »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The die rolls don't matter. You are claiming - or have you changed your mind? - that the guns are not allowed to fire. It works fine for other people. And as they have explained, it is far from guaranteed that CD guns in any given situation will be able to engage, or will engage on that turn in that situation.

Well, when I look at something that happens in the game, when I am trying to decide if something is "gamey", I look at history for examples.

In this case, the bombarding ships were spotted by Emilys leaving their base at night. The bombarding ships were attacked not once, but TWICE, at night, prior to their bombardment.

Now, explain why shore guns, that are in range of the enemy blasting away at them wouldnt fire back?

Seriously. I need the laugh.

I am not talking game crap and die rolls. Im talking HISTORY. Never happened. Would never happen.

Time for someone to attack me again, because you CANT explain it away, without admitting the design is flawed and should be fixed...
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by erstad »

Well, you won't find a post where I attacked you.

However, you made the statement that you understood that there was a design decision that Jap DP guns never fire at bombarding ships. I posted objective evidence that at least under my version (last official patch, IIRC) the DP guns do file at least sometimes.

Now, explain why shore guns, that are in range of the enemy blasting away at them wouldnt fire back?
I'm not a dev, and am not an authoritative source in any way, shape, or form. However, I can think of at least one possible reason off the bat. With the DP guns and the bombarding force having almost the same range, it is not necessarily the case the DP guns are in range of the bombardment force just because some other land target is.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by witpqs »

In this case, the bombarding ships were spotted by Emilys leaving their base at night. The bombarding ships were attacked not once, but TWICE, at night, prior to their bombardment.

Now, explain why shore guns, that are in range of the enemy blasting away at them wouldnt fire back?

Seriously. I need the laugh.
If you really want to laugh, read lots of history and then try again to imply that all those forces had perfect and prompt communications with each other. You won't be able to because you will be laughing so hard.
User avatar
CyrusSpitama
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:36 am
Location: Naw'lins, Luzianna

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by CyrusSpitama »

Before I fully patched the game and was using vanilla only, I discovered an AI bug that caused the Allied AI to load up transports and then beeline to Tokyo... This transport group was typically unescorted by anything else other than a few small escort boats. More often than not, the CD guns at Yokosuka would hammer this small transport task force and sink it before it landed anything at Tokyo. Rarely, a small number of ships survived to attempt a landing or at least entered the Tokyo hex to sink from CD gun damages...

One time, the CD guns failed to fire a single shot and the transport group charged head first into my CS task force ( that is, the Chitose and Chiyoda plus escorts) parked at Tokyo. I was just about to disband them for conversion you see. Luckily for me, the CSs plus DDs blew this transport group out of the water. My CS then retired to the docks for their conversion with a nice experience and morale booster.

I no longer play vanilla so unsure if this AI flaw still exists or if it only occurs with certain triggered events.
"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." - Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: MDDgames
ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Chances are that your teeny weeny CD guns got suppressed within the first seconds of the battle just by looking the force relation. If not theres a couple of other perfectly legal reasons why they did not fire. That you are still pressing the 'issue' is pretty pathetic. Good luck anyways.

And again I say:
And those that dont offer a possible explanation think that attacking the poster is the answer to the problem. Such petty people.[8|]


If you paint yourself as a target don´t be surprized if you get shot at.

The answer to the problem would you be simply calling it quits. Or read to the relevant parts of all the resoponses, grasp them intellectually, and then calling it quits. It is all there, you just have to count two and two together and integrate into your game situation, this might be the easiest way to deal with reality.

You learned that CD guns don´t need to be defeated to enable a bombardment TF to shoot at other targets.
You learned that not all DP guns in all unit types are capable of firing at bombardment TFs.
You know (I hope at least) that there is a repair phase between the bombardment and you looking at the turn, so disabled guns might be repaired in between.
You learned that defensive guns can be suppressed by enemy fire.
You know that there are die rolls involved to initiate counterfire against a bombardmant TF
You know that your guns were outranged for a large part of the engagement.
You know that the weight of fire relation vs. Miller´s TF was ridiculous (looks like 20:1-something).

So, these are just the obvious ones, and I surely have missed some.

Jumping up and down and crying for mum does not help you there. It just makes you look ridiculous.
Image
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by JocMeister »

MDD,

I would take a closer look at what Symon (JWE) wrote. As I understand it they have talked about your issue.
ORIGINAL: Symon
Briefly, michaelm won't respond to this because it is not a bug. Don Bowen wrote the code for the Naval Team, including this part. We all still chat.

If the guy who wrote the code tells you its not a bug its time to get out of the denial stage and move into the acceptance stage. Two developers and a myriad of very experienced players have told you repeatedly this is clearly NOT a bug. You have been given a very detailed explanation many times now. Your stubborn refusal to accept this do make you look kind of childish.

Learn from this and move on. This time Miller simply outplayed you. All things considered it was a pretty cheaply bought lesson. You lost perhaps 50 planes on the ground. So what? You have plenty more where those came from.

If you have a hard time dealing with petty non issues like this I think you will struggle even more as your game progresses. I think you will have a much more fun time playing the game if you changed your attitude towards it. The mentality that the game and everyone else is wrong while you are right will not get you far and only cause you grief. Learn from this, play on and enjoy the game instead? [:)]

From what I can tell Miller is a highly experienced and skilled player. Use the opportunity you have been given to learn from him instead of wasting time on the forum trying to change the game.

Good luck! [:)]
Image
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by Miller »

ORIGINAL: MDDgames

In the same vein, this unit was sitting in the Merak hex (straights off the left side of Java) and never fired at ships passing through the straight. This was several months back.

Image

How did this end up there? Isn't it perma restricted to China?
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by HansBolter »

Miller it appears you may have more issues with your opponent than his inability to accept that randomizer results(ie...die rolls) are not always gonnna go his way.
Hans

JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: naval bombardment.

Post by JocMeister »

Whoops. Busted?

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”