Naval Movement

[millersan]

My SCTF with 4 KONGOs + 2 CAs with escorts only covered 6 hexes at night instead of the expected 9 and I'd like some ideas as to how that happens. Details: TF was at sea, orders were to move at full speed to Sinabang (enemy held, direct & absolute)which was nine hexes away and their return home port was Sabang which is less than nine hexes from Sinabang. They were plotted to go through two coastal hexes (waypoints). At turn execution they ended up moving 6 hexes at night and fought a small surface action in daylight with 3 DDs in hex 8. Close watch of the replay showed no collisions or reactions at night so what slowed them down?? The DDs had enough fuel. Do big ships slow down going through coastal hexes? Makes sense if that's the case but it would be nice to know exactly how far TFs will move.

Thanks for any thoughts/insights.

[spence]

Any Captain/Admiral who ran his ship/fleet flat out in restricted (near land) waters when there were only 2 or 3 charted soundings per mile of track would have been brought up on charges unless he lucked into a significant victory. The significance of the victory would have to be directly proportional to the size of the ships involved too.

In addition the fuel cost per mile of advance is not an arithmetic progression but rather a geometric progression as speed increases. Speeds up to "Standard (as indicated on the Engine Order Telegraph)" didn't increase fuel consumption too badly but those last few knots of speed cost more and more fuel. It has been quite some time since I served in USCGC Bibb but IIRC she could steam for about 25 days at 10kts, for about 15 days at 15kts (Standard Bell) and about 6 days at 18kts (Full Bell). Flank Speed was 21 kts but nobody ever did that for more than a couple of hours since something was bound to break. Lose the lube oil to the #3 bearing on the port shaft and you'll burn it up in 10-20 secs at full speed...and then you get to dodge bombs, shells and torpedoes at 10 kts instead of 30+ . So, except while under direct attack, captains didn't call for their ships to perform at the "all out" level

IMHO the game has been quite liberal in allowing Bombardment TFs to escape retaliation by bombers on the base bombarded. The historical justification seems to be the Guadalcanal Campaign and during that campaign the IJN did get in quite a few bombardments without suffering retaliation from Henderson Field. But that's because the Marine SBDs were the earlier model SBD-1s and SBD-2s with lesser range. Certainly HIJMS Kinugasa & Co didn't get away with it in November 42.
A number of destroyers engaged in "Tokyo Express" runs were also sunk by Henderson Field based bombers. IRL getting in and out entirely shielded by darkness was no certain thing. Perhaps the code it doing something to simulate that.

[Quixote]

They travelled the way they did because you assigned waypoints. Given no waypoints, and with your absolute/direct setting, they'd have hit Sinabang in the first pulse (or engaged in combat, perhaps.) Waypoints are great for some things, but they can also act as stop signs. Your TF will not only travel through a waypoint, it will also stop at that waypoint for at least one movement pulse. For this reason, with bombardment and surface combat runs, waypoints are often not a good idea.

[Boomer Redleg]

ORIGINAL: Quixote

They travelled the way they did because you assigned waypoints. Given no waypoints, and with your absolute/direct setting, they'd have hit Sinabang in the first pulse (or engaged in combat, perhaps.) Waypoints are great for some things, but they can also act as stop signs. Your TF will not only travel through a waypoint, it will also stop at that waypoint for at least one movement pulse. For this reason, with bombardment and surface combat runs, waypoints are often not a good idea.

So using way points you could control your bombardment to happen during the day instead of the night by adding way points?

[millersan]

Thanks for the info. Looks like setting way points caused my boys to slow down. Is there no speed penalty then for running BBs through coastal hexes as "spence" suggest there should be??

Mark

[leehunt27@bloomberg.net]

Another possibility is that the return base seemed far enough away to your commander that he refueled ships without enough gas enroute. This happened to me once- now I set the crucial movement phase TF's to "Do Not Refuel"

[Don Bowen]

In original WITP, bombardment and surface combat TFs sent to an enemy held base would stand off until night and then do a high speed run in under cover of darkness.

The stand off point was calculated based solely on the speed of the TF, so that the TF could run in and back out in one night. Problems could arise if the TF was slowed down by any reason and it might not make it all the way back out - exposing it to enemy air attacks.

We retained all this is AE but tried to implement some player control using waypoints. The idea was to let the player control the stand off point by setting a waypoint at the desired point. However the run-in/run-out code was very not centralized and this seemingly simply change opened a Pandora's box full of worms.

Under certain circumstances the TF would use both the player ordered stand off point (the waypoint) and the calculated (speed based) stand off point. It would even oscillate between them, all the while being exposed to enemy air attack.

Some fixes to this were made after release but the problem continued, each a Mark 1 bitch to track down. I believe that Michael made one last change the but I do not know the exact status at this time.

I have a vague recollection that the problem involved setting a waypoint closer to the target base than the speed-calculated stand-off point. I make sure I never do this and have not seen an issue. Doesn't mean there ain't any, though.

[PaxMondo]

Go into SqueezeMyLemon's previous AAR for a LONG discussion on this, incluidng IIRC a couple of the devs besides Don above. Setting waypoints for bombardment missions is frought with danger. You just experienced some. The consensus was don't do it.

[btd64]

+1
Cheers

[alanschu]

Is it still an issue if the waypoint is a long ways off from the target?

[LoBaron]

No, most probably not. The problem surfaces when the waypoint is closer than the run-in point set by the game engine. Setting a waypoint far away should be relatively safe.

Personally I micromanage bombardement runs (and include safety margins), but YMMV.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Personally I micromanage bombardement runs (and include safety margins), but YMMV.

The key point. If you try to push the limits and not allow for any safety margin ....

[EHansen]

I just got reminded of the importance of having a safety margin. [:@]

[millersan]

Just an update. I just set a Surface Combat TF to run at full speed to a destination four hexes away and with home port as Tulagi which was 5 hexes from the destination.
This would have been a total movement of 9 hexes. I set two way points at two & four hexes. The TF ended the turn at the destination hex moving a total of four hexes! They had plenty of fuel, were all 30kt+ ships, didn't react to anything and didn't fight any battles. I'm thinking you just don't set any way points when moving full speed, period.
I noticed a number of posts had to do with Bombardment but in both my examples I was just out looking for a fight.

[millersan]

Oops, quick correction to last post. I only set one way point at two hexes, not two.