Bug, limitation or user error

[rich91a]

1. It is a bug - the programming is at fault
2. It is user error - the player needs to find a better way of playing
3. It is a limitation - the commander target selection AI is not sophisticated enough
4. Other

A recent thread in the bug reports and problems section has two opposing views on an important subject.

See: showthread.php?t=46177

This poll is to try and find the majority view and alternative views on the issue.

[mogami]

Hi, If the bombers are attacking a target with CAP and not seeing the CAP before they are assigned it is a bug.

There are a few details missing that would help.

The bombers are attacking TF's in same hex as aircombat TF without escort?

If you assign escorts do they attack the CV TF or continue attacking surface TF?
All the strikes are without escort?

It does not matter if there are no escorts, the bombers might still attack into CAP (there is just a morale check to pass before they will. The higher their morale the more likely they are to fly.) CV should always be targets of CV airgroups (When CV TF are in range they should attack each other and ignore non CV TF's in range.) LBA given the choice might attack the non CV TF.
It has to engage the CAP no matter which TF it targets but it might feel the non CV TF has less AA and a value close to that of of the aircombat TF.

In the search phase (when airgroups aquire targets to launch strike at) Is the Aircombat TF reported as well as TF the strikes launch at? (The airgroups might not see the enemy aircombat group)

Even though this sounds like an exploit of a bug how many bombers are getting through CAP to attack ships? (are they hitting anything?)

By the above question I am asking could they have harmed the CV groups if they had targeted it instead?

Both exploits can be circumvented by normal means while waiting for fix from Matrix.

CAP exploit. Rather then placing 2 groups on 20 percent CAP and hoping for radar scramble (radar is not 100 percent effective in getting aircraft to scramble) Put enough fighters from 1 group in the air every turn to have decent odds. Put other group on 20-30 percent as before. Change groups every day.

(If you need 12 fighters in the air place 1 group on 50 percent CAP )

Bombers: Since even if there was no exploit bomber groups will attack targets with CAP without escorts (when bombers have good morale) be careful about setting missions. Try to base bombers by type and range to cover areas you want them to fly. (place shorter range bombers forward. They are the easiest to provide escort for. Also fighters forward will escorts bombers from rear bases. (as Japan placing fighters at Munda will provide escorts for bombers from Rabaul over Lunga)
Don't assign long range bombers to strike missions in range of targets with heavy CAP. (They might just fly) It is better to leave groups on training and spot enemy TF's and track them over a period of turns. Change mission orders when situation favors their flying. (Groups at sea can still have CAP over them.
The A6M2 has a normal range of 17. The A6M3 a range of 13) Allied P-38s have long ranges. When ever you fly without escort you are in danger of fighters.

This is not an excuse for any bug or exploit. Just pointing out the results of a bug or exploit can be achived by normal means and avoided by normal means.

[Mike_B20]

Hi, If the bombers are attacking a target with CAP and not seeing the CAP before they are assigned it is a bug.

There are a few details missing that would help.

The bombers are attacking TF's in same hex as aircombat TF without escort?

If you assign escorts do they attack the CV TF or continue attacking surface TF?
All the strikes are without escort?

It does not matter if there are no escorts, the bombers might still attack into CAP (there is just a morale check to pass before they will. The higher their morale the more likely they are to fly.) CV should always be targets of CV airgroups (When CV TF are in range they should attack each other and ignore non CV TF's in range.) LBA given the choice might attack the non CV TF.
It has to engage the CAP no matter which TF it targets but it might feel the non CV TF has less AA and a value close to that of of the aircombat TF.

In the search phase (when airgroups aquire targets to launch strike at) Is the Aircombat TF reported as well as TF the strikes launch at? (The airgroups might not see the enemy aircombat group)

Even though this sounds like an exploit of a bug how many bombers are getting through CAP to attack ships? (are they hitting anything?)

By the above question I am asking could they have harmed the CV groups if they had targeted it instead?

Hi, below is an edited exerpt of three of the occasions where my LBA attacked surface taskforces escorting my opponents CV's through substantial CAP.
At no time have my LBA targetted his CV taskforce. If the LBA is flying through the CAP they should at least target the CV's IMO.
My LBA have attacked both with and without escort.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/06/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Air attack on TF at 51,48

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46
A6M3 Zero x 10

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 16 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 4 damaged

CPO S. Ishihara of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 51,48

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 43
A6M3 Zero x 10

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 42
TBD Devastator x 13
TBF Avenger x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 4 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged
TBD Devastator x 3 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 3 damaged
TBF Avenger x 5 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 9 damaged

CPO S. Sakai of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 5

LTJG I.Kotani of AI-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED

This surface taskforce is escorting CV taskforce

Japanese Ships
CL Natori
CA Atago
CA Ashigara, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CL Kinu





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 51,48

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 37
A6M3 Zero x 10

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 9

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged

WO A. Shirane of AI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 51,48

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 34
A6M3 Zero x 10

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 26
TBD Devastator x 8
TBF Avenger x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
TBD Devastator x 2 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 5 damaged
TBF Avenger x 1 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 3 damaged

WO A. Shirane of AI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3

MAJ J. Dobbin of VMF-224 is KILLED

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/11/42

Weather: Thunderstorms




Air attack on TF at 12,56

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 62
A6M3 Zero x 26

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIC x 24
Wirraway x 17
P-400 Airacobra x 47
P-39D Airacobra x 48
P-40E Kittyhawk x 36
P-40E Warhawk x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 7 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIC x 1 destroyed
Beaufighter VIC x 2 damaged
Wirraway x 1 destroyed
Wirraway x 2 damaged
P-400 Airacobra x 9 destroyed
P-400 Airacobra x 6 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 11 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 12 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 12 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk x 4 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk x 1 damaged

PO1 G.Minobe of BII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 5

Again, this tf escorting CV tf

Japanese Ships
CA Tone, Shell hits 16
CA Kako, Shell hits 12, Bomb hits 1
CA Kinugasa
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 16
DD Kasumi
DD Minegumo




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 10/26/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy


Air attack on TF at 49,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 45
A6M3 Zero x 18

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3
SBD Dauntless x 16

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 21 destroyed

PO1 U.Hamano of F2/6th Daitai is credited with kill number 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 58
A6M3 Zero x 23

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 21
SBD Dauntless x 14
TBF Avenger x 13
P-38G Lightning x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 9 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 7 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 12 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 1 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 7 damaged
TBF Avenger x 2 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 10 damaged
P-38G Lightning x 6 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 5 damaged

2LT R. Corry of VMF-223 is credited with kill number 3

MAJ J. Smith of VMF-223 bails out and is RESCUED

again, targetting escorting surface tf

Japanese Ships
DD Umikaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Abukuma
DD Isokaze, Torpedo hits 1, on fire


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 40
A6M3 Zero x 15

Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 14

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 9 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 9 damaged

LT S. Kawai of F2/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air attack on TF at 49,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 58
A6M3 Zero x 20

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 8
SBD Dauntless x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 1 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 2 damaged

2LT R. Read of VMF-223 is credited with kill number 2

Japanese Ships
CL Abukuma


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 49
A6M3 Zero x 17

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10
SBD Dauntless x 8
TBF Avenger x 4
P-38G Lightning x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 6 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 2 damaged
TBF Avenger x 5 damaged
P-38G Lightning x 1 destroyed

LTJG F.Matsuba of AII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Japanese Ships
DD Arashio
CL Abukuma


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[pfnognoff]

I went with choice number 3 here.

That kind of thing didn't happen to me alot, but one funny thing occured in a recent scenario 2 PBEM.
I'm USN and adm. Mitcher is given all my carriers to engage the enemy. He reacts towards Shortlands where enemy CVs were spoted, and then launches full strikes (both morning and afternoon) against a huge IJN surface TF at Lunga. He was offcourse engaged both morning and afternoon by IJN AC coming from the carriers suffering medium damage to Saratoga.
Maybe in this scenario Lunga is so high priority for AI that it can be justified move on his part. I would like, though, that in this type of situation he doesn't react towards the enemy CVs, but rather away from them if his plan is to go after the surface group.

[Mike_B20]

Both exploits can be circumvented by normal means while waiting for fix from Matrix.

CAP exploit. Rather then placing 2 groups on 20 percent CAP and hoping for radar scramble (radar is not 100 percent effective in getting aircraft to scramble) Put enough fighters from 1 group in the air every turn to have decent odds. Put other group on 20-30 percent as before. Change groups every day.

(If you need 12 fighters in the air place 1 group on 50 percent CAP )

Well, if this is necessary to avoid having the best defending pilots killed then it makes the radar scramble bonus useless until Matrix provides a fix.

If it is in fact a design decision by Matrix to only scramble extra defending fighters at a radar equipped base when defending against a Sweep 50% of the time, then the fact remains...the Sweep mission will kill off the best defending pilots and is a great way to ruin the defending squads, and the radar bonus is illusory.

Bombers: Since even if there was no exploit bomber groups will attack targets with CAP without escorts (when bombers have good morale) be careful about setting missions. Try to base bombers by type and range to cover areas you want them to fly. (place shorter range bombers forward. They are the easiest to provide escort for. Also fighters forward will escorts bombers from rear bases. (as Japan placing fighters at Munda will provide escorts for bombers from Rabaul over Lunga)
Don't assign long range bombers to strike missions in range of targets with heavy CAP. (They might just fly) It is better to leave groups on training and spot enemy TF's and track them over a period of turns. Change mission orders when situation favors their flying. (Groups at sea can still have CAP over them.
The A6M2 has a normal range of 17. The A6M3 a range of 13) Allied P-38s have long ranges. When ever you fly without escort you are in danger of fighters.

This is not an excuse for any bug or exploit. Just pointing out the results of a bug or exploit can be achived by normal means and avoided by normal means.

How is someone to defend against a naval sweep or bombardment mission if the defending land base bombers are on training orders?
The attacking fleet could move into range from outside of effective scouting range at any time(it is impossible for Allies even with all B17's on recon to spot and track all fleets capable of moving into aggressive sortie range, all the time).
The defender could then change his bombers missions from Training to Naval Attack but it is too late.
The attacking fleet could accomplish it's mission and retire and defending LBA have no chance to do anything, unless it's picking off a mine damaged cripple or similar.
If the "workaround" for this is to avoid the Naval Attack mission then the game really has a major problem.

[mogami]

Hi, Radar is not 100 percent. You can have 10 radar sets at a base and still be hit by attack that is undetected. The only sure way to have the number of ac up you need (notice need not want) is to assign it to CAP and then rotate units to rest the ones that get fatigued from flying.
Otherwise you have to accept the fact that from time to time (50 percent of the time) you'll have the short CAP. This is not a bug. It is the way it is supposed to work.
CAP is like having the duty that day. Some units get sentry duty Air groups get air sentry (CAP) Make one group the duty group and place them on high percentage CAP. Now your protected. If radar works you'll have more ac and do better in the aircombat. If radar does not work at least you have a good CAP up.


For the bombers in WITP you can set range. In UV you have to face the fact that your bombers will attack and be slaughtered from time to time or risk what you decribe. You will never get perfect behaviour from your groups. (Only attack targets without CAP if the bombers have no escort)

[Mike_B20]

For the bombers in WITP you can set range. In UV you have to face the fact that your bombers will attack and be slaughtered from time to time or risk what you decribe. You will never get perfect behaviour from your groups. (Only attack targets without CAP if the bombers have no escort)

Setting range will not of itself reduce the likelihood of what I've outlined occurring. Range has nothing to do with it.
I'm not asking for perfect behaviour from my groups.
I just wanted to highlight a great way of destroying an opponents LBA if they are on Naval Attack missions. If Matrix considers this all fine and dandy then so be it.
IMO it is an exploitable bug and I suspect there is a difference between the routines for LBA checking CAP over possible CV taskforce targets and the check LBA do when checking for CAP over other surface fleets.

[mogami]

Hi, Setting range is a great way to insure your bombers never attack without escort. Without any bug to exploit getting the enemy bombers to attack targets without escort is a great way of destroying them. Bombers will attack targets with CAP without escort. (This is not a bug) There is a chance they will not attack if enemy CAP considered too strong. (There is a chance they will say "what the heck" and attack right into this CAP.)

I'm not sure what the real complaint here is. Since the bombers will attack into CAP the enemy "fooling" them by placing CV TF in same hex is not required.
He can also place TF's in a base hex with CAP. Place LRCAP from base over TF.
Both of these methods will also get bombers to attack into CAP without escort.

The question is why do you let your bombers attack without escort?
I just fought a battle under these same circumstance. Enemy sent 2 TF's one surface 1 aircombat. They shared a hex. My bombers attacked both groups. (with very heavy escort) It is possible that the groups that attacked surface TF were looking for CV but couldn't find them. In any case I sank the Hornet and damaged 3 other CV. (This battle was PBEM occured yesterday)

As Allies I have sank so many of Dadmans CV while they were in same hex as surface TF that it is not funny. (So I know allies can do it as well)

[Mike_B20]

Hi, Setting range is a great way to insure your bombers never attack without escort. Without any bug to exploit getting the enemy bombers to attack targets without escort is a great way of destroying them. Bombers will attack targets with CAP without escort. (This is not a bug) There is a chance they will not attack if enemy CAP considered too strong. (There is a chance they will say "what the heck" and attack right into this CAP.)

I'm not sure what the real complaint here is. Since the bombers will attack into CAP the enemy "fooling" them by placing CV TF in same hex is not required.
He can also place TF's in a base hex with CAP. Place LRCAP from base over TF.
Both of these methods will also get bombers to attack into CAP without escort.

The question is why do you let your bombers attack without escort?
I just fought a battle under these same circumstance. Enemy sent 2 TF's one surface 1 aircombat. They shared a hex. My bombers attacked both groups. (with very heavy escort) It is possible that the groups that attacked surface TF were looking for CV but couldn't find them. In any case I sank the Hornet and damaged 3 other CV. (This battle was PBEM occured yesterday)

As Allies I have sank so many of Dadmans CV while they were in same hex as surface TF that it is not funny. (So I know allies can do it as well)

Who said I 'let" my bombers attack without escort.
If you bothered to read the AAR exerpts above you would see that my bombers attacked both with and without escort.
Four turns in that game my bombers attacked, through heavy CAP, surface taskforces escorting CV taskforces, sometimes multiple times during a phase, sometimes both morning and afternoon phases.
Not once did my LBA attack the CV taskforce.

I know you are trying to be a "loyal" WITP alpha tester Mogami and cannot stand to see any criticism of Matrix or UV (even when warranted) but if, as an alpha tester, you do not see a potential problem here then I don't see much hope for WITP.

[mogami]

Hi, I saw your escorts. I was addressing the larger picture. In my first post I said this was a bug so I am not defending UV. (bombers not seeing CAP in hex)
I'm trying to give a heads up to all the other players.

It exists. You can quit playing or you can work around it.
I still don't know why the bombers are not seeing the CAP or not attacking CV group. All you can do is escort the bombers. (I see you are, but I want to make sure other players know this can also happen to unescorted bombers)

Send me the replay or game file (from the turn before the attacks)
A bug can not be fixed without a save that duplicates the bug.

Mogami99@aol.com

relax, your report has been seen if we can duplicate it we can fix it.

[Hornblower]

I put other... I would think that Carrier admirals would want there pilots to go after his counterparts CV's. Like Halsey at Leyte Gulf. Unless the pilots were told to go after other targets- which we can't do in the game so its a moot point. Same can be said of Land based SBD's/TBM's etc. However, I can see how a unit with low moral wouldn't be so eager to press home an attack on the Carrier, but would instead opt for a softer target. Also, historical note, at the Battle of the PH sea, Ozawa's pilots attacked Lee's battle line (TG 58.7) with there first 2 waves (@200 total) rather then continuing on to the carriers, which were only 15 miles beyond. Why did they do it? Don't know, as they all pretty much wiped out so we can't know what what there thinking was. But as the distance of Lee's TG and the other 4 carrier TG's scale wise would all be in one hex, this gives us an historical example of where the pilots didn't do what there commander wanted. I also think Yamamoto pushed out a surface group some miles ahead of his carriers at Santa Cruz, in hopes of having them bear the brunt of the the USN's carrier attacks. I guess what I am saying is that I would like to tell my pilots to only go after the carriers, but as we don't have that option, I can see how the system- at times- sends my planes elsewhere.

[Mike_B20]

My hope in posting this, what I believe is a bug, was to highlight a mechanism whereby one player can sucker LBA into attacking a relatively unimportant target through heavy CAP.
I am not really complaining about the LBA not attacking the carriers(although if they are going through the CAP anyway, they should IMO) but rather that they have been "suckered" into a slaughterhouse.
In the game in question my opponent at least once moved his CV's close to my base and did nothing at all, even though there were multiple naval targets.
It looked suspiciously like he wanted my LBA to attack and be slaughtered and he pretty well already knew the outcome.

[mogami]

Hi, Well I always want the enemy to send their CV close to my LBA.
I think I would not be happy if my pilots didn't attack them.
CV pilots should never attack a non CV TF if there is also a discovered enemy CV TF in range. (If they do that is a bug) LBA are not coded the same but a CV TF should have a high value (The LBA should consider attacking CV)

Your opponent will find out one of these tries that this trick does not always work. (The LBA will attack his CV at some point)

I really like it when the enemy under estimates what LBA can reach.

[Mike_B20]

Your opponent will find out one of these tries that this trick does not always work. (The LBA will attack his CV at some point)

Truth be told, I have never seen LBA attack a CV taskforce except where the CV's had no CAP up, or where waifs from a damaged carrier attack in the afternoon phase from a nearby land base.
Even where I've had hundreds of bombers on naval attack and escorts they do not attack.
I posted a report on the bug forum a while back where 300-400 LBA refused for many days in a row to attack CV's.

[Mike_B20]

LBA are not coded the same .

This is where Matrix will find the problem.
They don't need my save games or replays.
Matrix needs to sit down and have a good hard look at this code.

[Philwd]

Truth be told, I have never seen LBA attack a CV taskforce except where the CV's had no CAP up, or where waifs from a damaged carrier attack in the afternoon phase from a nearby land base.
Even where I've had hundreds of bombers on naval attack and escorts they do not attack.
I posted a report on the bug forum a while back where 300-400 LBA refused for many days in a row to attack CV's.

Hi Mike,
In my current PBEM my opponent's LBA, USN, attacked my carriers relentlessly even though I had >60 fighters up. They were in the same hex as transports and a covering SC TF. He lost >150 planes over a few turns but did hit some carriers. Once it was the last flight of 3 planes that put 2 into Kaga.

In return when he attacked Lunga my Nells only attacked his BBs while my CVs mostly attacked his CVs. So I have seen a situation somewhat analogous. Why didn't my Nells attack his remaining CVs? They were heavily escorted and well within range. In this case it didn't matter but I have seen LBA attack CVs preferentially and I have seen it not.

I don't know why different people see different things. If the detection level was visible it may explain why some TF are attacked while missing others. I notice in your AAR it was partly cloudy or T-storms. Could some groups just have missed the CVs and went for the best alternative? There is certainly ample historical precedent for that happening.

I can understand your frustration. I can only say in my games I have been happy with targeting by my airgroups. I can't think of how to fix a bug like this without eliminating attacks against SC TF running by themselves.

Cheers,
Quark

[Mike_B20]

Hi Mike,
In my current PBEM my opponent's LBA, USN, attacked my carriers relentlessly even though I had >60 fighters up.

Hi Quark, what do you mean "LBA, USN"?
If his carriers were involved I would call it a CV versus CV action with some LBA assist.

[Philwd]

Mike,
That's what I get from doing a quick post from work.

My opponent had based not only his LBA, ie P39s A20s etc in PNG he also based 2 CVs worth of sqdns. I am pretty sure at first when the air battles took place he had the CV sqns in GG and the LBA in PM. Both land based USN and 'normal' LBA only attacked my CV TF. I really wish they had attacked the SC as the P39s finally broke through the CAP and it was they who planted bombs on Kaga. A-20s and Hudson's also attacked.

Detection level isn't much talked about during target selection but I'm beginning to think it plays a much bigger role than we think. I know Mike Wood has mentioned it a couple times. I wonder if there is any way to see what the detection levels were for a given TF?

Quark

[Mike_B20]

Thanks for that clarification Quark.

Regarding detection level.
I rarely if ever use my heavy bombers for any other mission but scouting until September in Scenario 17 and had all B17's at strategic outpost locations (Koumac, Luganville,Cairns) on scouting missions.
On every occasion the CV's were identified in the morning phase scouting reports as I recall.
On at least one occasion I had scouted the CV's the turn prior and increased scouting levels.

I've sent Mogami some save game files.
I really hope Matrix check this out.