Empire of the Rising Lemon? SqzMyLemon (Japan) v Smeulders (Allies)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Feb. 8/43

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
ORIGINAL: obvert

Too bad you couldn't have gotten Kunming before his retreat there. There have been a few threads lately talking about getting units out of China when China looks bad. (I'm sure, although I haven't looked of course, that my opponent's thread could be one as well). If you Get them caught up there and they are restricted from going to Burma though, it could be tough for him to supply them.

I realized the importance of Kunming 6 months ago, but vasilated once again until it was too late. I think Kunming and area is key to taking out China and preventing anything like what is happening now. I'll definitely look at Kunming differently in my next game. This one remains a case of shoulda, coulda, woulda.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do against the Chinese once Burma collapses and they start receiving bucket loads of supply. Depending how far back the Chinese withdraw, I may be able to trade space for time on the defence.

Well, if he does retreat everything to the mountains, and holds there, you could fight the Chinese the way the Chinese usually fight the IJA. Place strong units in key points, and once those are taken retreat to the next line while also leaving some units to fill in behind and harass the LOC. There are only two roads out of those mountains. In most of that terrain he would need a 3 to 1 advantage to move forward, and that will be tough to achieve.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Feb. 8/43

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: obvert

Well, if he does retreat everything to the mountains, and holds there, you could fight the Chinese the way the Chinese usually fight the IJA. Place strong units in key points, and once those are taken retreat to the next line while also leaving some units to fill in behind and harass the LOC. There are only two roads out of those mountains. In most of that terrain he would need a 3 to 1 advantage to move forward, and that will be tough to achieve.

I was thinking the same last night while completing the turn. Looking for the chokepoints and how I might disrupt any advance. This is where not advancing farther in Burma at start has cost me. An offensive against China from Burma would seal the fate of the Chinese and delay the opening of a direct supply route for months. If I move now, the cork is out of the proverbial bottle and the Allies will pour into the plains and drive on Rangoon, most likely cutting off any troops I send to China. As I play, I see all the long term consequences from missed opportunities and I'm learning what is important and why. I'm paying the piper right now because of things I didn't do years ago, literally! [:D]

It's too bad the game takes so long to play, there are so many opportunities to try different strategies and new tactics. You only have a limited window of opportunity as Japan to try something new each game. I guess that is the challenge and some are better at is than others.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Feb. 8/43

Post by SqzMyLemon »

A bombardment of Lunga is ordered for today and I need a solid performance to close the airbase. I've provided LRCAP over my TF to try and prevent a repeat of last turn. Will the Allies reinforce success and move more planes to Lunga? I'm expecting to see an enemy SCTF appear to interdict my bombardment TF's anyday now. With that in mind, I'm preparing a little welcoming committee to be on hand just in case.

In China, the river assault goes ahead north of Kweilin. I've also begun withdrawing some bombers back to the DEI and the Solomons. I'm going to have to supplement the naval bombardments with air attacks. I want my Betty's free to interdict naval shipping. I'm moving submarines and minelayers to create pockets of trouble for any Allied moves in the area. I have not been using my submarine mine capacity and have over 350 mines available, guess where they are going now?

I'm expecting to see an Allied effort to close my airfields soon. Once I get a few more airbases built up I'll have plenty of CAP to deal with the 4E's. I won't stop them of course, but I can try and make it costly.

Defensive preparations in the DEI will not be affected during this period. The expansions continue and reinforcements from China are still on the way.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Feb. 8/43

Post by SqzMyLemon »

Next turn has arrived. Bart has learned the best way to deal with me when I point out he capitalized on an AI derived gift, he just doesn't respond. [:D]

He bagged a cruiser and that's really all that matters, how it was done is irrelevant. I'm sure on his end it was mission accomplished and simply can't relate to what it means to have something go wrong and lose something valuable from the AI messing up your orders. He hasn't experienced that in any meaningful way.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the bombardment against Lunga goes and if there are any surprises in store for me. I'm also keen on seeing the results of the river assault in China. I hope to not suffer more miscues resulting in one sided losses on my end.

Now, if the last hour of work would just go quickly so I can get home and find out. I must be a closet masochist, because I'm more often than not always expecting bad results now.

Hopefully, everyone takes this in the spirit it was intended. Just want to have my opponent suffer a little of what I've been going through of late. I hope to kick some ass at Guadalcanal over the next 4 weeks and like him, I'll take it anyway I can and sleep like a baby if I pull this off. [8D]
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

Possible bug!

Post by SqzMyLemon »

Well, I may have figured out why my bombardment missions have not been carried out. I mentioned in an earlier post about a bombardment not going ahead and thought it was an error on my part inputting the orders. The second time I was starting to wonder. Now I definitely believe there is a problem. I'm glad I have posted about it to indicate something was up prior to today.

The TF sailed a couple of hexes from Munda, encountered a submarine which indicated it did indeed leave port, but after there was no bombardment of Lunga. Looking post turn the orders stated the home port was Munda and the bombardment destination was also Munda. I checked a duplicate save file saved prior to the end turn save and checked the orders. It clearly stated that Munda was the home port and Lunga was the target of the bombardment. If there is a bug, I've suffered it 3 out of the last 4 turns.

This means Lunga was not damaged for four days allowing the airbase to repair, which allowed the basing of DB's there which consequently sunk a CA after an AI induced faulty movement. What might have been the damage to Lunga had my missions worked as ordered? Is it possible the base would have been too damaged to base DB's there in the first place?

I've posted in the tech forum and will await comment from michaelm before commenting further. If it does turn out to be a bug and not error on my part...would I be justified in asking for a redo of the last four turns? Perhaps I'm asking this question prematurely. I'll wait to hear what tech support says first, it could still be something on my end.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
Itdepends
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:59 am

RE: Possible bug!

Post by Itdepends »

Are you setting the bombardment force threat tolerance to absolute and routing to direct?
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Possible bug!

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

Are you setting the bombardment force threat tolerance to absolute and routing to direct?

Not absolute, but the next setting down, and yes direct to target. I've run numerous bombardment TF's with the identical settings and waypoints and had no problems. Just recently they are not working properly. Michaelm has confirmed my ships are reaching Lunga, but there is movement left prior to the bombardment check, so they have already left Lunga before the game checks for bombardment orders. Essentially, my ships are arriving too quickly for some reason. Why it's changed now I have no idea.

I'm all for randomness thrown in, but not when it makes things not work. [:D] Hopefully something can be done short of me having to change the routes. It's a critical period of the game and it's not fair if I have to tinker around hoping I'll get a bombardment to work. I've already lost a heavy cruiser as a direct result of this. No player should have to guess on something working or not.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Possible bug!

Post by SqzMyLemon »

It seems waypoints are the issue. I wonder if I have inadvertly added a second waypoint which is screwing up the movement. I can't check till I get home as I dont' remember at this point. I previously routed the TF's to traverse as many shallow water hexes as possible to avoid the large concentration of enemy submarines in the two deep water hexes separating Munda from Lunga. If I have to now set my bombardment TF's with no waypoints, that means the enemy gets 4 shots at me with submarines while traversing the deep water hexes instead of only two as previously. Needless to say, I'm not happy about this as the whole intent was to force enemy submarines to use shallow water hexes if they wished to interdict my missions.

Once again, I feel I'm on the short end because of something beyond my control. I just want to play the game to the best of my ability and routing my TF's through shallow water is the smart thing to do, and now I can't if I wish to have any chance of suppressing Lunga's airbase with bombardments. It may be just me, but that doesn't seem right. This clearly might benefit my opponent.

I have no choice but to try and see what happens.

That being said, am I in a position to ask for a redo of the previous turns to the point I first mentioned where my bombardments didn't work? Would you? I feel I lost the CA Chikuma as a direct result of two previous bombardment missions not going ahead which possibly could have kept Lunga's airbase unoperational. My ships have accumulated fuel expenditure and operational damage from speed runs in to perform the missions as well, with no actual bombardments occuring. I'd value everyone's thoughts please to see if asking for a redo is justified or not? It's clear my forces have suffered because of it and the Allies would actually also get two DD's back in exchange for my CA.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Possible bug!

Post by crsutton »

No, I would not ask for a redo. Redo request are just like borrowing money. Only do it if it is needed for something critical. Just make the corrections to insure you will get correct bombardments. At this stage of the war, I don't know if I would fret too much about Allied subs. You have quite a few weeks to go before his torepdoes upgrade to 90% from the now 40%. Allied subs were the reality for Japan and you should not be too upset over them. You are bound to lose some ships to them. That is just the way it is.

As for your bad luck with your ships getting caught, I personally believe that this randomness should be part of the game. Neither side should have perfect control over operations as it would make for a very boring game and not be very historical. For whatever reason, sometimes a TF should just get fouled up and caught with it pants down. As the Allied player it has happened to me any number of times. But in real life operations for both sides went wrong as well and they had to pay the piper. Quite frankly, if every bombardment came off perfect and every fast transport convoy worked to perfection, I would quickly find the game tedious and look for something else to play. I think Grigsby planned for the game to have a certain element of chaos in it and consider this feature to be one of the most brilliant aspects of the design.

As for bombardments. These are the rules I use. Keep it simple-use direct paths and no waypoints. Good but not aggressive commander. Set to zero reaction range. Avoid max range run ins-give yourself a little cushion. Make sure that no ship in your TF has expended OP points before the mission. Use ships with little or no damage. Sweep with PTs or surface TFs if you have them to spare. High detection level on your target and at least one scout seaplane group set to recon the target at night as you run in. I rarely have a bombardment TF fail. I have noticed that if the target is a land unit not in a base, the bombardment TF seems to stay and do a day bombardment. I generally avoid this but if you do it. Make sure you have plenty of fighters on LRCAP over the TF. In fact, if I can spare it, I always put at least one fighter unit on LRCAP over a bombardment TF regardless. Then if something does go wrong, you have some protection.

And yes, I am checking your AAR for updates every day...[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Possible bug!

Post by obvert »

Curious abut one thing you mention above, CR. Why would you not want an aggressive TF commander? Doesn't this make it more likely that if a surface element is in the path that the TF will engage?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Possible bug!

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As for your bad luck with your ships getting caught, I personally believe that this randomness should be part of the game. Neither side should have perfect control over operations as it would make for a very boring game and not be very historical. For whatever reason, sometimes a TF should just get fouled up and caught with it pants down. As the Allied player it has happened to me any number of times. But in real life operations for both sides went wrong as well and they had to pay the piper. Quite frankly, if every bombardment came off perfect and every fast transport convoy worked to perfection, I would quickly find the game tedious and look for something else to play. I think Grigsby planned for the game to have a certain element of chaos in it and consider this feature to be one of the most brilliant aspects of the design.

As for bombardments. These are the rules I use. Keep it simple-use direct paths and no waypoints. Good but not aggressive commander. Set to zero reaction range. Avoid max range run ins-give yourself a little cushion. Make sure that no ship in your TF has expended OP points before the mission. Use ships with little or no damage. Sweep with PTs or surface TFs if you have them to spare. High detection level on your target and at least one scout seaplane group set to recon the target at night as you run in. I rarely have a bombardment TF fail. I have noticed that if the target is a land unit not in a base, the bombardment TF seems to stay and do a day bombardment. I generally avoid this but if you do it. Make sure you have plenty of fighters on LRCAP over the TF. In fact, if I can spare it, I always put at least one fighter unit on LRCAP over a bombardment TF regardless. Then if something does go wrong, you have some protection.

And yes, I am checking your AAR for updates every day...[;)]

I agree with much of what you are saying crsutton. It's just the timing of the randomness. Just too many things are happening beneficial to my opponent at my expense and it's happening far too often. That's really all I'm trying to point out. I'm all for randomness and chance, but make sure it affects both sides. The one turn he moves planes to Lunga is the turn I get burnt. And if they were still there this last turn, they should have been hit with a bombardment, now I bet they are removed during the next turn.

I'll have to tweak my bombardments and possibly select a prestaging area from which to strike from in a direction more beneficial to me. My bombardments to this point had been trouble free, so I do think I have a sense of what I'm doing. I just don't like being forced to put my ships at risk when I shouldn't have to. A further quick comment about the routing issue and the submarines. I'm all for the risk the Allied submarines pose, but my issue is this, I know they are there and I have a perfectly viable approach to the target without having to travel through this kill zone. I'm now forced to travel through the enemy submarines in order to perform my operations and I don't have to like it [:D]. I could argue what if it was a mined hex, that I knew was mined and I had the ability to travel around the hex and avoid the mines on the way to the target I should be able to do so. What you and michaelm are proposing is that I go through that minefield even though I don't have to because of a faulty routine. I'm not trying to game the system or do anything sneaky. I'm just playing and trying to operate my forces with as little risk to them as possible. I know things won't always go well, but I also know there's a much greater chance now since I can't move them to avoid obvious known enemy concentrations.

I just can't catch a break lately and now I've lost control over how I can move my forces in order to perform a bombardment. The options for me have gone from limited risk to high risk now and my opponent hasn't had to change a thing. I know pixel warfare isn't fair, but it seems pretty one sided lately.

Glad you are still following along! Pax seems to have forsaken me . If the game would just cooperate I'd have some good news for a change and the war could move forward. [:D]

I know I talk too much and lately it's been negative, but I'm doing everything in my power to change that. So far no love.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

Moving on.

Post by SqzMyLemon »

I won't ask for a redo either. I'll accept the loss of the CA and the lack of bombardments and move forward. I don't like what's been happening, but there's not much I can do about it either. I will try and figure out another way to bombard Lunga with as little risk as possible. Obviously the need to bombard it will disappear if I capture it, so that's the plan...capture the friggin' place.

I'll post the turn update later. I did at least get some good damage in against a couple of Allied subs in that kill zone and my river assault in China was a success.

I'll save my redo request for the next time I really get screwed . If on the other hand something goes wrong for the Allies and they lose something bigtime, nope, not a chance for a redo...no more freebies until things even out a bit here. [:D]

So, another bombardment attempt against Lunga is on the cards for tomorrow with new orders and routes. Lets see what happens. I'm officially done talking about this, tomorrow is another day. [8D]
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
khyberbill
Posts: 1941
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: new milford, ct

RE: Possible bug!

Post by khyberbill »

It seems waypoints are the issue.
I have never used waypoints for bombardments, and rarely for Surface Combat. IIRC there is a point in the bombardment routine where the speed is ratcheted up from cruise to full speed. Waypoints might mess with this routine. And I have wondered if there is a pause in the progress of ship movement when a waypoint is reached.
"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Possible bug!

Post by SqzMyLemon »

ORIGINAL: khyberbill
It seems waypoints are the issue.
I have never used waypoints for bombardments, and rarely for Surface Combat. IIRC there is a point in the bombardment routine where the speed is ratcheted up from cruise to full speed. Waypoints might mess with this routine. And I have wondered if there is a pause in the progress of ship movement when a waypoint is reached.

I think you nailed it kyberbill. The waypoint somehow interferes with the bombardment routine during the transition from mission to full speed and stops the bombardment routine working properly. It's a shame because there are times a routing of your TF is absolutely necessary in my opinion, especially when operating in confined areas like the Solomons. I used a waypoint to try and minimize the danger to my forces, and I'm really disappointed to learn the game engine can't take this into account and it wasn't anticipated to be used by a player on setting up bombardment missions either. It's the way it operates though, so I'll have to figure out a different way of doing things that work within the constraints of the engine.

I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue. Combined with the reaction radious settings I can interdict enemy shipping if they fall within my patrol waypoints quite easily.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
khyberbill
Posts: 1941
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: new milford, ct

RE: Possible bug!

Post by khyberbill »

I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue.
It appears that if one assigns a patrol zone to an ASW task force with a reaction range of 6 it will only attack subs directly in its path, the path of the patrol zone is paramount. In other words, reaction range does not matter.
"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: Possible bug!

Post by SqzMyLemon »

I typically assign a reaction radiuos of only 1 or 2 hexes for an ASW TF as I want them sticking pretty close to their patrol area and not wandering off. I have no idea whether this is then hurting their chances of interdictions or not. Thanks for the information and I'll have to follow what is happening more closely. I love the game, but so much is simply not documented it can be frustrating. I can only imagine what some people may go through that never visit the forums to learn this kind of game information and rely solely on the manual.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11130
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

NO Bug, it's WAD.

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Glad you are still following along! Pax seems to have forsaken me .
Nope still here, just RL has become quite busy. I haven't gotten a turn done in my game since ... Feb? longer maybe. I find just enough time to get caught up to start some moves and then something happens to pull me away for a week.

I agree with CR regarding bombardments, especially waypoints. My experience is that adding waypoints clearly adds to the potential for random errors, and maybe even uses some op points (not sure on this though). I don't use them for this mission profile - ever. I always get them setup on straight line movements starting from max range.

No reaction. If you do and they react, they will get caught by air strikes the next day. That is why PT sweeps are REALLY important. You want the PT's to clear your path for your capital ships. If no PT, then low value DD's (if it is late game).
Pax
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11130
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Possible bug!

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: khyberbill
I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue.
It appears that if one assigns a patrol zone to an ASW task force with a reaction range of 6 it will only attack subs directly in its path, the path of the patrol zone is paramount. In other words, reaction range does not matter.
Mmm, not sure if this is consistent with my experiences. I routinely have my ASW SCTF's with reaction ranges set to >1 (ussually 4 - 6 depending upon where they are deployed) and frequently see "dogpiles"* on top of subs that are off of the plotted paths.

Not sure if I am just lucky or what ....

*Dogpiles = several ASW SCTF's prosecuting a single sub contact with its DL=10 due to my air ASW efforts.
Pax
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

Quick Test

Post by SqzMyLemon »

Ok, now that I'm home and have had a chance to look at things, I see my last my bombardment TF was set with two waypoints. Now, I'm not sure why I changed that, because if I set only one waypoint the TF moves the exact same route. I've asked Bart to just send me an Allied save file so I can rerun the turn to determine if one, two or both instances where waypoints are used is the root of the problem. I can't remember exactly my previous movement orders for my successful bombardments, but if I did use only one waypoint and it worked then I'd like to know. So, this TF has one waypoint set and if the bombardment does not work this time, I can confidently say any waypoints set are the cause of the bombardment routine not working. I'd like to run this test before completing the next turn. Stay tuned.

Thanks for all the comments and bearing with me. Pax, glad to see you and I'm going to try and capture Lunga for you ;).
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11130
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Quick Test

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Pax, glad to see you and I'm going to try and capture Lunga for you ;).
Watching with great interest. You're already doing better than I would have ... BANZAI!!!



Pax
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”