Bombardment bug?

Post bug reports here.

Moderator: Tankerace

User avatar
Didz
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: UK

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments...

Post by Didz »

Originally posted by Wilson ESQ


This is a question of a programing bug, not a historical one. I have read a great deal in this area and agree with the designers of this game. They 've done their homework. The titles of the best books were mentioned in an earlier thread. Esp see Frank's book on the G'Canal. The night naval actions off G'Canal would never have taken place if what you say is true. Sorry, Didz. I hope we get our fix soon.
Wilson ESQ:)
I agree we seem to be dealing with a programming bug in 1.1 whereas the 1.0 issue was a design feature. However, as far as I can determine from my own limited research neither situation can be historically justified.

The bombardment missions conducted on Henderson Field during the battle of Guadacanal took place between August42 and November 42 when according to the Marine Corps history websites there were less than 40 planes operating from the island (most of which were fighters) and these were fully committed to local ground support and CAP duties during daylight hours and were not in a position to conduct air patrols over the slot.

At the same time the Japanese had air superiority over the slot for the entire of this period which is the main reason that Nimitz refused to leave his carriers in the area to support the marines. As far as I am aware there were no bombardment missions conducted against Guadacanal after the Bomber strip was operational in December.

So! it appears from what I have read that the IJN bombardment missions and the 'Tokyo Express' were conducted in situation where there they were relatively safe from air interdiction anyway and darkness was mainly being used to cover the final approach both from air and surface interdiction. At the same time without risking their carriers the USN had no choice but to sacrifice ships in order to try and interdict these missions.

Unfortunately, the phasing in UV allows those same missions to be sent in against any base even if it has a fully developed LBA and air superiority over the entire area including what ought to be their intial assembly and extraction points.
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

Re: The Tokyo Express Happened

Post by mjk428 »

To be fair, the Tokyo Express was specific to actions around Guadalcanal. BB's suddenly appearing at Port Morseby and being out of LBA range before anyone can react certainly never happened. If this is an abstraction in order to properly simulate the campaign on the whole, I can live with it. However, I'd certainly prefer it to be improved.

mjk428
User avatar
Didz
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: UK

Re: Re: The Tokyo Express Happened

Post by Didz »

Originally posted by mjk428
To be fair, the Tokyo Express was specific to actions around Guadalcanal. BB's suddenly appearing at Port Morseby and being out of LBA range before anyone can react certainly never happened. If this is an abstraction in order to properly simulate the campaign on the whole, I can live with it. However, I'd certainly prefer it to be improved.

mjk428
Exactly! I'm quite happy to accept it as design feature and live with the need to use mines and subs inappropriately to stop it. It just annoys when it gets sold as historically accurate. IMO its the only really poor feature of UV which is pretty good going for a game of this complexity.
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Wilson ESQ
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 7:48 pm
Location: Buffalo now East TN

Re: Re: Re: The Tokyo Express Happened

Post by Wilson ESQ »

Originally posted by Didz


Exactly! I'm quite happy to accept it as design feature and live with the need to use mines and subs inappropriately to stop it. It just annoys when it gets sold as historically accurate. IMO its the only really poor feature of UV which is pretty good going for a game of this complexity.
This is the "Bug" forum. No one is selling you anything. You came over here to sell your view on issues that really don't fit under this forum. I am interested in getting this bug fixed so I can get off this forum and get back to my books, fly fishing, chasing the wife around the back pasture, and, of course, UV. ;)
Wilson ESQ
"A foolish man is put in a flutter by every word."
Heraclitus
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

Bug and PROBLEMS Forum

Post by mjk428 »

Wilson,

This is the bug and PROBLEMS forum actually. The thread topic is "Bombardment bug?". The question mark seemed to open this thread to concerns about bombardments being unrealistic. They were unrealistic in 1.0 and they're unrealistic in 1.1. If we should have a new thread, fine. I'd prefer to hear it from a moderator. Why do you have a problem with someone giving an honest and informed opinion in a polite way?

mjk428
Wilson ESQ
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 7:48 pm
Location: Buffalo now East TN

Re: Bug and PROBLEMS Forum

Post by Wilson ESQ »

Originally posted by mjk428
Wilson,

This is the bug and PROBLEMS forum actually. The thread topic is "Bombardment bug?". The question mark seemed to open this thread to concerns about bombardments being unrealistic. They were unrealistic in 1.0 and they're unrealistic in 1.1. If we should have a new thread, fine. I'd prefer to hear it from a moderator. Why do you have a problem with someone giving an honest and informed opinion in a polite way?

mjk428
I did not mean to be imploite, not at all. I'm sorry. BUT I don't like people telling me I'm selling ideas, because I'm not. To be honest with you, I'm just not very interested in changing your viewpoint, and I hope you keep your current view. This thread was about a "bug," until some folks came on and changed the topic, so they could attack some folks they were mad at (not me by the way. I didn't have a dog in that fight). Please reread the thread and I'm sure you will see my point. From what I have read Mike Wood is working to fix this new "bug," and I'll be back to my own interests shortly. Good luck, and surely the next patch will have the fixes you so desire.
"A foolish man is put in a flutter by every word."
Heraclitus
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

Post by mjk428 »

Hi Wilson,

I didn't think you were impolite. I didn't think any other posters were impolite either. I agree that the bug in 1.1 affects gameplay more negatively than the design choice in 1.0.

Thanks and I hope you're correct when you say that the patch following the next "fix" will tweak movement a bit.

mjk428
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”