Lunacy or Shrewdness?

[jeffs]

About torpedo plane attacks....

I think historically 10-15% hit rate was rather decent for elite pilots and was probably only 8-12% (when attacking ships doing at least 20 knots). Kates did get in some hits, but they were far from a slam dunk weapon.

I think assuming you are entitled to a 20-25% Kate (or Nell/Betty) is a mistake both from a game perspective and a historical perspective.

I will post on Monday (the info is stored on a different PC), but I am starting to test hit rates for carrier planes (basically in Dec 41) so elite planes only. Kates came in at around 15% but that is with all the pilots elite...If you have some rookies in there 12% sounds right (that said, I did with the Nik mod). I will run the same tests with the stock game as well for comparison purposes.

[Nemo121]

Jeffs,

I think you misunderstand why I posted those figures. I think a 12% hit rate for Kates in that environment is absolutely fine... But I was posting that and drawing comparison to what happened with the "secondary mission bug".

Mogami stated that while the Kates showed up as dropping bombs at 6000 feet they did ACTUALLY drop to 200 feet and perform their attack runs at that altitude. This was in direct opposition to what I had previously heard about this bug... I had previously heard that when it showed them dropping torps from 6000 feet then this is what actually happened and accuracy was hugely reduced.

So, when air attacks by the same planes against very similar TFs suddenly had a 1000% increase in hit rate when the programme brought them down to 200 feet I pointed it out because I think it proved that planes effected by the "secondary mission bug" do NOT drop to 200 feet to launch their torpedoes.

I have no problem with a 12% hit rate in a AAA-rich environment. If you refer back to my previous posts about expected hit rates for torpedo-bombers you'll see that I found a hit rate of approximately 33% against unarmed merchantmen and that that hit rate reduced by 66% if FlAK was heavy or fighters were present.

So, very light FlAK - 33% hit rate.
heavy FlAK - 11% predicted hit rate.
heavy FlAK & disruption from CAP intercepts - 4% predicted hit rate.


So, I have no problems with a 12% hit rate. It is right in line with my expectations. I do think, however, that is shows the bug I pointed out previously is not just a text bug but a bug which effects torpedo drop height and as such deserves serious attention.

[mogami]

Hi, A 12 percent hit rate would be above what Japan achived in WWII excepting the Pearl Harbor Strike and attack on Force "Z" When you factor out these two attacks the Japanese hit rate with air dropped torpedo was between 7 to 10 percent. (hard to get really accurate numbers) But 12 percent hit rate in WITP would represent a marked improvement over historic Japanese results.

I defer to Nik on the exact effects of the mentioned bug resulting when a torpedo group flies naval strike while it also has secondary target. (it never occurs to group with naval attack only)

[Nemo121]

Mogami,

Ah, I was unclear again... I amn't arguing in the slightest with the 12% hit rate. It may be a tad high, it may be a tad low. I was just concerned with the correlation vs the "secondary mission bug" torpedo strike.


In any case my figures are purely rules of thumb. Its all to do with Soviet doctrine. They believe very much that at the operational and strategic levels one can forget about individual inspiration etc and mathematically figure out what would happen.

E.g. It seems to take about 6 to 7 torpedoes to immediately sink a BB. Assume that the BBs are covered by LRCAP but that my Zeroes can fairly effectively brush that aside so that the CAP only has half the effect it normally has. Also assume that the BB TF has a lot of AAA.

So, if I want to be fairly sure of scoring 6 torpedo hits the Soviets would believe that I could achieve that result by assigning 81 torpedo bombers to the strike ( plus whatever number of Zeroes is required to reduce the effect of CAP to half the normal).

How is this arrived at? Well, the assumption would be that 27 Bettys would score 9 hits if they were flying against merchants, 3 hits if they were flying against warships and 1 hit if those warships had strong CAP. Since they have CAP which only has half the effect ( since my Zeroes will tend to provide a good bit of cover) I can assume that 27 planes will score 2 torpedo hits. So to score 6 hits I need to commit 81 planes.


If you look at the strikes which went in over this turn and you count the BBs which began the turn very heavily damaged and alone as merchantmen ( since their AAA would be very ineffective) most of the strikes conform fairly well to these rules of thumb. Obviously the smaller the strike the less likely the Soviet model is to work but, then again, they contended that this model was to be used to calculate operations involving armies ( 60,000 men+ minimum) and fronts ( 250,000+ men), not 50 plane engagements.

And onto the turn... I call this.... Eliminating the Royal Navy Battleline... finally! I've lost 15 ships over the last two days and will probably lose another 10 to the damage they have sustained. Trey's "rabid dog defence" has cost me dearly... In the end though it will allow me freedom of movement off India's west coast and that's something worth having if the ground fighting ever bogs down.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/05/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Trimcomalee, 15,25, firing at TF 14
TF 14 troops unloading over beach at Trimcomalee, 15,25


639 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Kaifuku Maru, Shell hits 1
DD Kuroshio, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kikukawa Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Michishio, Shell hits 1
AP Sanfuku Maru, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
AP Otake Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
AP Nissen Maru #3, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Hatsuharu
AP Neikai Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Humburugu Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hokusho Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Azuchi Maru, Shell hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Tamaura Maru
AP Achou Maru, Shell hits 1

Japanese ground losses:
1661 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

Allied ground losses:
19 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 11

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
I-153c: 1 destroyed

Airbase hits 1

I'm just feeling out the FlAK here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

And again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 117,65

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
DD Talbot
DD Waters
DD Schley
DD Chew
DD Jarvis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Mannargudi at 16,23

Japanese Ships
DD Hokaze, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
DD Tomozuru, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Mauritius, on fire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Mannargudi at 16,23

Japanese Ships
DD Hokaze, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
DD Tomozuru, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CL Mauritius, on fire

CL Mauritius runs into two massively damaged DDs ( 90+ sys damage on each) and, unsurprisingly, sinks them both. My DD losses are becoming concerning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 15,23

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
BB Ise, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Hyuga
CA Haguro
CA Mogami
CA Mikuma
CA Kumano
DD Akigumo

Allied Ships
BB Ramilles, Shell hits 41, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

My run of bad luck continues. Sure the British only score a single hit but, of course, there'a magazine explosion and the Ise ends up with over 60 system damage, massive fires and flooding. If I hadn't taken Trimcomalee today Ise wouldn't have had a chance. As it is a Size 9 port is just what the doctor ordered. Three of my battleships now have significant damage ( more than 30 sys damage).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 13,23

Japanese Ships
PG Chiyo Maru
AO Erimo
AO Hayamoto, Shell hits 36, and is sunk
AO Iro, Shell hits 56, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AO Naruto
AO Notoro
AO Shiriya
AO Tsurumi, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise
CLAA Columbo
CLAA Van Heemskerck
DD Vendetta
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Tenedos
DD Electra
DD Express
DD Fortune
DD Foxhound
DD Griffin

For some reason the replenishment group only moved 120 miles despite being ordered to move 180 and having the capacity to move 240. As usual it pays the price for things not going EXACTLY according to plan and another 3 x AOs are lost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Trimcomalee, 15,25, firing at TF 14
TF 14 troops unloading over beach at Trimcomalee, 15,25


49 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Michishio

Japanese ground losses:
243 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 295
Ki-49 Helen x 25
Ki-46-II Dinah x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
92 casualties reported

Airbase hits 17
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 147

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Johnston Island , at 102,74


Allied aircraft
PB2Y Coronado x 4
B-17E Fortress x 44
LB-30 Liberator x 73


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 4 damaged
LB-30 Liberator: 1 destroyed, 12 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
342 casualties reported
Guns lost 15

Port hits 3
Port supply hits 13


My plan for defending my forward islands does not include basing fighters at them ( for the present). I will therefore, once the forts are built up, withdraw all construction Bns to prevent Trey using his bombers to burn up all my supply at a prodigious rate. Naval Guard units are going to be very useful for this garrison duty as they have no organic engineer detachment and thus are immune to the "burn supply by forcing repair" tactic. I'm quite happy sitting in an island with 100 port, 100 runway and 100 service damage but plentiful CD and AAA units and lots of supply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 22nd Chinese Corps, at 45,35

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 58
Ki-51 Sonia x 24
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,23

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CL Glasgow, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,23

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
B5N Kate x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
BC Repulse, Torpedo hits 7, on fire, heavy damage

Repulse and Glasgow are later confirmed as having sunk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,23

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7
B5N Kate x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Cornwall
CA Dorsetshire, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,23

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 19
B5N Kate x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged
B5N Kate: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Royal Sovereign, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

While it wasn't confirmed as sunk I don't think Royal Sovereign will pose much of a threat from now on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,23

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Revenge, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

It is amazing how after several days of heavy fighting and losses once one side's CLG is exceeded things go downhill very quickly. This is quite realistic too and nice to see.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,19

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 26
B5N Kate x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CVL Hermes, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Ah good. I thought that this would happen. Hermes has been limping northward at the rate of 60 miles every day for the last few days. I left it alone as it wasn't a threat bu it was threatening to move out of range so I wanted to take it out this turn. I amn't told it has sunk but tomorrow I should still be in range to launch more strikes and definitely finish it off.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 117,65

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
DD Talbot
DD Waters
DD Schley
DD Chew
DD Jarvis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 117,65

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
DD Talbot
DD Waters
DD Schley
DD Chew
DD Jarvis


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Trimcomalee

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 31289 troops, 235 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 665

Defending force 9350 troops, 68 guns, 289 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 158

Japanese max assault: 1082 - adjusted assault: 1024

Allied max defense: 156 - adjusted defense: 183

Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Trimcomalee base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
461 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

Allied ground losses:
147 casualties reported
Guns lost 9
Vehicles lost 3


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

With Trimcomalee falling I fly in 1 Navy and 1 Army fighter division, a naval bomber division and 2 army bomber divisions. Morale of the bombers is low and fatigue is high so I don't expect much of them tomorrow but in a couple of days the army bombers should begin closing Colombo while the navy bombers mop up those Royal Navy ships still fleeing to Karachi. 2 recon Chutai and some transport elements also stage forward to Mannargudi in order to provide long-range intelligence and capture important bridges etc in front of my advancing army. This will expedite their advance as they won't have to wait an extra day or two to launch a deliberate attack when they reach a base. It will already have been taken by the paratroops.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10416 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 3081 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 3

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 42

Allied max defense: 1 - adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1



Allied ground losses:
80 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 7040 troops, 144 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 14

Defending force 1040 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 17


Japanese ground losses:
106 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 43,31

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 23976 troops, 290 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 678

Defending force 20285 troops, 236 guns, 5 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 432

Allied max assault: 670 - adjusted assault: 363

Japanese max defense: 427 - adjusted defense: 256

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
213 casualties reported
Guns lost 15
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
504 casualties reported
Guns lost 24

This combat occurs in the mountain hexes just north of Chungking and is extremely important as it represents Trey's attempt to retain the mobility of his troops there. They achieve 1 : 1 odds against one of my divisions and will, undoubtedly, shock attack tomorrow. Unfortunately for Trey the 2nd division assigned to this action will arrive by then and I should be able to hold. Once I hold for a day or two and get a chance to recover some fatigue and disruption I should be quite safe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Yanam

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 11256 troops, 75 guns, 311 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 189

Defending force 736 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 8

Allied max assault: 185 - adjusted assault: 202

Japanese max defense: 6 - adjusted defense: 2

Allied assault odds: 101 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
1169 casualties reported
Guns lost 11

My paratroops are finally annihilated. Now the race is on to see who can reach Madras first . I have 6 divisions on the way but they are fatigued and disrupted and are unlikely to arrive before Trey's reinforcements. Still this is acceptable for now.

[jeffs]

Ok Now I understand what you mean.

[Rob Brennan UK]

"Escort Taskforce"

this is for escorting cripples to safely .. NOT escorting a transport group.. thats why they didnt engage a few turns back, should have been Surface combat with 0 reaction range.

And British ASW is the best in the game bar none .. untill a lot later on anyway .. ASW 8 with high exp crews eat large I boats for lunch .. best be careful.

[Nemo121]

Rob,

Ah that explains it. Thanks.



And now onto March 6th 1942. With bombers basing out of Trimcomalee the destruction of the Allied fleet accelerates. At this rate I expect that no more than a handful of destroyers and possible one or two CLs will reach Karachi. Trey tells me PoW is laid up being repaired there and since Churchill has asked for a BB and 2 DDs to return to England Trey will probably be sending PoW and whatever destroyers still survive back to England as soon as he can manage. I won't waste any more Kates trying to prevent this.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/06/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 109,61

Japanese Ships
SS RO-63, hits 2, on fire

Allied Ships
DD McCall
DD Gridley
DD Craven
DD Mugford

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 7

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses

Runway hits 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 305
Ki-46-II Dinah x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 13 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
61 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 119

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Johnston Island , at 102,74


Allied aircraft
PB2Y Coronado x 2
B-17E Fortress x 40
LB-30 Liberator x 76


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 4 damaged
LB-30 Liberator: 9 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
267 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

Port hits 4
Port supply hits 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 35th Chinese Corps, at 45,35

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 58
Ki-51 Sonia x 24
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
22 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Chinese Corps, at 41,35

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 80

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Sydney Island at 100,102


Allied aircraft
B-26B Marauder x 5


Allied aircraft losses
B-26B Marauder: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Kotobuki Maru #5
AP Dainiunyo Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Mannargudi at 16,23


Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 8


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Keiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Kasui Maru

Japanese ground losses:
22 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,19

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
CL Tromp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 12,21

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 7
Ki-49 Helen x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 12,22

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 7 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Cornwall, Bomb hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,19

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
B5N Kate x 44

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 3 destroyed, 11 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Columbo, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CL Enterprise, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Express
CLAA Van Heemskerck
DD Vendetta, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,19

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
D3A Val x 15
B5N Kate x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Van Heemskerck, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CLAA Columbo, on fire, heavy damage
DD Express
DD Tjerk Hiddes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,19

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 38
B5N Kate x 14
G3M Nell x 25
G4M1 Betty x 6
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 24
Ki-49 Helen x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Columbo, on fire, heavy damage
CL Enterprise, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Electra
DD Vendetta, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Van Heemskerck, on fire
DD Foxhound

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,19

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7
B5N Kate x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Van Heemskerck, on fire
DD Vendetta, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 12,22

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 6
Ki-49 Helen x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Royal Sovereign, Bomb hits 4, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 12,22

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Exeter, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 12,22

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 3
Ki-49 Helen x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Revenge, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 12,21

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CL Mauritius, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Sydney Island at 100,102


Allied aircraft
B-26B Marauder x 3


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Koshu Maru #2, Bomb hits 1, on fire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 12,21

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 23
Ki-49 Helen x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,19

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9
G3M Nell x 40
G4M1 Betty x 6
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 4
Ki-49 Helen x 40

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Van Heemskerck, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Foxhound
DD Fortune
DD Express
DD Tenedos, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Griffin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 13,20

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 14
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 7
Ki-49 Helen x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Capetown, heavy damage


This is a good day's work. With the bombers from Trimcomalee pressing the Allies from the south and my four fleet carriers blocking their retreat northward things are looking quite grim. Ramilles and the BC Repulse are confirmed sunk. The other BBs are confirmed heavily damaged. At least 10 CLs have also been sunk over the last week and several CAs now join the ranks of the heavily damaged. Many destroyers have, so far, escaped any damage and so will get away. This is unfortunate but even if they make it to Australia I will have a second opportunity to destroy them during the invasion of New Zealand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 115,60

Japanese Ships
SS I-15

Allied Ships
DD Patterson
DD Rathburne
DD O'Brien

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 115,60

Japanese Ships
SS I-15

Allied Ships
DD Rathburne
DD Downes
DD Patterson
DD O'Brien


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 134625 troops, 1187 guns, 395 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2407

Defending force 70614 troops, 288 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1561

Japanese max assault: 4464 - adjusted assault: 2490

Allied max defense: 1528 - adjusted defense: 1839

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
3762 casualties reported
Guns lost 78
Vehicles lost 8

Allied ground losses:
1748 casualties reported
Guns lost 25

My forces will rest up and attack again once disruption and fatigue fall to acceptable levels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10456 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 3000 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 82

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 6 to 1



Allied ground losses:
16 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 7040 troops, 144 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 14

Defending force 916 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 17


Japanese ground losses:
138 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 43,31

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 23237 troops, 254 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 622

Defending force 39930 troops, 454 guns, 9 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 845

Allied max assault: 588 - adjusted assault: 147

Japanese max defense: 775 - adjusted defense: 556

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
84 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Allied ground losses:
1584 casualties reported
Guns lost 45

The force north-east of Chungking will hold. 20 enemy units are now prevented from aiding the defenders of Chungking. This has required only 5 of my divisions and allowed a greater concentration of my force at Chungking.

So far I would have to say the situation in China is continuing to look good. I have another couple of divisions ready to join the fight over the next 4 or 5 days and once everyone at Kweiyang is rested the advance of the Japanese Imperial Army should, again, continue apace. It looks like two out of the five main theatres of combat are well in hand at present.

[Rob Brennan UK]

Humm .. i bet those DD's wont have the fuel to get to Perth alone . maybe detach a lone CVL for persuit ? I would think the American CV's are in the pacific . so should be safe .. also an emily group in tjiljap will scour the seas West of java spotting for you . Possibly base a few betties here too .. although he's probably hugging the map edge if he's careful .

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Hi, I am greatly enjoying your AAR. But I'd like a one single innovation: During describing amphib operations, could you name which divisions (or brigades or regiments) are invading enemy bases?

Also as I understood, you are agreed with Trey about UK divisions (after Karachi falls) to have them arriving in Australia or US... How to do that? AFAIK they will not arrive in neither US nor Australia, they will simply wait on arrival list to recapture of Karachi.

[Nemo121]

Monter,

Sure thing. I'll post my taskings for the invasion of India.


Basically the situation as of 9th April is that Trimcomalee, Mannargudi, Madras, Hyderabad and the little resource-producer north of Colombo have all fallen to my forces. My first wave ( 5 Tank Regiments, 6 Infantry Divisions and a host of aviation/engineer units.) is almost entirely ashore with their allocation of supplies.

The 2nd wave ( Burma Army HQ and the 2 Burmese divisions + 3 Tank Regiments) is due to land at Madras on the 11th March and will take Bombay.

I expect Trey to conduct a holding action along my eastern river line and concentrate most of his forces in a line from Delhi to Bombay. These forces will only fight for a very short time and will then fall back on Karachi. At this stage he has to recognise that India is doomed and I think he will fort up in Karachi with as many of the Indian Brigades, armoured brigades and both UK divisions as he can muster. My goal is to cut as many of these forces off from Karachi as possible. So, in effect, I think we're in a race to reach the rail-line to Karachi and, unfortunately, I think trey will win that race. This will delay my conquest of India... It is a great pity... If the Royal Navy hadn't delayed me by a week I would have been able to get a head start in the race to karachi and finished India off within 6 weeks ( mid-April). As it is I think it may not fall until the end of the first week of May... and that is a most unfortunate delay to my timeline.


The Royal navy has ceased to exist as an effective combat force. 2 BBs remain unaccounted for ( although heavily damaged) and I think 1 CA and 4 DDs also got away desite my best efforts. Everything else, Indomitable, Hermes, 3 BBs, 1 BC, about 3 CAs and 10 CLs have all been sunk. The Royal Air Force has also taken heavy losses ( almost 175 planes in the last two days in return for 30 Japanese planes... My committment to breaking the AVG over Rangoon really paid dividends during the battle for air supremacy over Ceylon) and I don't anticipate any major aerial resistance short of karachi.



In other news, after evaluating the results of the fighting at Canton ( my forces there have been bombarded out of existence) I have decided to rethink my taskings in the Pacific in order to maximise their attritional value and minimise my irrecoverable losses. I was SHOCKED at my losses in that battle.


It looks like Trey is definitely coming for Amchitika as I see transports and cruisers in Dutch Harbour almost every day now. In addition he is bombing Johnston again even though he admits that it is costing him a lot of four-engined bombers ( he has lost 150+ so far) and he wouldn't be doing that unless he was considering invading. So, we'll see how effective my preparations have been. They are acceptable given my previous understanding of amhibious combat in WiTP but I would no longer consider this force mix optimal. Steps have been taken to remedy this situation and this is what has prompted the most major retasking of my forces since the game began. Bombers, fighters, infantry units and naval TFs are all being retasked.


Anyways, here's the problem.... I think I've run into a bug. For some reason ALL of my squadrons on my CVL-TF switched their HQ to HOME DEFENCE when this CVL-TF stopped in Tokyo. What gives? My ships disbanded into the port for two or three days but I didn't move any planes between ships or onto the base... In fact I didn't do anything other than disband the TF and then, about two days later, reform it, refuel it and send it on its way to its new mission. Any idea what happened? This is a real pain in the neck because it could cost me over 1000 PP to sort out and I want those to buy the new Chinese Army and Kwantung Army divisions due in two months.

I'm including a picture of one of my Val squadrons. The game is very good but the bugs really detract from the experience.

[Nemo121]

So, no-one has seen this bug before or has any advice or work-around? KB is, essentially, crippled as a result of this bug as I can't transfer planes between carriers or disband them into eachother or anything like that.

So, has anyone seen this before or know what causes it?

[mogami]

Hi, You cannot disband carrier groups. You can disband carrier capable groups into carrier groups. There is a change coming in the future that will help in pilot managment.
The good news is these groups are cheap to change HQ with. (I think a full size group is under 200 PP) It is a very bad idea to transfer groups between carriers (CV groups are hard coded to their carriers) Only use "orphaned" CV groups when assigning groups to CV that do not have hard coded groups.

"The game is very good but the bugs really detract from the experience"

Don't wish to harp on this. But you are playing in a style almost certain to produce bugs that the House Rules we've mentioned prevent or reduce.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

So, no-one has seen this bug before or has any advice or work-around? KB is, essentially, crippled as a result of this bug as I can't transfer planes between carriers or disband them into eachother or anything like that.

So, has anyone seen this before or know what causes it?

I've seen it, happens all the time. It really sucks. I have 2 CVs now with air units that are attached to New Zealand Command. All 8 squadrons. Just like you describe, the air groups have never been off the CVs. The only thing I did was disband the TFs at Aukland for a week or so. It is going to cost me 696 PPs to fix it. [&:]

[Nemo121]

Mogami,

I think you misunderstand what I am saying re: carrier groups being disbanded. I am talking about DISBANDING THE TF INTO A PORT. I did NOTHING with the air groups themselves. I didn't move them off ship or anything and any movement between carriers occurred while these groups were at Midway NOT Tokyo.

What I did at Midway was disband carrier-capable groups into my carrier-trained groups as many others do. I also assigned a couple of full carrier-capable groups to my carriers ( I am aware of the increased ops losses).

So, to belabor the point, ALL I did was disband the air combat task force into Tokyo for a couple of days and then reform it with a different escort makeup and send it back to sea. The changing of my group HQs is thus a CLEAR bug and the point you make below is completely without merit in terms of being a reasonable response to this bug....

"The game is very good but the bugs really detract from the experience"

Don't wish to harp on this. But you are playing in a style almost certain to produce bugs that the House Rules we've mentioned prevent or reduce.

Show me the house rule which tells people not to swap carrier groups between carriers or move a carrier-capable group onto the CVs. If Grigsby had intended carrier-capable groups not to be able to move onto carriers he wouldn't have expended the time modelling their increased ops losses etc.


While I'm well aware that you have "issues" with my strategic plan and, to be fair, you've been pretty good about not extolling those issues here I am dismayed to see you try to make a causal link between my "grab everything except CONUSA to weaken and slow the inevitable American fight-back" STRATEGY and the presence of a bug at a much lower level of the game which occurred when I did nothing more extraordinary than disband an air combat TF in Tokyo ( something I think almost all players will do several times a game and something which has NO bearing on strategy whatsoever) is an extremely obfuscatory response which actually doesn't deal with this ERROR IN THE CODEBASE in any way whatsoever except to hint that because I've been bad in some way bad things can be expected to happen to me.

No, bad is a matter of opinion ( and you and others are welcome to think what you will of my plan... it's a free world) BUT the logical code doesn't form opinions of my play and decide to screw me over because it happens to think I'm gamey. No, it messes up when the codebase has an error. When this happens we call the result a BUG and what we see here is a BUG.

I know it can be tempting to defend a game one loves against criticism but defending against the labelling of something as a "bug" by claiming it arises because of the player's grand strategic plan when it actually has to do with simply disbanding an air combat TF is baffling in the extreme.


I know the above is pretty strong but I was absolutely amazed to see you imply my play style could impact on what happens when I disband an air combat TF.


As to the rest... You seem to hint that this issue may be related to moving carrier groups to non-native carriers and/or to moving carrier-capable groups onto carriers.... Can you confirm this? Is there someone who can or some way I can crack open an editor and fix this? My standards of "what's possible" may be different than yours but I want to be able to enjoy the game sans bug mess-ups as much as the next guy.



Nomad,
Thanks for the info. I'm glad someone else is seeing this so this bug report can't simply be put down to "Nemo's a gamey bastage. He deserves what he gets". Has anyone identified any "trigger" so I can avoid this in the future?

I just want to avoid the bug/get this occurence fixed.

[veji1]

Nemo I think it was just a misunderstading...

[mogami]

Hi, Nemo I didn't mean this game caused the CV group bug. I did mean it might have contributed to your statment that bugs are wrecking your game in general.
I'm not interested in picking on this game. I'm not interesting in defending WITP where it has problems. My point was simply that many of the problems that have appeared in many games (not just this one) are not present in games where the house rules are employed and the envelope is not pushed.

It does not matter what HQ a CV is group is assigned to for CV ops. (They will work fine)
The only problem is when they change to a restricted HQ and you wish to move them to a land base to replace pilots and aircraft (you have to pay PP to put them back onto the CV)

Many of the concerns you have brought up are being worked on. Not all of them will result in the specific change you are looking for but they are being addressed.
The CV replacement problem fix currently in works will eliminate the need to disband groups into other groups (You will be able to place pilots into a pool and assign them where you want and you will be able to assign replacement aircraft to a group one at a time) So there will be no need to move a group to a land base disband into it and then return to CV. This will not fix the bug that changes HQ but it will fix the problem that creates.

There are other changes. The work on WITP continues. No one wants to force players into playing only one stlye of game and so the game is being changed to reduce the occurance of bugs caused by all types of game play. Some of the changes will make certain options no longer viable. (some are simply fixing OOB/deployment issues)

No bug is left unfixed once it is kown how it occurs. To get a bug fixed we need a save before it appears and directions on how to make it repeat. With the save and steps to create the bug can be fixed.

[Rob Brennan UK]

As Nomad says .. similar thing happened in my game with australia HQ CV groups and a very nearly sunk CV in brisbane harbour, where i ouldnt even offload the air groups to an austalian base [&:]. swopped them slowly to SW Pac and problem solved.

IIRC , CV groups can take on the HQ command of the last base they disbanded into. and if thats a restricted command .. oops. One possible solution is be careful where you disband the CV's into. IE if after repairing in the home islands , spend a day in someplace else (disbanded) and see if all the groups change back. just an idea ..

[Nemo121]

Mogami,

If the game allows something then it should allow it without messing up the details (via some bug). In any case I still stand by my statement that disbanding an air combat task force in Tokyo should NOT be the cause of a major bug popping up and re-assigning all my carrier squadron HQs.

I DO take it as strange that you would try to defend that by talking about the envelope being pushed. As to other bugs which are, quite frankly, pissing me off... they include very nonsensical unit pathfinding... I've taken to ordering my unit movement hex by hex in order to avoid them taking routes up to twice as long as the optimal route... and MLs failing to lay mines even though they are set to retire at will, are laying in a base which is not their home base etc etc. I order them back in and after about 2 or 3 attempts they lay mines. Those bugs don't, potentially, cripple the strategic level of play so I don't harp on about them. THIS ONE DOES!!!!!

The only problem is when they change to a restricted HQ and you wish to move them to a land base to replace pilots and aircraft (you have to pay PP to put them back onto the CV)

ONLY problem? Pretty damned big problem in my book. The game has instituted a method to allow units to be re-assigned to different theatres but then bugs such as this which will end up robbing me of about 3 weeks worth of PPs (and therefore strategic mobility) are just accepted matter-of-factly as though they aren't a big deal? It strikes me as quite crazy to be honest.


With that said I know a lot of work is going on to fix many of these issues in WiTP and I applaud the work being done to fix ALL bugs in WiTP. I did, however, feel that talk of bugs occurring more when people pushed the envelope simply is, essentially, defence of the indefensible. If the game allows it then the game should allow it flawlessly ( an unattainable idea but I'm sure you get my drift).



Onto concrete matters:
Seeing as it looks like you know about this bug and you were able to talk about causes of other bugs can you tell us exactly what is the cause of this bug so I (and others) can prevent it occurring again?

Also is there any way to have this HQ assignment issue fixed without having to pay PP? Can someone hex edit it or tell me where to get an editor and what the appropriate fields are so I can fix it ( or work around it by boosting my PP by 1000 or so and then using the 1000 PP to re-assign the aircraft to non-restricted theatres)? I just amn't willing to accept that the only possible solution here is to accept this and have this bug rob me of PP now and, potentially, continue doing so every time I dock the damned KB in Tokyo. THAT is why I labelled it a game-breaker.

I'm willing to work within some design decisions I disagree with but this is a clear bug with far-reaching consequences over the course of a 5 year game as outlined above.



Rob,
Ok I'll try that after the CVL-KB conducts its next raid.



Does anyone else have any ideas of how to avoid this bug in future/work around it without losing my VP? The reason this is important to me is that I've budgeted VP so as to have enough to buy 6 of the 8 Chinese divisions the instant they arrive in 2 months. With this costing me 1000 PP that is two divisions I won't be able to buy and if it happens once more that's 4 divisions I won't be able to buy. Since my strategy relies on having those divisions as a "secret reserve" to upset Trey's calculations at the decisive moment you can damned well be sure that seeing a bug which has just cut my reserve by 33% in 1 day IS a big issue for me, especially when I don't know how the hell it happened and whether or not it might happen again within the next two months.... forcing me to choose between non-functional carriers or the complete loss of my ground reserve. both of which are serious ramifications.


I've played wargames for many years now and tested loads. I even consulted for SSI on a few things and with Joel personally before on one game and so I do know how things work and know lots of little bugs will slip through BUT a bug which rears its head when you do something as prosaic as disbanding an air combat task force in one of the 2 or 3 main harbours in the game and which can, potentially, cripple the main Japanese offensive force of the game is NOT a tiny little issue of little relevance to most games and I'm amazed to see the flippancy with which it seems to be treated.



With that said I want to be focussed on solutions. So, is there a hex editor or something to add the appropriate PPs to allow the plane HQs to be switched back (which seems to be the easiest solution) or are we force to backtrack about a week or more?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

So, no-one has seen this bug before or has any advice or work-around? KB is, essentially, crippled as a result of this bug as I can't transfer planes between carriers or disband them into eachother or anything like that.

So, has anyone seen this before or know what causes it?

I've seen it, happens all the time. It really sucks. I have 2 CVs now with air units that are attached to New Zealand Command. All 8 squadrons. Just like you describe, the air groups have never been off the CVs. The only thing I did was disband the TFs at Aukland for a week or so. It is going to cost me 696 PPs to fix it. [&:]

What is doubly scary is what happenned in my game when I had some SWPAC airgroups stationed in New Zealand OK'd to allow reinforcements. The darn fragments formed in OZ, despite not having the range to reach New Zealand and all hell broke loose. The parents became the fragments, fragments can't be "shipped", and one fragment deployed onto a submarine somehow.

[Nemo121]

and one fragment deployed onto a submarine somehow.

LOL! That gave me a much-needed laugh. The absurdity of some of the bugs WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WEIRD PLAY STYLES OR GAME EXPLOITS is amazing. Sure some may arise from that but there are so many bugs which arise from just very sedate, ordinary play that one cannot, IMO, justify fobbing these bugs off as the result of exploitative play.


The really frustrating thing is that this game is the sort of game which should be top of my all-time list yet some of the bugs in it just would drive anyone to distraction....

e.g. Want to transport something by dedicated transport plane... many of which had large cargo capacity? Sure but it can't have a load cost more than 7. Want to transport troops by bomber, cramming them into every little space on a completely non-dedicated plane? Sure thing and don't worry about load cost. You want to move an 8 inch howitzer? No problem cause non-transports don't check for load cost limits.

Eg2. Say mister would you like to replace the losses in your parachute units? Ok, no problem but when we replace your losses your parachute unit will also upgrade to weaponry which can no longer be air-transported.... No, we didn't think of making paratroop units exempt from load cost checks in order to prevent this happening when we were designing the game...


Its like a woman you love deeply but who also drives you crazy. [X(][X(][X(]