Lunacy or Shrewdness?

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Its like a woman you love deeply but who also drives you crazy. [X(][X(][X(]

Don't they all?

[Nemo121]

Aye but the DEGREE to which it happens is pretty important

[Mike Solli]

I have two in my life (wife an daughter) and they make me absolutely crazy.[:D]

[Monter_Trismegistos]

You have two of them? It was kind of a bug?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 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(]

24 P-39s from the 39th FS were based on a Dutch K Class coastal boat. Gave new meaning to "add water and stir"...[:D] Could not get the darn things off as access to it was of course denied in the UI. Just kept checking on the 39ths location every turn (it changed basically every day, travelling trans dimensionally or something) and one day it was in the San Francisco hex so I transferred it to the airbase, much like Spock saving Kirk.[:D]

[Nemo121]

Well it has been two days since I've raised this issue and none of the people working on the game have been able to come up with a succinct list of ;

a) causes of the bug reported ( so it can be avoided... saying "don't swap airgroups between carriers is all well and good to people who have been playing WiTP for 2 or 3 years... This is my 2nd game and almost 2 months to the day I ordered it so I had NO IDEA about the massive buginess my CV re-organisation would cause.) and
b) work-arounds.

So, I've changed the thread title to more accurately reflect my feelings about this. It seems that the people in the know can discuss any amount of strategic bombing or endless four-engined bomber threads but can't seem to respond with a list of what will and won't trigger a bug that people seem to have known about for ages. That's very disappointing.



Today's features another nice big bug. It features both text and graphics errors AND a major clusterf**k in supply calculations. That's 3 bugs in just one screenshot. At least one of them can be shown to have a definite effect on this turn's combat outcome so I'll be interested to see the usual suspects telling us that these bugs are inconsequential.Sorry guys but I gave two days for any sort of response to the two pieces of information asked above and none was forthcoming so I'm going to be a bit proactive....


Let us look through the picture for bugs.

The primary one is obviously the distance travelled which shows it being 120 miles to Hyderabad but shows the Infantry division in question has travelled 125 miles. Obviously this text area should show the division location as Hyderabad and distance travelled as zero ( as is movement is to stop in Hyderabad).

Now, what are the other bugs? Well there are at least two more obvious ones:
1. The supply requirement... A Japanese infantry division of 24000 men seems to require only 13 tons of supply. That's a pretty damned good bargain. I presume this is just a display bug as the unit is carrying 1348 tons with it which seems more reasonable. Still it is a bug.

2. While this unit shows as having travelled far enough to be in Hyderabad it actually is LOCATED 120 miles away.

3. When combat occurred in Hyderabad on this turn only the units actually DISPLAYED in the hex contributed to the Japanese defence. Units which showed as having travelled far enough to be in Hyderabad but which were not displayed on-map in the correct hex did NOT contribute to the Japanese defence. This bug almost caused Hyderabad to fall.

This isn't a minor, rare and uncommon bug ( the criteria I think any reasonable person would accept for agreeing that it would be easy for testers to miss a given bug). This is a blatant, common and easily reproducible bug and it says some very bad things about the codebase that it still remains.


Well that's enough bugs for one day. Oh and before the other standard response of "well if you didn't play in a gamey manner this wouldn't happen" is trotted out I'd like to point out that ordering land combat units to move from one base to another isn't in the slightest gamey. Note it isn't even a unit fragment or anything. It is a full infantry division.

[Rob Brennan UK]

Nemo . wish i could help on that particular movement thingy .. but as you habe obviously set the city as a target i'm at a complete loss. alos 125 miles moved ?? with 60 miles/hex .. shouldn't they be one hex closer but with 65 miles travelled ( ok not exactly a fix but st least a tad more logical)..

both disruption and fatigue are within traveling limits imo .. wierd ! have you tried resetting ? i occasinally find a unit travellig 45 miles E .. while the objective is 120 miles west. give new orders and instead of re setting the unit has 45 miles set to west movement ??? [&:] [&:][&:]

Personally i keep a close eye one ground movement .. I know in a bug-less game it would not be necessary BUT .. it isnt bug less, and judicious minor checking helps a heck of a lot . sorry this does not help you much as its your 2nd game .. but for us old timers its a work around we 'discovered' and have made several posts about before , its all to easy to assume that newer players have read it all ( impossible in reality though).

Even in my current game i have 3 brigades that are 'non communicative' i.e .. listed in the unit menu , but unclickable for detailed info or orders [&:] .. yes its a pain but not a game killer. I think i'm beginning to understand your frustrations a lot more .. your basing ALL your combat strategy on the manual and very very fine calculations .. unfotunately this wont work with WitP as it isn't chess ( by and large) a LOT of what happens seems a bit random ( not by design imo). BUT this does make a reality check, as in all warfare sending X supply and Y troops .. never ever made victory a guarantee.

I do sympathise and hope that the 'small' ( and they are in the big picture ) bugs handicap your enjoyment of the game , war might be a mathematical model as you are wont to follow, But reality can hold a lot more suprises .. just my 2c

[Nemo121]

Rob,

When one doesn't have experience with the game then one ONLY has the manual to base one's calculations on. I think that a lot of you players who have been playing this for years have gotten all these work-arounds for bugs and no longer actually share the same page as new players who don't know them and therefore are want to complain about them. And being told "Oh you shouldn't do that" when nothing tells you not to do that isn't really the ideal solution.

I planned to have that division in Hyderabad a day or two before Trey could have enough force there to throw me out... The division DID have enough time to travel there but didn't actually do so because of a bug. End result, today I lost Hyderabad. This now opens the entire right flank of my thrust toward Karachi and will allow Trey to mount a spoiling attack. Oh and the Imperial Guards who, yesterday, had travelled sufficiently far to be in Hyderabad have today had their movement cancelled since the city fell ( without benefit of their defensive strength) and are sitting with no movement orders 60 miles from the city.

So, medium-sized bug but large ramifications.


And of course I note the failure of anyone involved with Matrix to actually still post anything about the triggers of the carrier airgroup bug or workarounds to avoid it/reset them without spending PP since I've begun making solid complaints about these bugs. We're now 3 days and counting without anyone involved giving any answers, including even a "we don't have a damned clue". I mean if they don't have a clue about triggers etc then that's fine but they could at least have the courtesy to say so.

As a customer service methodology ignoring someone who complains doesn't really strike me as "best practice". Well, all I can do is keep asking them more and more publicly until they deign to give some sort of response to a mere mortal.


When I get home I'll post todays bug...
CV TF set to fast move in order to close with an enemy port and launch an airstrike... It was to move 10 hexes. Instead if only moved about 8. I had it set to "DO NOT REFUEL" and "DO NOT RETIRE" so those aren't the problems. It just refuses to move the full distance the game says it can in spite of precautions being taken so it doesn't stop for refueling etc. All ships had their bunkers topped up from a replenishment TF yesterday ( although there was also a bug when this occurred which I'll go into another day) so fuel wasn't an issue.

Would anyone involved with the game like to explain this?

[Capt. Harlock]

When I get home I'll post todays bug...
CV TF set to fast move in order to close with an enemy port and launch an airstrike... It was to move 10 hexes. Instead if only moved about 8. I had it set to "DO NOT REFUEL" and "DO NOT RETIRE" so those aren't the problems. It just refuses to move the full distance the game says it can in spite of precautions being taken so it doesn't stop for refueling etc. All ships had their bunkers topped up from a replenishment TF yesterday ( although there was also a bug when this occurred which I'll go into another day) so fuel wasn't an issue.

Ouch. There's a saying that no program is ever completed, just abandoned after it reaches a "good enough" condition. But this sure doesn't seem to be good enough. After the various patches you'd think TF and LCU travel would be fixed -- unless they have been made deliberately unreliable so as to represent the SNAFUs that do occasionally happen in war. But if that's the case, shouldn't that be emphasized in the manual?

[Nemo121]

Oh and the icing on the cake is that as a result of the bug ( I actually moved 7 hexes instead of the 10 estimated) my CVs now lie 6 hexes from Dutch Harbour, within range of allied LBA and without any chance of striking back.

I had about 100 Vals set to Airfield attack and about 20 Kates set to naval attack. I had spotted a convoy of about a dozen US APs in Dutch Harbour. The plan was to sprint into a range 3 hexes from Dutch Harbour, launch my Vals to shut the airfield and destroy all those twin-engined bombers based there, launch the Kates to damage the APs and then follow up the next day with a surface TF comprising 1 BB, 2 CAs, 1 CL and 4 DDs. The survivors would be picked off by the 5 subs lying in wait between dutch harbour and the US bases to the south and west.

But of course given that I've ended up 6 hexes from the base that's all out the window now due to a movement bug... I'm just giving this background so no-one decides to pipe up and tell us that this bug is minor and irrelevant ( as seems to be the SOP if you can show it isn't due to your own error).


In another 12 hours we'll enter the 4th day of waiting for a response from Matrix personnel to this issue. Its really weird how they are all over some threads but when someone starts pointing out clear, identifiable bugs and asking for work-arounds, triggers etc they disappear. I even checked to see if Mogami hadn't logged on in case he was sick or something and that might explain his failure to reply but he's posted at least 10 times in the last 12 hours so that isn't it.

I'd say this seemed to point to the fact that if you didn't accept being fobbed off with either:
a) its probably your own fault cause you don't play the game within a set of narrow, pre-defined parameters which the manual and other official documentation ( including the advertising) never hinted at or
b) its a minor bug which doesn't matter much or
c) we'll fix it at a later stage ( but we won't give any info on triggers and work-arounds while you wait)

that you are just ignored. Saying we'll fix it at a later stage is 100% fine. Bugs are a part of gaming BUT what irks me is that Mogami and others in the know simply refuse to post even a "we don't know" or anything with respect to triggers and work-arounds. No-one's asking for miracles but a simple, to the point response is just a matter of basic human courtesy.

All in all it is certainly an interesting take on engaging with customers who raise valid issues. Sadly, at this stage I think my only chance of getting an answer is to make it more of a hassle to ignore me than to engage constructively and informatively. It is sad that it seems to come to this.

[saj42]

Re the LCU movement. Where did the IG Div start its march from?

[Kapten Q]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I planned to have that division in Hyderabad a day or two before Trey could have enough force there to throw me out... The division DID have enough time to travel there but didn't actually do so because of a bug. End result, today I lost Hyderabad. This now opens the entire right flank of my thrust toward Karachi and will allow Trey to mount a spoiling attack. Oh and the Imperial Guards who, yesterday, had travelled sufficiently far to be in Hyderabad have today had their movement cancelled since the city fell ( without benefit of their defensive strength) and are sitting with no movement orders 60 miles from the city.

So, medium-sized bug but large ramifications.

BUG? Disruption and fatigue impact movement speed methinks. War is hell not a calculated formula. Maybe you are just a bad tactician leaving your flanks exposed?


And of course I note the failure of anyone involved with Matrix to actually still post anything about the triggers of the carrier airgroup bug or workarounds to avoid it/reset them without spending PP since I've begun making solid complaints about these bugs. We're now 3 days and counting without anyone involved giving any answers, including even a "we don't have a damned clue". I mean if they don't have a clue about triggers etc then that's fine but they could at least have the courtesy to say so.

As a customer service methodology ignoring someone who complains doesn't really strike me as "best practice". Well, all I can do is keep asking them more and more publicly until they deign to give some sort of response to a mere mortal.

Nag, nag, nag, you sound like a politician. Quit playing the game!


When I get home I'll post todays bug...
CV TF set to fast move in order to close with an enemy port and launch an airstrike... It was to move 10 hexes. Instead if only moved about 8. I had it set to "DO NOT REFUEL" and "DO NOT RETIRE" so those aren't the problems. It just refuses to move the full distance the game says it can in spite of precautions being taken so it doesn't stop for refueling etc. All ships had their bunkers topped up from a replenishment TF yesterday ( although there was also a bug when this occurred which I'll go into another day) so fuel wasn't an issue.

"Do not refuel" does not mean the ships wont replenish at sea just when docking at a port. Flank speed ahead ha? Maybe one destroyer needed some extra fuel? Maybe some sys damage lowered the flankspeed on one of your ships? Maybe some search planes needed to be launched? War is hell!

Would anyone involved with the game like to explain this?

Q

[pauk]

When I get home I'll post todays bug...
CV TF set to fast move in order to close with an enemy port and launch an airstrike... It was to move 10 hexes. Instead if only moved about 8. I had it set to "DO NOT REFUEL" and "DO NOT RETIRE" so those aren't the problems. It just refuses to move the full distance the game says it can in spite of precautions being taken so it doesn't stop for refueling etc. All ships had their bunkers topped up from a replenishment TF yesterday ( although there was also a bug when this occurred which I'll go into another day) so fuel wasn't an issue.

Greetings, my only guess is have you check ops points? Perhaps if some op points were spent the TF was not moved 10 hex?

I do recall that few other players experienced what happend to you. including me....

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Kapten Q

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I planned to have that division in Hyderabad a day or two before Trey could have enough force there to throw me out... The division DID have enough time to travel there but didn't actually do so because of a bug. End result, today I lost Hyderabad. This now opens the entire right flank of my thrust toward Karachi and will allow Trey to mount a spoiling attack. Oh and the Imperial Guards who, yesterday, had travelled sufficiently far to be in Hyderabad have today had their movement cancelled since the city fell ( without benefit of their defensive strength) and are sitting with no movement orders 60 miles from the city.

So, medium-sized bug but large ramifications.

BUG? Disruption and fatigue impact movement speed methinks. War is hell not a calculated formula. Maybe you are just a bad tactician leaving your flanks exposed?


And of course I note the failure of anyone involved with Matrix to actually still post anything about the triggers of the carrier airgroup bug or workarounds to avoid it/reset them without spending PP since I've begun making solid complaints about these bugs. We're now 3 days and counting without anyone involved giving any answers, including even a "we don't have a damned clue". I mean if they don't have a clue about triggers etc then that's fine but they could at least have the courtesy to say so.

As a customer service methodology ignoring someone who complains doesn't really strike me as "best practice". Well, all I can do is keep asking them more and more publicly until they deign to give some sort of response to a mere mortal.

Nag, nag, nag, you sound like a politician. Quit playing the game!


When I get home I'll post todays bug...
CV TF set to fast move in order to close with an enemy port and launch an airstrike... It was to move 10 hexes. Instead if only moved about 8. I had it set to "DO NOT REFUEL" and "DO NOT RETIRE" so those aren't the problems. It just refuses to move the full distance the game says it can in spite of precautions being taken so it doesn't stop for refueling etc. All ships had their bunkers topped up from a replenishment TF yesterday ( although there was also a bug when this occurred which I'll go into another day) so fuel wasn't an issue.

"Do not refuel" does not mean the ships wont replenish at sea just when docking at a port. Flank speed ahead ha? Maybe one destroyer needed some extra fuel? Maybe some sys damage lowered the flankspeed on one of your ships? Maybe some search planes needed to be launched? War is hell!

Would anyone involved with the game like to explain this?

Q

ORIGINAL: Mogami

If anyone causes you grief in your AAR we will request they refrain from posting in it

Watch out KQ! Didn't you see the "No Criticism Allowed" sign on the door? [;)]

[Rob Brennan UK]

gotta say i lost track of this thread when you changed the title nemo [;)]

Kapetan Q .. not entirely constructive critisism. Nemo was blasted from all quarters earlier on and really does not need any more.

Nemo.. OK i;m sorry that your feeling so aggrieved. Regarding the CV's not moving at flank speed, if your launching CAP/patrols/float planes that eats up ops points. I'm pretty sure that if you cancel flight ops (inc float planes) the ships will move at the requested speed. not sure if thats covered in the manual though [&:]

As to no-one from Matrix not responding , maybe they dont read this AAR. the best place for game mechanic bug queries is the support section, you should get some better response there imo.

[Nemo121]

Tallyho,

I initially moved them from Madras to Bangalor and then while they were in Bangalore gave them movement orders to Hyderabad. They moved two hexes east of Bangalore and then were in that hex ( where the rail line turns north-westward) when the unit info table showed their distance to Hyderabad as being 120 miles and their distance travelled as being 125 miles.



Kapten Q,
Thank you for your input. Its helpfulness is matched only by your obvious ignorance of the issue being discussed as you obviously either failed to read or failed to understand the post I made explaining the bug. While I am, undoubtedly, subject to tactical, operational and strategic errors of judgement and am more than happy to discuss such issues if anyone reading this thread wants to discuss them I feel constrained to point out that Hyderabad fell not because the Infantry Division didn't have the supplies, time etc to reach Hyderabad but fell because the infantry division, being 120 miles from Hyderabad and having moved 125 miles was displayed as being in the incorrect hex. If you look more closely at the picture you will see that it had sufficient supply and fatigue and disruption within quite acceptable limits. In any case those 3 are rendered irrelevant by the fact that by the game's own display the unit had moved 125 miles and so should have been well inside the hex containing Hyderabad

The next time you post I suggest you would do better to spend less time thinking on insults and more time actually reading and understanding what is being discussed. Also, since we were discussing things at the divisional+ level any incompetence involved would have to be either operational or strategic and not tactical. Usage of the correct terms will aid in ensuring future, clearer communication.

War is hell!

Another particularly unhelpful comment. On the other hand it does seem that you were onto something with Ops Points being utilised for launching float planes, CAP etc. Iif you had just cut the invective from your post you would have been left with the points re: refueling of DDs( not an issue as I'd just topped off their tanks) AND launching of floatplanes and airplanes ( the effects of which I were not aware of ). Then you would have actually helped greatly and I would be thanking you for helping to clarify an issue I was unaware of.


Timtom,
Willfully misconstruing objective reality is unlikely to serve you well in the long run. Any amount of criticism of tactics, strategy and operational planning is welcome as is any request for information. This has been stated by me on at least two occasions within this thread. The only thing I think Mogami was trying to say was that there was no need to register anyone's disapproval of house rules two consenting adults had agreed to. If you cannot bring yourself to be sufficiently tolerant to encompass that request then you have my commisserations.



Pauk, Rob,
Great input guys, thanks. I think you are onto something there. The CVs and CS in the TF DID launch CAP and naval search missions and did use OPs points in doing so. So, until further notice I'm going to assume that this "bug" actually was me being blind-sided by undocumented game mechanics which I simply didn't know about. So, in future I'll just switch off all searches etc if I'm going to move a TF at full speed and see if that helps. Until I can reproduce this issue with NO air operations at all I have to assume that the "bug" was due more to my lack of experience with the game than any game bug.


Again to those who provided information and clarification... thanks.


Unfortunately while I was being fobbed off with "its minor" and "you suck and deserve it" posts I didn't bother saving a load of combatreports. Still I will post enough of a summary tonight to bring people up to date.



Rob,
I've posted this bug to the support section and I've PMed Mogami once asking him about it. I know he, at least, has read the thread since I saw him reading it after I posted the requests for info re: triggers etc. He hasn't posted since I've asked for that info and hasn't replied to my PM. Neither has anyone from Matrix responded to the thread in the support section.

[Nemo121]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/07/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 119,68

Japanese Ships
SS I-10, hits 10

Allied Ships
DD King
DD Brooks
DD Kilty
DD Crane
DD Kennison
DD Crosby
DD Dent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 11,19

Japanese Ships
PG Chiyo Maru
AO Erimo, Shell hits 3, on fire
AO Naruto
AO Notoro, Shell hits 29, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AO Shiriya

Allied Ships
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Electra
DD Express
DD Fortune
DD Foxhound
DD Griffin

These units were attacked when they moved only 3 hexes instead of the 4 they should have moved at Full Speed. I cannot remember if refuelling was on or off though so it may be that my own mistake caused this to occur.

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

Japanese Ships
SS I-22, hits 1

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mannargudi at 16,23

Japanese Ships
AP Izumo Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asashio

Allied Ships
SS Finback

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

With the capture of Colombo and the repair of its airfield it was time to use its airfield as a base for the reduction of Colombo. As it was an initial strike against a heavily defended target I opted for a 1:1 fighter/bomber ratio. The Oscars did only moderately well but the Zeroes did much better in A2A combat. Even though the strikes went in at high altitude results were acceptable. They will go in later at lower altitude for more decisive results now that the fighter protection has been neutralised.

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 74
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 52
Ki-49 Helen x 143

Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 26
P-40B Tomahawk x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 7 destroyed
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 24 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 14 destroyed
Blenheim I: 2 destroyed
Wellington III: 2 destroyed
Wirraway: 1 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 1 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
39 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 21

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

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 268
Ki-46-II Dinah x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 1 destroyed, 19 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 damaged


Allied ground losses:
78 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 179

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


Allied aircraft
PB2Y Coronado x 3
B-17E Fortress x 18
LB-30 Liberator x 41


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

Japanese ground losses:
182 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

Port hits 7
Port supply hits 8

Another 3 four-engined bombers dove into the sea today. This is an excellent asymetric attrition rate which I believe I can sustain indefinitely at the front lines.

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

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 78

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported

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


Allied aircraft
Swordfish x 8
Vildebeest IV x 9
Blenheim I x 4
Wellington III x 16
Martin 139 x 3
Beaufort V-IX x 6
P-40E Warhawk x 8


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Haaburu Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Hokuriku Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Heian Maru, Torpedo hits 1
AP Kasima Maru
AP Nagano Maru
AP Tatibana Maru
AP Kofuku Maru
AP Horai Maru
AP Sanko Maru
AP Buyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Shinyu Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AP Argentina Maru, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Satsuma Maru, Bomb hits 2

Japanese ground losses:
67 casualties reported

A failure to understand the effects of the ESCORT TF meant that this task force, which I believed was being escorted by upwards of 15 DDs was actually, effectively, escorted by none in game terms. Losses were, unfortunately, heavy but will not prove operationally decisive as I quickly took steps to retask my escorts in a more game-appropriate manner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,17

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
D3A Val x 12
B5N Kate x 26

No Japanese losses

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,17

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
B5N Kate x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise, on fire, heavy damage

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

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 25
G4M1 Betty x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 4 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Cornwall, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

The naval bombers based at Colombo also join the fray with excellent results.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,16

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 27

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
DD Nizam, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

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

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Royal Sovereign, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

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

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Revenge, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

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

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
D3A Val x 10
B5N Kate x 53

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Decoy, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

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

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 66
G3M Nell x 28
G4M1 Betty x 6
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 43

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CA Dorsetshire, on fire, heavy damage

LOL! 34 torpedo-bombers made runs but didn't manage to score even a single hit on the crippled Dorsetshire. The vagaries of war indeed.

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

Japanese Deliberate attack

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

Defending force 2963 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 5

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 84

Allied max defense: 3 - adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 6 to 1


Allied ground losses:
86 casualties reported

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

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 7102 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 17

Defending force 781 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 12

Japanese ground losses:
124 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Bangalore

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 144 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 9

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

Japanese max assault: 14 - adjusted assault: 16

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 16 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Bangalore base !!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Trivandrum

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 135 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 8

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

Japanese max assault: 12 - adjusted assault: 3

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Trivandrum base !!!

Trivandrum is not the diversion of resources it might first appear. I believe that I will require something like 30,000 tons of supply per month to make my forces in India self-supporting. That converts into 1000 resource points per day and so the capture of Trivandrum and other resource-producing areas is a high priority for me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hyderabad

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 96 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 5

Defending force 1448 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1

Japanese max assault: 6 - adjusted assault: 2

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 7

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 2)


Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

My testing attack was repulsed. It will be followed up by further airdrops, two tank regiments and the Imperial Guard Division over the next week in order to secure my right flank.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Timtom,

Willfully misconstruing objective reality is unlikely to serve you well in the long run. Any amount of criticism of tactics, strategy and operational planning is welcome as is any request for information. This has been stated by me on at least two occasions within this thread. The only thing I think Mogami was trying to say was that there was no need to register anyone's disapproval of house rules two consenting adults had agreed to. If you cannot bring yourself to be sufficiently tolerant to encompass that request then you have my commisserations.

Jeez, Nemo, it's just a bit of crack...I'm mess'n widya

Here, have one on me

[Nemo121]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/08/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 118,69

Japanese Ships
SS I-24, hits 16

Allied Ships
DD King
DD Brooks
DD Kilty
DD Crane
DD Kennison
DD Crosby
DD Dent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 117,65

Japanese Ships
SS I-22, hits 8

Allied Ships
DD Talbot
DD Waters
DD Schley
DD Chew

Concentrated ASW TFs continue to pounce on submarines east of Pearl. Losses are not heavy although many units are damaged. Fortunately the first wave of fully repaired subs should be leaving Midway ( where there are 4 AS and an AR... soon to be reinforced by another 3 AR) by the end of the month and should allow replenishment of my cordon line in May and June 1942.

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

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 38
G3M Nell x 64
G4M1 Betty x 13
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 49
Ki-49 Helen x 158

Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 6
P-40B Tomahawk x 2
P-40E Warhawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
G3M Nell: 7 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 7 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 13 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 10 destroyed
Wellington III: 14 destroyed
Swordfish: 2 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 3 destroyed
Wirraway: 2 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 4 destroyed
Blenheim I: 6 destroyed


Allied ground losses:
64 casualties reported

Airbase hits 29
Airbase supply hits 12
Runway hits 192


The reduction in bombing height, combined with the addition of the naval bombers pays off. Colombo is devastated and this turn 148 Allied planes are destroyed either in the air or on the ground in return for 20 Japanese planes ( many of which are low-experience transport pilots suffering ops losses in long-range troop transport missions).

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

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 306
Ki-15 Babs x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 1 destroyed, 17 damaged


Allied ground losses:
71 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 131

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 39th Chinese Corps, at 45,35

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 7
Ki-51 Sonia x 24
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Panaji at 17,14

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
B5N Kate x 7

Allied aircraft
Lysander I x 9
Blenheim IF x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged
B5N Kate: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Lysander I: 5 destroyed
Blenheim IF: 3 destroyed

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


This airstrike finally sinks the heroic Hermes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,14

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 14
B5N Kate x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val: 1 damaged
B5N Kate: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Fortune, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Griffin
DD Electra
DD Foxhound, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Express

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,14

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
B5N Kate x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Foxhound, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,14

Japanese aircraft
D3A Val x 13

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
DD Fortune, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Panaji at 17,14

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 11

Allied aircraft
Lysander I x 6
Blenheim IF x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged


Allied Ships
DD Tenedos, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,14

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 22

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Express
DD Griffin
DD Electra

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 14,18

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
B5N Kate x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Exeter, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Panaji at 17,14

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 11

Allied aircraft
Lysander I x 6
Blenheim IF x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Lysander I: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CLAA Capetown, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


By the end of this day's naval strikes the Royal Navy has ceased to exist as a viable surface fleet. At present I count the survivors as numbering, Prince Of Wales ( badly damaged by 2 torpedoes at the beginning of the war and still in Karachi being repaired according to Trey) and 4 undamaged destroyers. I think there MAY be another damaged cruiser and a damaged destroyer at Panaji or Bombay seeking shelter from my torpedo-bombers. In effect during the invasion of India I have managed to eliminate 2 carries, 4 BB, 1 BC, 3 CA, 7 or 8 CL and 3 CLAA as well as a half-dozen or so destroyers. I have lost 2 DDs and 4 AOs. Other shipping losses are in easily replaced APs, AKs and MSWs. Ise is heavily damaged due to the single hit a British battleship managed to make on any of my capital ships. The shell caused an ammunition explosion and heavily damaged Ise. It will be in port for some time but that's fine. My battleline is due for a couple of weeks of rest right now before being committed to the fighting at Karachi.

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

Japanese Deliberate attack

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

Defending force 2850 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 40

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1



Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported


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

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 7122 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 17

Defending force 52 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 6


Japanese ground losses:
30 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 6428 troops, 41 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1809

Defending force 59386 troops, 700 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1020

Allied max assault: 172 - adjusted assault: 7

Japanese max defense: 1065 - adjusted defense: 3667

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
483 casualties reported
Guns lost 19


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hyderabad

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 119 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 13

Defending force 1448 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1

Japanese max assault: 4 - adjusted assault: 1

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 7

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 2)



Allied ground losses:
16 casualties reported

[Nemo121]

Timtom,

My apologies if I misconstrued your post. My reserves of light-hearted humour are a bit depleted right now.