Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

All it takes is a momentary break in the weather. Of course, what are the realistic chances of that happening?

Doctor, I'm dubious.

Reply: Hello, Mr. Dubious, how are you?

By the way, does WiTP model launch and landing cycles? How long does it take to launch a 48-plane (24 bombers and 24 escorts) strike from a typical one-runway airbase? How long does it take to land afterwards? Note that the early planes have to wait for the later ones to get airborne and form up, which affects operational radius.

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I think it's old age and treachery winning over youth and skill! [:D]

I had to admit that I was wondering if his Dad was a really good software designer/hacker. To get an historical result in the historical time-frame seems almost miraculous...

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

All it takes is a momentary break in the weather. Of course, what are the realistic chances of that happening?

Doctor, I'm dubious.

Reply: Hello, Mr. Dubious, how are you?

By the way, does WiTP model launch and landing cycles? How long does it take to launch a 48-plane (24 bombers and 24 escorts) strike from a typical one-runway airbase? How long does it take to land afterwards? Note that the early planes have to wait for the later ones to get airborne and form up, which affects operational radius.

[:D][:D] Exactly my point, with the small exception that I was thinking of the attack on the weathered-in TF squeezing in through a break in the weather. Continuing the fantasy, er, scenario, the CAP failed to find the attackers in the foul weather. Plausible but gee-wiz unlikely.

If this was Mandrake's AAR I would say that quantum foam had smothered the CAP while the attacking strike force was sufficiently larger than the Planck distance...

ORIGINAL: herwin

By the way, does WiTP model launch and landing cycles? How long does it take to launch a 48-plane (24 bombers and 24 escorts) strike from a typical one-runway airbase? How long does it take to land afterwards? Note that the early planes have to wait for the later ones to get airborne and form up, which affects operational radius.

I believe that the launch time on CV's is 20 or 30 seconds per aircraft. (So 24 minutes, for your question.

I don't see why a single airbase would be any different. Coordinating several airbases is a different kettle of fish.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Speedy,

Took a look at your save. It was weather. The hexes in and all around your CV's were "rain" Normally in the air ops/search phase this should produce a raincload graphic and cancel air ops and prevent the TF(s) from striking. Every once in a while though, this doesn't happen which can lead to an unanswered strike similar to when one side has a range edge or one side has stood down it's planes. Same conditions that i presented way back in early WItP days. Bit of a bug.

Can you run a strike into a rain hex?

OK I checked...

"Hexes affected by bad weather blocks any air units from launching an airstrike from the hex, and it blocks any target in the hex from being attacked."

So if you fail to launch due to bad weather, you should be immune to airstrikes as well.

this is where the manual is wrong... you can´t launch a strike if you have a cloud in your hex, but the enemy can bomb you in your hex... oversight? bug? I don´t know, but this is how it really is in the game. Many people (including me) complained about that one already.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Speedy,

Took a look at your save. It was weather. The hexes in and all around your CV's were "rain" Normally in the air ops/search phase this should produce a raincload graphic and cancel air ops and prevent the TF(s) from striking. Every once in a while though, this doesn't happen which can lead to an unanswered strike similar to when one side has a range edge or one side has stood down it's planes. Same conditions that i presented way back in early WItP days. Bit of a bug.

Can you run a strike into a rain hex?

OK I checked...

"Hexes affected by bad weather blocks any air units from launching an airstrike from the hex, and it blocks any target in the hex from being attacked."

So if you fail to launch due to bad weather, you should be immune to airstrikes as well.

this is where the manual is wrong... you can´t launch a strike if you have a cloud in your hex, but the enemy can bomb you in your hex... oversight? bug? I don´t know, but this is how it really is in the game. Many people (including me) complained about that one already.

Yeah I was going to comment that I had seen strikes hit Bases that were clouded over. I guess it is possible.

I think that Speedy's misfortune is going to inspire someone to start another "Worst Moment in WITP" thread [:D]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
It was weather.

If that is true, then his bombers would not have launched according to the rule as it is written in the manual. But from what he's said, he got a fail to locate message during the turn and he has bombers on different CV's now, so they did launch. Perhaps the weather simply made the location roll harder to make, which he then failed.

Jim

Does the cloud symbol represent "rain" or does it represent "storm"? Meaning, in a storm (with cloud symbol) all air missions to and from that hex are prohibited (disputed). But, with rain (possibly no symbol), air missions still happen, but with a decrease in locating abilities.[&:]

Hi guys,

I know this is not th e AAR section but i've had 3 PM's asking me to post an update here on the battle. So here it is. I have received my Dad's reply.

Interesting surface engagement at Midway. 4 x IJN BB fought 3 x USN BB. Tactically a draw (only the key points are mentioned)

BB Fuso bested BB Colorado landing 2 x 14" hits.
BB New Mexico bested BB Yamashiro landing 3 x 14" hits.
BB Ise bested BB Mississippi landing 3 x 14" hits.
CL Helena sunk by torpedo/gunfire.
DD Balch blown up.
DD Hayashio blown up.
DD O'Brien sunk.
CA San Francisco hit by 8 x 8" shells from Haguro without any massive damage - tough cookie.
DD Shigure keeps up her voodoo record of not being hit in a battle (a la RL).

My BB's also achieved thei rmission of drawing away US CV power during the day. My Dad kept his CV's at Midway rather than pursuing my CV's (A mistake IMO). I think his reasoning was that he lost 74 x Wildcat yesterday = only 34 would remain against approx 65-70 Zeroes on CAP.

Anyhow my BB's and Haguro took bombs during the day but none that really hurt.

Screenie of my damaged ships from this battle and my CV's. ENG flying into Kwajalein.........

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
It was weather.

If that is true, then his bombers would not have launched according to the rule as it is written in the manual. But from what he's said, he got a fail to locate message during the turn and he has bombers on different CV's now, so they did launch. Perhaps the weather simply made the location roll harder to make, which he then failed.

Jim

The exact weather condtion and DL's can affect whether parts of a raid find the target or not, but for an entire cancellation to be made was probably not what the designers intended...otherwise it would happen much more often and would not be very realisitc...not to mention raising blood pressures of players. WitP's engine was never intended to resolve complex carrier movements and overall "cat and mouse" game that dedicated CV vs CV games like Carrier Force, Carrier Strike and Carriers at war did (with 10min to 12hour pulses for movement and orders). The fact that it is so rare tells me that its either a bug [similar to the one that occasionally sees the Japanese fleet at anchor ASW attack a sub from any location on the map) or like you said, some extremely unfortunate set of die rolls that produced an undesired result. But either way, weather was the ultimate culprit and the result undesirable. (one side gets a completely unanswered major strike or set of strikes). The conditions in Speedy's save match exactly the situation i reported several years ago in a test PBEM game while beta'ing.

For what it's worth Speedo.....it might be grounds to request a replay of the situation. But to change the conditions, you'll need to change the orders and withdraw away.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
but for an entire cancellation to be made was probably not what the designers intended

I disagree, it is exactly what they intended according to the rule on page 135 stating if the lead squadron cannot locate a target and turns back all squadrons turn back.

I personally think the rule sucks and the lead squadron should give a bonus or penalty instead to the search rolls for other squadrons in the strike depending on whether the lead squadron locates the target or not. But it is pretty apparent the rule proves they intended it to work this way, so I’d have to disagree with you about this being a bug.

I think the lack of his bombers being set to search combined with weather penalties probably created a very low DL for the allied CV’s, and his lead squadron failed the roll forcing the whole strike to turn back. Far too all or nothing for my tastes, but it jives with the rules on pages 135 and 171.

Jim

P.S. I also think the reason we don’t see more of this is due to ubercap. If ubercap wasn’t so effective, players would break up their CV task forces more and DL’s wouldn’t always be 10 for KB and other large CV fleets.

With smaller CV fleets, we’d see a lot more failed search rolls than we do, but 99% of players are ubercap players and thus create fleets that are automatically 10 DL regardless of how many search planes locate them on any given turn.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I disagree, it is exactly what they intended according to the rule on page 135 stating if the lead squadron cannot locate a target and turns back all squadrons turn back.

Again....if that were the case, it would be reported much more frequently....and complained about. Nor would it be sensible for the designers to intend it as it's unfair and unrealistic given the operational scale of the game. In hundreds of carrier turns and tests played I've not seen a repeat of the situation i reported (and which was not able to be explained by coders of that time period) The philosophy of the carrier combat, as with the land based combat is based on mutual exchange, unless the "rain cloud" presents itself which then prevents attacks *or* receiving of attacks......which does make sense from a designer viewpoint because it prevents the very thing that happened to Speedy....a complete set of unanswered strikes.

LOL, see my P.S. on the previous post, we both had the same thought and posted at the same time.

Jim

P.S. I also think the reason we don’t see more of this is due to ubercap. If ubercap wasn’t so effective, players would break up their CV task forces more and DL’s wouldn’t always be 10 for KB and other large CV fleets.

With smaller CV fleets, we’d see a lot more failed search rolls than we do, but 99% of players are ubercap players and thus create fleets that are automatically 10 DL regardless of how many search planes locate them on any given turn.


LOL, see my P.S. on the previous post, we both had the same thought and posted at the same time.

Jim

[:D] Speed posting does wonders.

I can see your point, but again, from tests and many turns played (which include multi TF's in different hexes) It just doesn't show up enough for me to accept it's intentional. Also because as I mentioned, it's non-sensible for a game of this scale and would generate mass complaints if it showed up more often.

I do agree, on a sidenote, that "uber" CAP covering an entire hex is not realistic and should be changed to TF specific. That way it wouldn't matter if TF's operate within 60 miles in a single hex or 60+ in multiple hexes. (Of course then players will create 25 ship TF's with 10 carriers, 4+ BB's , alot of CA's and a small smattering of DD's to get around the rule!)

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
It just doesn't show up enough for me to accept it's intentional.

I think it’s more common than you think. In my current PBEM game I lost the Yorktown to a range 5 strike by the Japanese, but the Saratoga was in the same hex and its task force was unspotted, or rather any strikes launched at it turned back, as my opponent did see the CV. The fact he hit the Yorktown prevented any complaints about no strike on the Saratoga, but had it been at range 4 and neither of my CV’s were spotted, I’d have gotten to hit him without a return strike.

But once the allied coordination penalties go away, then both sides create CV task forces with more than 10 squadrons in them and from that point forward there is no chance of failed location rolls, as I assume a 10 DL guarantees locating the target. So the only time these can occur in most games is in 1942 with small allied CV task forces, but most players keep those in one hex, so usually at least one CV gets attacked, so complaints don’t crop up then.

The rule makes sense in a way, it’s the lack of reporting on what is occurring that creates a problem. If the combat report text included the rolls of the form up (strike coordination rolls) and location attempts, everything would make perfect sense.

But because the only clue players get is a flash over the map during the turn that says squadron x unable to locate target, we’re left saying WTF? If there was more info provided to the players all this confusion would go away.

Had Speedy’s bombers not landed back on the non-damaged CV’s, we’d have no proof they ever flew. But we do know they flew, so we have to assume it was a failed location roll by the leader squadron that forced the strike to fail to locate the target.

I think they were trying to simulate the lost squadrons at Midway with this rule, but the unintended effect is that it is possible that a very large well coordinated strike can fail to locate a target. I’m not sure that ever occurred in the war, so I think the rule should be changed so that a failed location roll breaks up a strikes coordination and forces each carrier’s squadrons to roll individually as smaller strikes.

So if the leader fails to locate a target, the big strike becomes several smaller CV sized strikes consisting of each CV’s squadrons grouped together, and then those strikes make a roll. If all of those fail, then you’d see an unanswered strike, but I doubt that would happen very often, if ever.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I think the lack of his bombers being set to search combined with weather penalties probably created a very low DL for the allied CV’s, and his lead squadron failed the roll forcing the whole strike to turn back. Far too all or nothing for my tastes, but it jives with the rules on pages 135 and 171.

Personally I disagree with this. I had an I-Boat recon the place for a week. I also had 20ish FP's in range of Midway on 100% search. Note what found my CVs's was NOT an SBD but a Seagull from a USN Warship.............

I do agree with you that having groups on naval attacjk at 10/20% search does INCREASE their chance of attack but in this case it's not like IMO I didn't haver enough DL/on search already.

Nik - No but thanks mate. I am sticking with this since it will make an interesting rest of the war against my less experienced Dad[:)]

ORIGINAL: Speedy
Personally I disagree with this. I had an I-Boat recon the place for a week. I also had 20ish FP's in range of Midway on 100% search. Note what found my CVs's was NOT an SBD but a Seagull from a USN Warship.............

I do agree with you that having groups on naval attacjk at 10/20% search does INCREASE their chance of attack but in this case it's not like IMO I didn't haver enough DL/on search already.

Nik - No but thanks mate. I am sticking with this since it will make an interesting rest of the war against my less experienced Dad[:)]

Right, but I suspect that a single squadron flying recon can at best increase a task forces detection level by 1. The way the rule reads, DL is set to zero each phase for all task forces. Then each plane that spots the task force raises its DL by 1.

And I suspect that only 1 plane per squadron actually spots a task force, the number flying recon only increases the chance a plane spots you, but it is just 1 plane for DL purposes I think. So you need multiple squadrons flying to get more than 1 DL on a task force for recon increases.

That or the task force launches a CV strike itself. In that case 1 is added for each squadron in that task force that is launching as part of the strike. So KB with its 18+ squadrons guarantees the allies get a DL of 10 on it, but a single CV allied task force only adds 4 to its DL for the number of squadrons that launch.

So if only 1 plane spots that CV’s task force, its DL is 5, then there is the weather effect (if any) to the location die roll and any other mods we don’t know about

Jim

I second this. I always have every squadron on 10% seach. I have yet to have a no strike disaster. May be a waste of search planes but I am religious about this-all the way back to UV days.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Negative all were on 0% search since I had 35 x FP's on Naval search 100% range of 2-6.

Hmm, check the float plane squadrons, it's possible that all of them happened to be damaged on the turn in question, since there are just 1-2 planes on most ships. I generally set these squadrons to 50% to assure there are at least some planes in the air each turn. Setting them at 100% (especially around enemy fighters) can result in all of them being damaged rather quickly, and unless you check up on them each turn, you wouldn’t know about it.

I also make sure at least 1 squadron per CV has a 10% naval search setting as I believe it helps that CV’s recon level. I'm not 100% sure just how recon levels are tabulated, so having some of a CV’s bombers on naval search helps guarantee the strikes it launches gets the benefit of any possible bonus to its recon rolls.

It could be that the KB CV’s all launched a strike but failed to locate the target due to low recon levels. I’ve seen turns where every single search roll failed before, WitP has a bad habit of using the same roll for all searches sometimes (at least it seems that way sometimes), that could be what happened here. One bad search roll prevented all your strikes from locating the target.

Are all the bombers aboard their proper CV’s? If not, that proves they launched and failed to locate a target. Then they landed on the non-damaged CV’s when they returned.

Jim

I'm curious. Knowing something of air ops, I'm aware it's easier to take off than land in bad weather. It's also easier to take off from a base than to find the same base and bomb it. How does this affect this logic?

In my game vs Elladan I as US managed to get the KB with pants down like in this discussed occasion in "2nd Battle of Southern Solomons". I had 6 TFs with 4US an 3Brit CVs in two hexes. IJN had 8 CVs and CVLs (whole KB 11/1942 without Akagi) in two TFs in two hexes.
Results? Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Ryudzo, Hijo, Dzunjo, Rjuho, Yamato, Mutsu at the bottom of the ocean in three turns. Not a paint scratch on my CVs (In fact not a single plane attacked my ships) )
US DL bonuses: 10% Naval search on each VS Squadron, 50% Naval search on ships equiped by Kingfisher, 1 VP (Coronado) in standard range, 1 RAAF (Hudson) and 1 VP (Catalina)
on extended range with 70% Naval search.
For the Japs I couldnt tell.