Ships disappearing in ports

[Kingfisher]

A not-so Hypothetical scenario #1 - a 4 DD / 4 AK transport TF enters a port with the mission of loading up one of the base's units for deployment elsewhere. An enemy TF enters a short time later and combat ensues, with 3 of 4 DDs being sunk, along with 2 AKs.

A not-so hypothetical scenario #2 - the same 4 DD / 4 AK TF enters the port but this time without a defined mission. The TF is promptly disbanded. The enemy TF enters but does not detect the 8 ships and leaves empty handed.

Why are ships in ports but not assigned to TFs invisible to enemy surface units?

In both scenarios the transport TF is relatively small, and the port is a size 5, so it is assumed to include sheltered anchorage and quays for loading. However, if I was to try scenario #2 with a 25-ship TF (the max) at a level 1 port (nothing more than a beach) would I get the same results?

[HansBolter]

I realize this is probably a simplificationa but the game treats things this way. As I understand it, the ships disbanded are tied up to the docks while ships in task forces are anchored just inside, or just outside the harbor with steam at minimum so they can get under way quickly. Bombardment runs by the enemy do not enter the harbor. They shell from outside the harbor after they fight with any TFs present. The TF that was intercepted was likely not docked and was thus outside the harbor and could be intercepted. The disbanded ships cannot be intercepted, they can only be hit by the bombardment of the port that would have followed any fight against any TFs present.

[Kingfisher]

Hans,

Thanks for the explanation. At first glance it makes perfect sense, but something still seems odd here. The enemy TF caught my AKs while in the process of loading, so I am assuming they were tied to the docks. Otherwise, whats the point of increasing a port's size if all transfers are done offshore, ala Lunga point?

AIUI, only ships assigned to TFs can load / unload, so it wouldn't make sense to have disbanded ships tied to the docks, but doing nothing, while the ones loading are anchored in the harbor, no?

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

Hans,

Thanks for the explanation. At first glance it makes perfect sense, but something still seems odd here. The enemy TF caught my AKs while in the process of loading, so I am assuming they were tied to the docks. Otherwise, whats the point of increasing a port's size if all transfers are done offshore, ala Lunga point?

AIUI, only ships assigned to TFs can load / unload, so it wouldn't make sense to have disbanded ships tied to the docks, but doing nothing, while the ones loading are anchored in the harbor, no?

I believe you are correct in that ships that are loading are "tied" to the dock. They cannot be loaded whilst at anchor in the harbour, or at least not fully / completely ( vehicles, artillary, tanks etc. ).
It may have something to do with where-abouts in the port the ships are rather than their tied up / anchored status.
Disbanded / docked TF's are likely to be away from the "hub" of the port, at a "backwater" pier / harbour. The "hub" would include any piers used for loading and those "ready" for sailing in the main harbour. The "hub" is the important area of the port and would be near to the port exit and therefore would be the area attacked first if anyone enters the port.

[Kingfisher]

Again, makes sense except you get the same results in ports that have no backwater pier / harbor. For instance, the "port" at Guadacanal was really nothing more than a beach with the transports anchored several thousand yards offshore. There really is no place to hide a group of 25 ships, yet I can do so in UV for weeks on end, this despite repeated daytime incursions by Japanese surface TFs.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

Again, makes sense except you get the same results in ports that have no backwater pier / harbor. For instance, the "port" at Guadacanal was really nothing more than a beach with the transports anchored several thousand yards offshore. There really is no place to hide a group of 25 ships, yet I can do so in UV for weeks on end, this despite repeated daytime incursions by Japanese surface TFs.

Bear in mind that game abstracts many things and lumps all ports together based on their in game "size". I can't quote the rule, but ports obtain certain capailities as they grow in size and any port can be developed to a level 3 above it's natural potential. At one stage of development (I believe ports above size 1) a submarine can no longer enter the port to raid shipping at anchor, at size three (I believe) ships can be disbanded into the port.

The game does not try to model the individual historical charisteristics of each and every port.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Bear in mind that game abstracts many things and lumps all ports together based on their in game "size". I can't quote the rule, but ports obtain certain capailities as they grow in size and any port can be developed to a level 3 above it's natural potential. At one stage of development (I believe ports above size 1) a submarine can no longer enter the port to raid shipping at anchor, at size three (I believe) ships can be disbanded into the port.

The game does not try to model the individual historical charisteristics of each and every port.

Very good points.