Matrix Games Forums

In the Guad scenario, the AI is trying to re-take Lunga after I took it back from the original Watchtower invasion. There are several cut off USMC units in the hex. AI brings Hornet (last surviving US CV) to stand off Lunga and provide LRCAP, while 4 amphib TFs attempt to land re-inforcements and much needed supplies (PS Note that the AI is doing a pretty darn good job with tactics in this relatively unscripted situation - way to go Andy Mac & Nik).

Here's the problem, an IJN SCTF commanded by Mikawa and containing Yamato, Mutsu, 5 CA, 4 CL and 6 DD is in position to intervene. It is ordered to approach Lunga at full speed at night from 6 hexes to the NE, Direct route, risk tolerance Absolute (TF will "NEVER retreat" per the description). Ideally I want them to run in with retirement allowed setting, wallop the amphibs, then run back toward Ontong Java to avoid Hornet's revenge. However, Mikawa Force keeps encountering a fat target and withdrawing.

OK, so I decide to LRCAP the ships from Lunga and accept an attack from Hornet in the daytime turn segment. I re-run the turn with Mikawa force set to move at full speed, direct route, absolute risk tolerance to Lunga with "remain on station" orders. For good measure, I set Lunga as the home port.

Mikawa Force behaves exactly the same. They encounter the first amphip TF, guarded by a DM and 3 DDs, and withdraw! What gives? Is Mikawa a coward?

This is a big deal as forcing the amphib TFs to retreat from Lunga before they unload has strategic implications. Why won't an SCTF with an overwhelming combat advantage engage with these orders? FYI, the other 3 amphib TFs have similar escorts. Largest ship in the 4 Allied TFs is a CL that has already been hit by an IJN sub.

No one can do anything without a save.

Cribtop, I did conduct a lot of such convoy sweepings of any kind at Guadalcanal (6th campaign, 3rd with jap) and usually it works but it is hard to micromanage the raiding TF's when many enemy small TFs are in all the coastal hexes. Several times even agressive leaders were fooled, did retire because of some change of settings I have not explained to myself. Sometimes after a night combat they go back to replenish because one of the main ships is depleted (often torps are send in large number). But most of the time they did what I wanted and managed to catch and sink many slow ships, or attack enemy surface TF, charging air TFs or pursuing far away several convoys. Clearly the agressiveness and skills of leaders are decisive and I learned to avoid coward leaders for sure - retreating in front of a single DD - and I usually take Tanaka or one of the 8 leaders better that Mikawa to this respect.
 
That said Mikawa is OK! So maybe the reaction radius ? When I use the "absolute" threat tolerance to sweep convoys from a given hex I also put the radius to 0 to avoid pursuits, routings to false alarm ot true TF hidden in bad weather when reached and so on. In some cases I had to enforce "remain on station" to hunt for days and hence to organize a cover by air TFs while guarding the hex, but still a few unspotted amphib TF managed to reach the coast by night, or a well escorted convoy showed up with CVs... Seizing Tassa/Lunga is a long story, and even by picking carefully leaders to opperate raids round there then in the process of successive combat attempts the TFs sometimes retire and have to be called back, most often because of a first "long" combat and casually for non explicit reasons (weather, FOW, feeling that the mission is over, reaction, false alarm... many parameters to be checked !). So a save is the only way to look at your special case of course.
 
TZ

How do I post a save?

PS - Tazo, the situation is as you describe. There are four Allied amphib TFs in the Lunga hex. I tried the turn with both 0 and 6 reaction but got similar results both times. Still, the number of TFs could be confusing my TF. I have had excellent luck attacking amphib TFs earlier in the game, so I was surprised that I'm having trouble here. I assumed I was doing something wrong.

 
When Devs ask for a save I think you have to email the files generated by the turn in question. Take it in the SAVE sub directory of the AE directory, thi is the big file named "wpaeXXX.pws" with XXX=slot number of your saved game and ".pws" stand for Pacific War Save.
 
Maybe also the slot 2 "wpae002.pws" is better if you saved the turn after execution since this one contains the last executed turn "before execution".
 
The 6 other "txt" files with almost identical "date/created time" are created while executing, they contain the operational, combat, events... reports in readable text. This is from where players cut and paste their combat reports in the forum, simply using a simple txt editor.
 
I sometime take the ".pws" files from a computer to another and it works.
 
The best is to save your situation in a new "wpaeYYY.pws" slot before execution and send this one after excuting it for yourself just to make sure that what you don't understand is happening. The "pws" are redoable and decodable step by step I guess. Also, due to pseudo random numbers - that only need a root to initiate a determinist but unpredictable sequence of them - it seems to me that executing a given pws will lead to the same results exactly if I or you or anybody else execute it on the same version of AE. I mean, really exactly the same output, even when looking at each animation messages.
 
Cheers,
TZ

Thanks.