Bombardment bug?

[shaade]

Great game and great patch!

However, I just noticed a problem with a bombardment mission which I cannot explain. I've sent a surface fleet to Gili Gili to bombard (retirement allowed, react to enemy). The fleet performed its mission but after that it did NOT retreat, and therefore it was torpetoed by japanase LBA.

I reloaded and sent it again to GG, but this time with no bombardment mission. It went there and then returned without any problems.

Therefore the distance doesn't seem to cause the above mentioned problem. Any ideas? Maybe a dreaded 'bug'?

[Huskalator]

I noticed the same thing. I sent a bombardment TF from Rabual to Port Moreby and it just sat there at its destination. The first time this happended I figured I had forgotten to set the TF to "retirement". But then I tried it again and got the same results.

Is this a bug or was this done on purpose?

[FirstPappy]

More people are having the same problems. There are similar posts in the bug forum.

[Didz]

Looks like the pendulum has swung to the other extreme.

In V1.0 Bombardment Groups enjoyed almost total immunity from air attack due to the retirement option and turn phasing now they have almost no immunity.

Sounds like divine justice to me;)

[jhdeerslayer]

Ditto. I have seen the same issue in 1.10. Is this intentional? Seems odd if it is.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Deerslayer
Ditto. I have seen the same issue in 1.10. Is this intentional? Seems odd if it is.

I wonder if someone has adjusted the Bombardment missions so that they can only complete 12 hours movement under cover of darkness. That would be a sensible change but I didn't think there were any plans to do it.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Didz


I wonder if someone has adjusted the Bombardment missions so that they can only complete 12 hours movement under cover of darkness. That would be a sensible change but I didn't think there were any plans to do it.

Well if the did adjust it they should also adjust where the 12 hour run starts (and ends) too. Without that I'd prefer to have it the old way.

[Erik Rutins]

As far as I know, this was completely unintentional and must have appeared in the last day's build, but was not caught by testing. I've duplicated it here with 1.10 as have some testers, so we'll do our best to get this addressed quickly. Hopefully, it will be a simple fix.

Regards,

- Erik

[Wilson ESQ]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
As far as I know, this was completely unintentional and must have appeared in the last day's build, but was not caught by testing. I've duplicated it here with 1.10 as have some testers, so we'll do our best to get this addressed quickly. Hopefully, it will be a simple fix.

Regards,

- Erik

Are these problems only for saved games (pre-1.10 patch games)? Do we know yet? Thanks for all your work. Great Game:)

[elmo3]

Originally posted by Wilson ESQ


Are these problems only for saved games (pre-1.10 patch games)? Do we know yet? Thanks for all your work. Great Game:)

Nope. I started a new game with 1.10 and had the problem. It strikes me as a game breaker so hopefully Mike can spot the problem and we can get a qucik 1.11 release.

[sitkis]

Probably related. Transport TFs, with retire, used to go to their target port, unload, then return to the home port. After the patch they do not unload unless told and do not return to home unless told. This just adds a bunch of busy work and results in lots of "dead" time for convoys that are almost empty. At the start of a day they may have only 100 supplies to unload but must wait for you to tell them the next day before they set sail. Liked it the other way better.

The CS convoys kinda work, but they seem to switch from load to unload every day. In other words if you check on the CS convoys they say "idle", but if you leave them alone you get an unloading message during the execution phase. They switch back to idle at the end of the turn, but you can see that supplies were unloaded. However, they also never seem to finish unloading and then set sail the same day; for some reason a move order only gets implimented if it is all the TF is planning on doing the start of each day.

[Wilson ESQ]

Originally posted by elmo3


Nope. I started a new game with 1.10 and had the problem. It strikes me as a game breaker so hopefully Mike can spot the problem and we can get a qucik 1.11 release.

I think you're right about this being a game breaker! I lost a bunch of ships at the 'Canal before I realized the problem. And if the transports are having the same problem, it could be a bookkeeping nightmare as well. I think I'll wait for the fix, before I play again.

[Admiral DadMan]

Lunga was just hit by Yamato et. al., and stayed around for daylight too, where I hammered it with LBA. I think it is doing it to both sides.

[jhdeerslayer]

Definitely both sides in my experience. I've never seen the Jap AI hang out at Lunga after a bombardment until I went to 1.1. Hope this is a quick fix as it does affect game play a tad bit with no work around like some of the other patched issues out there.

[Wilson ESQ]

Originally posted by Deerslayer
Definitely both sides in my experience. I've never seen the Jap AI hang out at Lunga after a bombardment until I went to 1.1. Hope this is a quick fix as it does affect game play a tad bit with no work around like some of the other patched issues out there.

Anybody hear about any fixes for this? I need my UV fix tonight;)

[jhdeerslayer]

Maybe a 1.11 patch is coming our way soon... I feel guilty jumping on the AI with my AG's when it does this as it normally would not be an opportunity you'd get and I'll have to hold off on bombardment on my side until this is fixed. Not sure what else to do.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Wilson ESQ


I think you're right about this being a game breaker! I lost a bunch of ships at the 'Canal before I realized the problem.

Personally I don't see this as any more of a problem than the 1.0 scenario where bombardment groups were allowed total immunity from air attack.

At least under the 1.1 regime proper precautions now have to be taken to ensure that the LBA at the target base is neutralised before the bombardment mission goes in and that the Bombardment TF has an adequate LRCAP over it during extraction.

I agree that neither situation is perfect but at least under the 1.1 scenario I am not forced to use 'gamey' tactic's like laying mines or posting submarines in the middle of the Solomon Sea to try and stop the AI doing it.

[Wilson ESQ]

Originally posted by Didz


Personally I don't see this as any more of a problem than the 1.0 scenario where bombardment groups were allowed total immunity from air attack.

At least under the 1.1 regime proper precautions now have to be taken to ensure that the LBA at the target base is neutralised before the bombardment mission goes in and that the Bombardment TF has an adequate LRCAP over it during extraction.

I agree that neither situation is perfect but at least under the 1.1 scenario I am not forced to use 'gamey' tactic's like laying mines or posting submarines in the middle of the Solomon Sea to try and stop the AI doing it.

This is a question of a programing bug, not a historical one. I have read a great deal in this area and agree with the designers of this game. They 've done their homework. The titles of the best books were mentioned in an earlier thread. Esp see Frank's book on the G'Canal. The night naval actions off G'Canal would never have taken place if what you say is true. Sorry, Didz. I hope we get our fix soon.
Wilson ESQ:)

[brisd]

Deal with it - I don't understand why we are even discussing it. The way the designers made the original design of fast moving TF's sailing in, dispensing death and then escaping into the night is right on everything I have read on the subject. The game is broke in its version 1.10 state.

[Caltone]

This is a huge problem IMHO. Any news on a fix? It afects transport TF's as well.