2by3 NEEDS YOUR HELP.

[Mike Scholl]

Apparently enough people have reported suicidally foolish
results from Naval Strikes the the guys at 2by3 are wondering
if a "bug" has crept in during the "patch process". If you have
a "save" which includes a really silly target choice by the AI in
doing Naval Strikes, they would like to see it. The aren't looking
for the "I wanted to hit TF "X", but the strike went against TF
"Z" instead" kind of problems. But they do want to see your
save if you have an "I was hoping to hit TF's "X", "Y", or "Z" at
sea---but instead the AI trashed half my bombers making a
completely idiotic, unescorted, extended-range attack on a
harmless TF "A" covered by 50 fighters in Rabaul!" ...or Moresby
...or wherever. Please send your saves of this nature to Joel:

2by3@2by3games.com

Even if you had no specific target in mind, and just put some
aircraft into Naval Strike Mode "in case something showed up."
If the AI took off and got your aircraft trashed making an attack
with absolutely no chance of success, but a very high risk of
heavy losses, they'd like to see it. Evidently it's not supposed
to destroy your air units just for lack of anything else to do...,
so if it has been doing so to you please share your experiance with them. THANKS for your help.

[Mr.Frag]

Would this include things like 6 hudson bombers flying off to attack a transport TF that has 2 groups of zeros flying CAP over or do you only want the really crazy ones like when 2 CV's launch against another CV group with no escorts?

I guess, define what you consider crazy enough so we can moch up the right saves for helping ...

[Sonny]

I think he may be talking more about the squadron of 3 Bettys set on naval attack who fly from GG to Cairns (a base reconned enough to know there are 50+ fighters there) to try and sink an SC - and then their buddies do the same suicidal thing in the afternoon!:mad:

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Would this include things like 6 hudson bombers flying off to attack a transport TF that has 2 groups of zeros flying CAP over or do you only want the really crazy ones like when 2 CV's launch against another CV group with no escorts?

I guess, define what you consider crazy enough so we can moch up the right saves for helping ...

Unless this TF was in a port where your side would have good
reason to KNOW there were a lot of fighters, stumbling into
an attack on a convoy with more cover CAP than expected is
probably "just one of those things". Did your Hudsons ignore
closer targets that were attacked by other aircraft from the
same base? ...Just to make an extended-range strike on this
well protected convoy?

I don't think they're looking for saves of simply dissappointing
attacks as much as the outrageously stupid ones, made with no
chance of success, in places you would never send them your-
self. But that's going to be subjective with every player, so in
the end you are going to have to rely on your own "gut" feeling.

[Mr.Frag]

Ah, thats the one I posted in the bugs section, the great "Cairns run" ... Thats why I asked for an in-game range finder, so I can step the Betties and Nells back enough bases so they can't reach Cairns anymore

While that one is really annoying since it is well outside cap range, perhaps a really simple fix for that is that *IF* escorts are assigned at a base where Level Bombers are tasked with non-targetted missions, the Level Bombers ONLY look at targets inside escort range (limitting their range to the escort range).

What do you think of that for a solution? If you want to fly farther then escort range, don't assign escort missions, use LRCAP instead...

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Sonny
I think he may be talking more about the squadron of 3 Bettys set on naval attack who fly from GG to Cairns (a base reconned enough to know there are 50+ fighters there) to try and sink an SC - and then their buddies do the same suicidal thing in the afternoon!:mad:

Yea, this one is probably a hands-down winner in the stupid category. Probably ought to send it along.

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
or do you only want the really crazy ones like when 2 CV's launch against another CV group with no escorts?

This is not crazy at all. It happened in just about every CV battle of the war. TBDs at Midway, no escorts ANYWHERE for the US at Eastern Solomons, lots of penny packet, unescorted strikes at Santa Cruz. Indeed, Magumo was critisized for NOT sending an unescorted strike at Midway but instead waiting until he could send out fighters as well as bombers.

THIS IS NOT A BUG OR A PROBLEM. IT IS HISTORY.

[Mr.Frag]

THIS IS NOT A BUG OR A PROBLEM. IT IS HISTORY.

I guess we differ there, just because some other commander did it doesn't mean that I as the theater level commander want my guys to do it ... This is supposed to be a theater level game is it not? Why can't I tell my valuable resources to not fly off without escort?

[CapAndGown]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I guess we differ there, just because some other commander did it doesn't mean that I as the theater level commander want my guys to do it ... This is supposed to be a theater level game is it not? Why can't I tell my valuable resources to not fly off without escort?

Fine, then you are Nagumo and I should have a 100% greater chance of catching you with full flight decks and no return strike. Implement that and you might have implemented history. But coordinated strikes and strikes where bombers do not become seperated from escorts is pure fanatasy.

I suppose Matrix could implement a fanatasy option so that every strike was escorted. But only as an option and not one that those of us who want to play a historical wargame would be forced to play with.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Had one last night but I think I overwrote it.

Had B17s bombing Shortland and Rabual instead of nice, safe transports in Lae (again).

What really pisses me off is that I can not get my B17s to even perform a night bombing run against Rabual when I tell them too (out of escort range).

But, if I put them on naval attack they feel free to hit the same place at lower altitude, during the day!

When it happens again I will send the file.

[mogami]

Hi, I think they are more interested in

60xfighters
10xdivebombers

attack small target with no CAP while....

100xDB
50xtorpedo planes

attack CV with 100 fighters CAP

since this is clearly not a case of the strike losing it's escort.
It is plainly not a very logical choice of strike make up.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I think they are more interested in

60xfighters
10xdivebombers

attack small target with no CAP while....

100xDB
50xtorpedo planes

attack CV with 100 fighters CAP

Hey, that looks somewhat familiar. I've still got those turns Mogami if you want me to send them.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Had one last night but I think I overwrote it.

Had B17s bombing Shortland and Rabual instead of nice, safe transports in Lae (again).

What really pisses me off is that I can not get my B17s to even perform a night bombing run against Rabual when I tell them too (out of escort range).

But, if I put them on naval attack they feel free to hit the same place at lower altitude, during the day!

When it happens again I will send the file.

......2by3 SHOULD see. Especially if you can show that it won't
carry out this attack when ordered to under cover of night----
but makes it in a suicidal manner during the when left to make a target pick on it's own. Hope you can find one to send them one
to send.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I think they are more interested in

60xfighters
10xdivebombers

attack small target with no CAP while....

100xDB
50xtorpedo planes

attack CV with 100 fighters CAP

since this is clearly not a case of the strike losing it's escort.
It is plainly not a very logical choice of strike make up.

This type of total misappropriation of Escorts isn't exactly what
they were asking for---but it ought to be on their list of possible
"bugs". I'm not sure it's what they are looking for now, but it
certainly qualifies under "suicidal actions"; and as it seems to
happen a lot it might be worth sending them if you have several
saves of it happening. Game seems to be dividing up naval
strikes by plane type instead of by squadron---and that's wrong.

[Admiral DadMan]

How about this:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/23/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 53,53

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 4

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 3 destroyed
G3M Nell x 1 damaged


2LT H. Phillips of VMF-223 is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
AK Cassiopeia

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 20
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 13

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Yugumo

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 1000 feet

Nells attack at the short end of 5:1 odds and get mauled;
B-17's attack on the short end of 11:1 odds and only get scratched...

[Veldor]

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
But only as an option and not one that those of us who want to play a historical wargame would be forced to play with.

If you want the game to be historical, it should force each player to make all the same exact moves that were made in history, with historical combat results...

No, I do feel most of you might have it all wrong... A good "historical simulation" should allow the player full flexibility in making any decision at all, however stupid, or however unlikely it would have been to have occurred historically... The game should simply have a good enough foundation that such things have outcomes, disadvantages, or other affects that make them not necessarily the most logical choice to be made...

Otherwise every game is pretty much going to be just about the same, and your time spent making robotic "historical" decisions would be better spent reading a book or watching a film about what actually happened historically..

I want to play a game and make stupid decisions if I want too and "learn" why putting subs in enemy ports was not a bright idea, why I can't always have escorts, etc... The game needs to allow anything, but have appropriate after-effects, side-effects, etc...

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
How about this:


Nells attack at the short end of 5:1 odds and get mauled;
B-17's attack on the short end of 11:1 odds and only get scratched...

Problem is that the Nell was a lightly built, twin-engined flying
"gas tank' with limited defensive armament or armor. It's
strength was it's outstanding range in a torpedo or bomber
role. Against any effective opposition it was "dog meat".
The B-17 "Flying Fortress", on the other hand, was a really
tough opponant. Heavily armed, with 4 engines and a fair
amount of redundancy in controls and structural strength---
it was designed to fight it's way through to a target.

If the Nell's got through, they would probably have been more
effective at attacking ships---that's what they were designed to do. B-17's proved rather ineffective in the anti-shipping role.
But if you are talking about their chances of actually getting
through, the B-17's win in a cake-walk. And in either case, this
wasn't the type of problem 2by3 were wanting to look into.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
.,.......... B-17's proved rather ineffective in the anti-shipping role.
...................

Except in UV.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
Yea, this one is probably a hands-down winner in the stupid category. Probably ought to send it along.

I'll go back to putting my Bettys on naval attack against Mogami and it won't be long before I'll have something to send to you.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I think they are more interested in

60xfighters
10xdivebombers

attack small target with no CAP while....

100xDB
50xtorpedo planes

attack CV with 100 fighters CAP

since this is clearly not a case of the strike losing it's escort.
It is plainly not a very logical choice of strike make up.

Had this happen too. 44 Wildcats and 20 SDBs attack surface fleet far from land while 8 Wildcats and approx 50 SBDs and TBFs went against a carrier TF.