Matrix Games Forums

I'm noticing a pattern. I'm sending a bunch of Cargo (Transport) TFs from Karachi and Bombay to Rangoon loaded with supplies. I'm setting them to "Patrol/Do Not Retire" because I want to load them with resources once they've unloaded the supplies. But they are consistently ignoring the do not retire order and leaving Rangoon as soon as they have unloaded.

But they are consistently ignoring the do not retire order and leaving Rangoon as soon as they have unloaded.

Umm, you did read the manual right? [:-]

TF's automatically have their "Do Not Retire" reset to "Retirement Allowed" when finished unloading at the DH. In other words, your understanding is broken, not the code [:D]

Yeah, you 've got to really micro manage every little thing in this game, in this case setting your destination as the home port as well. For long hauls due to lack of Bora Bora and Maldives (Andys Map aleviates this forthose routes) I have to set a mid point as a destination and set the destination as the home port as well (Really need waypoints people,despite what complications doing so have been given...they are like a staple in games now). Unfortunately, if attacked succesfully, the TF bolts for the homeport, and the AI does not route itaway from enemy bases....dumdeeduudeedummmm.[8|] This of course needs th TFset to Patrol/don't retire, yet anothercheck which slips through the cracks generated by a failure to make either AI routing or waypoints aneffective part of program.

Even if way points are added ( a good idea, that I support) what happens when the task force is attacked? If way points exsist, where would the task force flee, towards a way point, or home port? Could be a problem if it is toward a way point.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

But they are consistently ignoring the do not retire order and leaving Rangoon as soon as they have unloaded.

Umm, you did read the manual right? [:-]

TF's automatically have their "Do Not Retire" reset to "Retirement Allowed" when finished unloading at the DH. In other words, your understanding is broken, not the code [:D]

To paraphrase another poster, quit ruining my perfectly good rant with facts!

Alright, where's that wish list, I have a feature change request. [:'(]

All you have to do is set the TF's home port to the one you want to load from after it unloads. It will sit there diligently waiting for your orders after it is empty.

You could always set "auto-disband", and then make a new TF the following turn. Auto-disband is a very handy feature. Keeps the port cleaned up, the only formed TFs are the ones that are actually doing something at the moment. Ships at anchor are ships available for missions.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

All you have to do is set the TF's home port to the one you want to load from after it unloads. It will sit there diligently waiting for your orders after it is empty.

Yes, but in this case all they are doing is shuttling between Karachi or Bombay and Rangoon. It would be a LOT less work to not have to reset their home port twice every round-trip.

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

You could always set "auto-disband", and then make a new TF the following turn. Auto-disband is a very handy feature. Keeps the port cleaned up, the only formed TFs are the ones that are actually doing something at the moment. Ships at anchor are ships available for missions.

Except that we are told to not use auto-disband because it is one of the triggers for the leader loss bug. Not even sure it would work in this case. If the TF is automatically resetting to Retire upon unloading, wouldn't it return to home port then disband?

Also, see above post about minimizing work load.

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Yes, but in this case all they are doing is shuttling between Karachi or Bombay and Rangoon. It would be a LOT less work to not have to reset their home port twice every round-trip.

No, my friend. Here's what you do:

1. Send TF from Karachi or Bombay to Rangoon.
2. After it arrives and starts to unload, set home base to Rangoon.
3. When it is empty, set destination for Karachi or wherever you want it to go.
4. Give it orders to load whatever you want.
5. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

Don't trust ANY automated routine in this game. Do it yourself.

Except that we are told to not use auto-disband because it is one of the triggers for the leader loss bug. Not even sure it would work in this case. If the TF is automatically resetting to Retire upon unloading, wouldn't it return to home port then disband?

Not to do you in with facts again, but the auto-disband was fixed to not eat leaders. It also now refuels your ships when it does the disbanding (another of my pet peaves).

Either way, I don't want to auto-disband the ships because they need to unload their cargo at both ends (supplies at Rangoon, resources at Karachi/Bombay).

Trying not to whine, but I really don't understand why the decision was made to have ships unloading always switch to Retire. Dagnabit, I want my ships to obey my orders! [:'(]

For now I'll just have to reset home bases on each half of the round-trip. PITA. [8|]

Trying not to whine, but I really don't understand why the decision was made to have ships unloading always switch to Retire. Dagnabit, I want my ships to obey my orders!

Quite simple really. It gets them away at the earliest possible window.

Then how about a button to switch home base to destination ?

Save a lot of clicking

Then how about a button to switch home base to destination ?

How about you get 10 friends to buy a copy so 2by3 can get afford to keep adding new stuff forever [;)]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Trying not to whine, but I really don't understand why the decision was made to have ships unloading always switch to Retire. Dagnabit, I want my ships to obey my orders!

Quite simple really. It gets them away at the earliest possible window.

But isn't that supposed to be the player's decision? Why else even have the Patrol/Retire button?

Why else even have the Patrol/Retire button?

Rule 6.1.14 pg 91

Read up [:D]

"Because the rule is there" is not a reasonable answer to the question "Why is the rule there?"

"Because the rule is there" is not a reasonable answer to the question "Why is the rule there?"

You indicated you thought there was a bug because your ships were not sticking around.

If you want to understand the answer to your new question, you'll have to start reading a couple of pages earlier:

rule 6.1.8 & 6.1.9 pg 78 [;)]

Personally (and not to be argumentative), I like it just the way it is. When you are faced with a situation where you need to get a convoy in despite opposition, you give it "do not retire" orders so that the commander won't screw the pooch and head for home before completing his mission just because he has a PG take a 500-pounder down the stack. Also, I want to know when and how much has been unloaded and how much longer I have to wait before I can load the cargo I want to send back. Finally, with the home port set as the place where I want the TF to unload, those ships will get every case of SPAM or sake they can off, even while they are being turned into Schweitzerkaese by enemy LBA. I have had occasions where the cargo was more important than the ships and have let four-of-four AKs go down at the destination port in order to get every precious supply point off (to keep aircraft flying, engineers building, and defenders defending).

I never used to understand how the Brits could call Pedestal and some of those other Malta convoys that went through hell just to deliver a few thousand tons of supplies or fuel successes, but I do now.