User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5522
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

PP Bombardement n No Loss Report

Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:52 pm

I setup a small scenario at patch level 1.6.3 and tested units in the Island #10 Redoubt in PP (Passive Posture) bombarding a passing fleet.

Units in PP, even if inside a fort or redoubt should not bombard. They did however.

Also, only the number of hits are being reported, but lost vessels are not.

Also, it appears that transports are being targeted while a large number of un-hit or only lightly damaged gunboats are in the same stack. From my understanding, transports should be the last boats to be targeted.

Saves attached.
Attachments
BombPassTest01.rar
(258.35 KiB) Downloaded 14 times

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: PP Bombardement n No Loss Report

Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:02 am

I am not sure I agree. Once confronted with passing ships, it is a bit like marching into a hostile region and units activate.

Try your experiment with your gunboats in orange attack mode. I think you will see a difference. Also, if you send all ships in passive avoid combat mode they should slip by the fort without combat.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5522
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: PP Bombardement n No Loss Report

Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:55 am

I would have to disagree. I recall reading specifically a post from Pocus (probably back in AACW days) stating that artillery lead by an unactive leader or in PP will not bombard passing ships. It would break with the general PP paradigm that units in PP are 'passive', and bombarding is not passive.

I don't understand what putting the ships in OP should do, if they are already getting bombarded in DP.

IIRC it's very chancy to try to sneak past a fort. My conclusion was that it is better to load a fleet with ironclads, which will be the main targets of a bombardment, than to hope to sneak by with small fleets. The ironclads soak off the hits, and the rest get by practically unscathed.

At one point during beta testing for patches I noted that transports were taking an inordinate number of hits and being sunk, sometimes without a report of their loss, even if the entire unit was lost. We discovered that elements with generic names were not being reported. If the model files did not have enough names for all the elements of transports being built (names for each boat) those missing a name got a generic name like 'riverine transport', and their loss was not being reported.

This is why I spent many hours researching steamboat names of the era and why we have them now. I put a list of a couple hundred names together, and now they're not being reported again.

Return to “Help improve CW2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests