TheElf
Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: The Gnome
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sonny
quote:
ORIGINAL: The Gnome
hi :)
As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.
A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.
This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.
I think commander aggression should handle this but you are right. you need to tell the commander.
This and someone else's idea about prioritizing targets may also help to prevent the 36 B-17s flying great distances to bomb the 4 PCs doing ASW work 600 miles away just because you set the B-17s to naval attack.
Exactly, I always hated to see my bomber squadrons attacking a major combat TF and destroy themselves on fighters and flak, when I really just wanted them to hit convoys.
I like the idea of having this plus the aggressiveness of the commander affect it, it kind of makes it very real to me then. You tell a guy not to press too hard, but that has to be interpretted by another human being. Could lead to some fun results - if there's enough feedback.
"Lt. So and So decides to press the attack"!
This is great input. I like the idea of the intensity setting. I have always been a big fan of the Bombing the Reich (another Grigsby game) Doctrine setting. EVERY A/C type could be given genereal guidlines as to how they were to behave. The options were "Direct Fighter", "Bounce Fighter", "Direct Bomber", &"Bounce Bomber". The game was centered around fighters though, and I nevere played the allies, so I don;t know what settings they had available, but nevertheless the principle could be applied to WitP II.
What about telling your B-17Es, B-24Ds, and any 4E LBA in a doctrine page:
Ground/airfield Attack
1) Abort if Escort fails rendevous
2) Continue to target if the AM recon indicated light CAP.
3) Ground abort for Weather in Target area
For Naval attack
4) Select by class of ship what NOT to launch for. Like the current ship screen in WitP, you just deselect what you don't want to look at, be it DD, CA, AUX, BB etc. except for the doctrine page you are deselecting the kind of TF you don't want to attack. Another option would be to code the AI so it dispenses a units A/C appropriate the contact report sent by the Naval Search asset. Or the player selects the Max size of the formationa particular LBA unit launches. Set it to 3, and while set to Naval Attack, for every contact the AI laucnhes on it only send a flight of three(or 6 or 9).
Unfortunately in the real world there were lots of cases where large strikes were launched based on faulty intel or Recon reports. The difference being that in WitP Those large strikes launch with complete knowledge of more appropriate targets(such as that CV TF or SFC TF).
This series of unfortunate events should not be coded out of the AI's decision process, but I agree it could be done better.
_____________________________
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES  |
Printable Version
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 
How do you want to measure that?
. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread