Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Carrier action off Fiji

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Carrier action off Fiji Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/21/2006 1:56:57 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)?

I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to jwxspoon)
Post #: 211
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/21/2006 2:36:23 AM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)?

I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case.



I believe it was a surface action fleet that reacted.

I had something similar happen to me near the same place. Two of my CVs launched dive bombers on a transport TF and not the CV TF that was one hex closer. I did not get a strike in on his CVs and lost both of mine.

I was upset like you would not believe. I am holding on in that game with only CVEs and 1 CV. It is still a long time off before I receive the Essex class CVs.

I can not ask Ron since I have not heard from him since that turn.


_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 212
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/21/2006 2:46:21 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		The whole problem relates back to a big bitch about aircraft flying to thier death to make a naval strike in the UV days, because all aircraft would attempt to strike the CVs and get butchered by the CAP. It would have been better to fix the CAP and how it is modeled, but they chose instead to "fix" how targets were selected.

So we are left with a model that seeks to hit the undefended target and leave the heavily protected target alone. This has opened the door for the "soak off" TF made up of empty transports to attract the CV strikes and allow CV TFs to go untouched. I am not saying you did that Halsey, but it is a by product of that "fix".

Edited for spelling Drunk and dslexic is no way to go through life, but what choice do I have?
quote:

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)?

I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case.



I believe it was a surface action fleet that reacted.

I had something similar happen to me near the same place. Two of my CVs launched dive bombers on a transport TF and not the CV TF that was one hex closer. I did not get a strike in on his CVs and lost both of mine.

I was upset like you would not believe. I am holding on in that game with only CVEs and 1 CV. It is still a long time off before I receive the Essex class CVs.

I can not ask Ron since I have not heard from him since that turn.




< Message edited by denisonh -- 12/21/2006 2:58:51 AM >

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 213
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/21/2006 3:12:57 AM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

The whole problem relates back to a big bitch about aircraft flying to thier death to make a naval strike in the UV days, because all aircraft would attempt to strike the CVs and get butchered by the CAP. It would have been better to fix the CAP and how it is modeled, but they chose instead to "fix" how targets were selected.

So we are left with a model that seeks to hit the undefended target and leave the heavily protected target alone. This has opened the door for the "soak off" TF made up of empty transports to attract the CV strikes and allow CV TFs to go untouched. I am not saying you did that Halsey, but it is a by product of that "fix".


I have seen that tactic used on me before. Ron's CVs were just not in strike range, mine were but the CAP bug drove them from the CVs. That strike was even unescorted. I understand what Ron is trying to get acrossed by posting what he does. The game we were playing was modified by him in an attempt to fix A2A loses. The changes he made work to keep down the loses. I would even consider letting him change his moves with his CVs so the loss of them does not happen. I just like playing the game for the fun and challenge.

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 214
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/21/2006 6:41:57 PM   
jwxspoon


Posts: 167
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Myrtle Beach, SC USA
Status: offline 		I've had a half dozen opponents that quit after I killed their CV's.  Basically they bring out the CV's to fight, engage, and if they lose they quit.  I suspect that if they had won and the tables were turned around they'd be keen to continue.

In one of my games with Bill, my 3 US CV's were stalking his CVE's and made the mistake of getting a little too close. Close enough for his Kates to hit me, but not close enough for me to hit him. I lost Saratoga for no gain on that one. Next turn I corrected the mistake and was lucky enough to get all of his CVE's. C'est la Guerre.

That's why I really value playing Bill in both of my games with him - sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses.  But when you have 6 months of life into a game, you want an opponent to continue. It's a long war, and the Americans in particular can recover from CV losses.

jw

< Message edited by jwxspoon -- 12/21/2006 6:54:54 PM >

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 215
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/21/2006 7:05:25 PM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

That's why I really value playing Bill in both of my games with him - sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses. But when you have 6 months of life into a game, you want an opponent to continue. It's a long war, and the Americans in particular can recover from CV losses.


I have lost all of my starting CVs in the game as allies I have the Hornet and Wasp to arrives yet in that game. I can not remember what I was able to do against his carriers.

In the other game it is a 2 vs 1. I am playing the Japanese and they are giving me a hard time. I have lost all the Japanese CVLs and CVE against the America carriers in action in the South Pacific. They lost the Saratoga and I think Enterprise and Lexington took some hits.

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to jwxspoon)
Post #: 216
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/22/2006 1:05:49 AM   
wyrmmy


Posts: 214
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline 		The reaction stank, and I too have noticed the problem with strikes, I lost ALL of KB in March 42 in about the same place for Lex only. The tin can CV's and CVL's have managed to get York, Sara and Hornet since then, we are now in June 42. Watchin 1/2 of KB's strike go in against transports with the sara and York w/in one hex Almost made me quit.

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 217
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/22/2006 5:09:47 PM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		I am not saying there are not things that should be fix. There are.

1 Auto Convoys sending out lone ships with no escort.
2 Auto Convoys taking a path past a base within range of bombers.
3 Air units not flying that have good moral and low fatiuge.
4 Priority of targets for naval strikes.
5 Land movement hang ups.
6 Units not able to withdrawal from an enemy hex to disengage from combat.


I am sure there are other things that could be fix. The game as a whole I enjoy playing. I just hate to lose friends over a game. I am not sure if Ron will log back on to the forum or not but I have to heard from him.

< Message edited by ADM Halsey -- 12/22/2006 5:19:29 PM >

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to wyrmmy)
Post #: 218
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/22/2006 5:31:30 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well, it is war, **** happens. The way I view it is that if it is a game mechanic which applies equally to both sides then one should just roll with it but if it is a clear case of something being broken or only applying to one side or the other then calling the game off is reasonable.

To be fair though what happened here could have happened the other way round quite easily. It is bad luck and the result of poor programming but it could happen to either side and if you start calling games on the basis of things which could happen to both sides then no game would go beyond the first week.

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 219
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/24/2006 10:00:16 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline 		Reading the above posts I could not help but think the American and Japanese commanders at the Battle of Coral Sea felt much like the players do. Fletcher - "Why are my planes attacking a light carrier while two fleet carrierrs are out there?" Admiral Takagi " Why is my full strike attacking an oiler while two fleet carriers are out there?"


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 220
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/24/2006 11:04:06 PM   
wyrmmy


Posts: 214
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline 		It's not so much the strikes, as in my case, KB was on 0 react, follow invasion TF, and instead reacted to the carriers, but did not strike at them, but at merchants. If that were the case, they should have reacted to the merchants.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 221
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/27/2006 6:48:23 PM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		That is kind of the way I was looking at it when I lost my American CVs. Your Pilots are sent out on a course to the last known position of the enemy ships. What if the spotters made a mistake? What happens when your pilots get over the target and realize that there are no carriers to be hit? Do they continue to search the area and maybe not find anything? Do they return to the carriers with their bombs dropped on they way into the ocean? Do they attack the shipping then return to get off another strike before dark?

< Message edited by ADM Halsey -- 12/27/2006 7:56:27 PM >

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to wyrmmy)
Post #: 222
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/28/2006 3:32:40 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models.

I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

That is kind of the way I was looking at it when I lost my American CVs. Your Pilots are sent out on a course to the last known position of the enemy ships. What if the spotters made a mistake? What happens when your pilots get over the target and realize that there are no carriers to be hit? Do they continue to search the area and maybe not find anything? Do they return to the carriers with their bombs dropped on they way into the ocean? Do they attack the shipping then return to get off another strike before dark?
[/quot


_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 223
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/28/2006 6:48:57 PM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models.

I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP.


What can be done to fix the problem?

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 224
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/29/2006 1:26:10 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		The only option available short of a patch are house rules and scenario mods.

Some of the problems would be improved with the inclusion of a better command and control model. The differentiation of computer controlled and human controlled actions overlap in a seemingly "haphazard" level, making the human at times a tactical commander and at other times an operational commander. Modeling the command and control properly to link player decisions to operations planning and subsequent execution at tactical level would go a long way in addressing this issue. Only problem is that would be a major programming change and not likely for WitP at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

quote:

Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models.

I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP.


What can be done to fix the problem?



_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 225
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 1/17/2007 3:04:20 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Heyho. Well, it has been a month away from this latest frustrating one sided battle and I'm less stressed. Did not help that I was awaiting a response from the medics regarding a tumour biopsy in my head! Benign thankfully. I wonder if the tumour is WITPs fault...being so close to a monitor for years?! My big arse beef regarding this result is that yet again the Allied CVs get pounded without launching (every CV battle Bill and I've had in both our games have been one sided with the Japs launching over two air phases at extreme range and the Allied CVs never launching or reacting one hex to close the range).

This is not exactly sour grapes. For one thing, Bill and I are playing two games, one in 43 which I'm winning as Allies (no CVs lost on either side despite two CV exchanges where the USN was hit at extreme IJN range and unable to respond against IJN CVs) and this one in mid 42 which Bill is leading. I'm not throwing in the towel because of one bad result, we have had three consecutive one sided exchanges in two games (100% of the CV battles) which just does not wash IMO. Secondly, ust for the record, can anyone post an historical example of a CV exchange where one side had the range advantage in aircraft endurance and the opposing CVs could not reply during the same period due to shorter ranged aircraft? (The IJN strikes by Ozawa during Phillipine Sea can't be mentioned here as they launched well outside their own range and were to utilize Marianas airstrips between themselves and the USN TFs, which is one of the many things the game can't handle) The naval air model is not really capable of handling the range differences in aircraft because of its' inherent level of abstractness. Not only can't a Midway result happen with aircraft caught on a carriers deck when the enemy is within range of each other (unless of course the Allies get nailed at range extreme range...the only way a Midway result happens it seems, especially since the search model is so generous to the recon aircraft) but I've sat through three consecutive CV "battles" where the Allies get creamed at long range and don't respond, despite having friendly air bases between themselves and the enemy CVs (which would also permit a launch and safe recovery in lieu of the TFs themselves closing the range to allow recovery). The reaction rules fail to alleviate this because folks tend to set reaction to 0 or 1 to reign in the uncontrollable urge of CVs to close vastly superior forces regardless of a setting of zero reaction, damage, LBA, cautious COs and lastly the inability of TFs set to follow to do just that if the lead TF reacts (basically each TF reacts and does not remain cohesive resulting in your TFs being spread out over multiple haexes and open to destruction in detail).

In lieu of any programming modifications the only thing I can think of to make this acceptable is to equalize the ranges of naval aircraft to ensure mutual exchanges within this very abstract model. Hard to handle playing for a year only to have something totally unrealistic and strategically decisive happen such as CVs not launching because of the limitations of the model whereas in real life every CV battle we experienced with the IJN pounding the Allies at extreme range with impunity would have seen mutual air group launchings instead.

I still have the games and saves on my PC Bill. If there was a way we could fix this so that both our CVs launched then I'd be happy to continue. Longer term fixes outside of database adjustments or reprogramming might be as simple as limiting the max launch range for Jap CV aircraft to the max of the Allied CV aircraft.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to jwxspoon)
Post #: 226
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 1/17/2007 4:05:11 PM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 227
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 1/17/2007 5:35:04 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.


PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc?


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 228
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 1/17/2007 6:08:41 PM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.


PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc?



I will adjust the range from 5 to 4 for IJN carrier planes. Then lets see what happens after that.

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 229
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 1/17/2007 9:15:55 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.


PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc?



I will adjust the range from 5 to 4 for IJN carrier planes. Then lets see what happens after that.


OK. I'll resend the turn. Interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I dislike redos but this is a serious flaw IMO.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ADM Halsey)
Post #: 230
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 12/5/2007 12:18:46 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Wow. I'm in such serious withdrawl I looked this AAR up today. We replayed the turn and if I remember correctly the CVs did not react to each other but an Allied surface combat TF reacted to a Japanese invasion TF and ended up in one of the Fiji base hexes, stopped, and got ponded by KB. Why it reacted I have no idea as the Japanese Transport TF did not even move towards Fiji. If one is to have a reaction feature, one also needs a proper withdrawl feature, preferably a more user's intention orders feature with a multitude of player selected "conditions" from which to chose from so units react with more variation yet reasonably within a player's intent. Also what is needed is some sort of UI capability which facilitates friendly TF interaction. Right now all we have is the "follow" order which fails once the reaction routines are triggered.

I'm really curious as to what the big announcement is on Pearl Harbor Day. Maybe something has been implemented to alleviate these and many other issues and make the game mechanics less frustrating. I've always enjoyed a tough challenge and play through adversity through play of the game (nothing like getting pounded by a good player like Bill and weathering the result), I just find it difficult to play through mechanics issues.

How's it going Bill, by the way?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 231
RE: Carrier action off Fiji - 2/29/2008 5:58:43 PM   
ADM Halsey


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		I tried to respond to your IM but it said you in box is full.

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 232
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Carrier action off Fiji Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328