Re: Differing views

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: Differing views

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: Differing views

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Differing views - 5/23/2002 6:15:19 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Greetings, I have been in accord with your request for the options. I also have described how to avoid the problem in lieu of a patch (not ready yet) I also have noticed the 'micro managers' have not had the bad LBA reaction. If you leave those decisions to the AI before there exists the option you will continue to get the result you do not desire. Since the issue is really one of control. The micro mangers will most likely after a patch is made available continue to manage their TF's as before.
If my recon spotted a TF approaching as described above I would direct it's movements as I saw fit. The TF near Lunga would not trigger my TF into a bad reaction. (I don't want my TF's reacting period. except for the limited reaction for tactical reasons that already takes place when TF is set to "do not react"
There is no problem dgaad, everyone is in favor of the requested toggle. My expressions are just for the present conditions. In regard to Deep Blue you again missed my real point. The AI cannot adjust it's behavior to your plans, you must adjust your plans and operational control to the AI. Having an AI that could understand what you really intend when you make and deploy and move a TF would require quite a bit more interface. No matter how many options for TF behavior are installed the micro managers will still have better results since they are moving their assets according to their plan rather then adjusting the plan every turn to account for how the AI moved the TF's. My TF's never go into a hex unless I expressly tell them to. (except of course for that very minor tactical adjustment reaction)
It is not my nature or desire to make posts merely to disagree with someone else. If I cannot make a positive contribution as a response I refrain from posting anything. I have been trying to show players who encounter the LBA reaction there are ways of avoiding it, only this and nothing more. Styles of play and operational outlooks are the concerns of each person and nobody's business but their own. If I have sounded like I am criticizing anyone I am sorry since this was not my aim. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mogami, I apologize if I misunderstood your position. I am in general agreement with most of the points you make here, in particular that the micro-managers will continue to tweak and work as they have before. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I have to explain that in another game platform (Cossacks) I was requesting additional scenario controls as options, and I got deluged with people essentially saying : "No, we don't want more options, its fine the way it is." I can't understand that :rolleyes:

Anyway, you've stated your concerns and positions very clearly here, and they are good.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 31

Re: LBA React Options - 5/23/2002 6:18:47 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]As I posted in the other thread related to this topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering this option. However, it clearly needs to be hashed out more than just "avoid LBA" given some of the ranges in the game.[/B][/QUOTE] I agree with you on this Erik. You see, there already IS an "automatic" setting that is somewhat arbitrary: "React to the enemy". Because that reaction is made irrespective of tactical cirmcumstances, it would seem to be within the purpose and intent of the rule perhaps to permit limits to be specified on the extent of that "reaction".

I too do not want to give players too much control over the tactical naval game; the uncertainty really captures the nature of the subject matter well. But refining an existing SOP mechanism is not changing the nature of the game.

I say let's analyze this thing. Surely, if the answer is "just don't use the 'react' setting", then why have that setting AT ALL? Huh? :)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 32

- 5/23/2002 6:21:44 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

Having an option on each TF display that says "no matter what happens, don't go within X distance of an enemy airbase" would be very useful. This setting would be in effect (even for reaction moves) for that TF unless overridden by direct orders to "go to this hex". This setting would be highly useful to help ELIMINATE micro-managing of TF's in general, especially if TF's would then "skirt" enemy airbases by that distance when plotting their course. It'd be kind of like the AZOC's in PacWar, only you'd be specifying the zone of control.

If I have to go around an enemy airbase, I'd rather do it at 250-500 lb bomb range than "torpedo and 1000lb bomb" range. I've had TF's at sea "parking" midway through a turn waiting for me to micromanage their way through/around danger areas. Unless there's a way to set the actual TF paths I haven't found yet?

First impressions of the game BTW...blue. Way too much blue, every dang thing is babypuke blue, after 12 hours I'm sick unto death of blue. Please, I'm begging you...add some color and variety to the menus in the patch!!!! Other than that, everything is greeeeeeat. Stuff like the discussion here is just minor fine-tuning and/or personal preferences...game play is outstanding.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 33

- 5/23/2002 6:22:00 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
[B]

So I hope it is now crystal clear that we do not want the "react to enemy" option anticipate all our ideas. We just want it to be sensible to a degree that it can be trusted in those 75% of not-so-vital-and-decisive situations, that's all.

The debate is in fact comparable to the CAP issue. We don't demand the routine to organize the CAP *perfectly*. Just that it does its job better to a degree where we can concentrate on other things, and only micromanage the CAP when it is really important.

Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

I think this is right on target, Hartmann. I wouldn't want a control that takes the tactics out of strategy. I'm envisioning just a simple additional TF control that prevents a fleet from entering LBA range when its set to React. That way, we get the benefit of a react move when it benefits us as players, and we don't just simply turn it off because the control behavior is completly stupid.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 34

A "Less than excellant tactician" checks in - 5/23/2002 10:05:27 AM

NorthStar

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline

I'm probably way below the discussion level on this thread, but I though dgaad made a good point a few posts back.

Personally, I've been looking forward to this game for months, but I'm still not completely convinced I'll ever be able to wrap my brain around it. I'm just not that good, and I don't have all that much time to learn it.

That being said, any options that reduces the grunt work of gaming will be very welcome, and make the game that much more attractive.

Mogami makes a lot of good points about maintaining operation control of the fleet, and not letting task force commander mess things up. But real theater commanders have staffs which help them with record keeping and information tracking. My assumption is that a theater commander would not have to say, "make sure you park the carriers 200 miles off Truk" -- trying to remember exactly what the aircraft ranges are. Rather, he could say "Move against Truk, but stay out of LBA range". His staff could find the data, and make sure the TF commander is properly informed to carry out the theater commander's orders.

What dgaad and the others are asking for is tools to make this kind of thing happen, without intense micro-management.

Those who micro-manage everything themselves -- like Mogami -- will certainly get significantly more performance out of the game and their units than those of us who don't. However, those of us who don't will be lot more likely to stick with the game if the tools are there for us to use -- at least at 75% efficiency. And we'll have noone but ourselves to blame when things go wrong.

The Operational Art of War II is a game worth mentioning in this context. It is (IMHO) a good game. However, it is definitely missing some tools which would make it that much more accessible, and therefore that much more likely to earn a permanent place on my hard drive. (For instance, a way to highlight out of supply units would be nice.)

Anyway, just some thoughts from the less operationally gifted.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 35

- 5/23/2002 10:19:34 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew Offen
[B]Can someone help clarify exactly what the current reaction rules mean in terms of actual distance covered? How far will a CV TF actually move in order to get into strike range of an enemy CV. In my experience it seemed a huge distance and kind of implied the distance was a full 12 hour impulse at max speed. That could be as far as 8 hexes or so. Is this wrong? [/B][/QUOTE]

Good question. As the game scale is 30 miles to the hex, and each day is 24 hours, and the speed of a CV group is generally 30-32 miles per hour, a CV group could theoretically move 24 hexes in one turn. If a CV group has not moved at all in the previous turn, I don't know if a react move would use all the entire 24 hexes for a react. But typically, I've seen reacts at around 6-12 hexes, which is about half the movement, depending on the situation. In my play I would expect a CV TF to react and move about 10 hexes to any enemy carrier spot, giving them an effective strike range of up to 17 hexes (since the Dauntless range is 7 hexes).

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 36

- 5/23/2002 11:00:06 AM

Andrew Offen

Posts: 11
Joined: 10/29/2000
From: Singapore
Status: offline

Looks like a CV TF will react to the full extent of a max speed move. When you toggle the show ship move radius to on, they will react as far as the outer yellow line (consuming vast quantities of fuel in the process).

I would strongly support the suggestion made to put a player controllable limit on the closest distance a TF will move from a known enemy airfield. This would also be very helpful when controlling normal TF movement as well as applying a much more sensible reaction regime for the AI.

The default can be set to "no limit" leaving those who don't like the idea the option to not use it but for those of us who would it would be a great boost to playabilty.

Rgds
Andrew

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 37

Testing Commander influence - 5/23/2002 11:06:20 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I have just finished a little test. Scenario 17 hotseat (so I could control both sides and insure the test was the same every time.
I formed a CV TF with Zuikaku and Shokaku under Nagumo
US CV TF under Spruance.
moved both TF to area around Gilli (north for IJN south for USN)

Put both TF under react. 3 times there was always reaction leading to battle

Did same test again only replaced Nagumo with Yamaguchi
left Spruance.
3 times always a reaction only battles occurred at least 1 day sooner since Yamaguchi reacted with longer moves. Once from 6 hex NE of Woodlark to 3 hex west of Gilli (a move that would have given me a heart attack in an actual game)
The farthest Nagumo had ever reacted was 6 hexes but he stayed north of Gilli

Of course the description of Nagumo is cautious and Yamaguchi is aggressive.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 38

- 5/23/2002 11:11:32 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

How many hexes were moved by each fleet Mogami? We'd all like to know.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 39

Reaction distance - 5/23/2002 12:27:23 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, If Japanese recon planes reported US carriers Yamaguchi always moved in that direction. Spruance always reacted but sometimes he appeared to move away rather then towards.(if the IJN reacted first he sometimes moved away rather then towards)
Nagumo would move toward the enemy but only far enough to get in range (Yamaguchi behaved like he would want the escorts to split off for a surface fight next day)
If the US spotted the enemy first Spruance would move into range if he could, if not he would move to the limit of Japanese aircraft range (to be ready next day) He never moved north of Woodlark (but this might be only because i had him stationed 10 hexes south of Gilli with the IJN carriers 10 hexes north of Gilli.
I wanted both fleets beyond range of aircraft before reaction moves. Yamaguchi once even reacted to a TF that was in fact Neosho and Sims. I was suprised to see Spruance moving away from the enemy rather then towards them but the moves did leave him where PM could support him. Which leaders have gone up to Rabaul? Yamaguchi clearly pays no attention to the danger from PM (he moved well into escorted strike range 2 out of 3 times he reacted)
Some one else run a few tests to compare results.

(I will be gone for a while. In my solo scenario 17 as allies I have a carrier versus carrier situation developing on 9 May)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 40

Silly AI - 5/23/2002 1:55:40 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Greetings, On 9 May weather overcast transports are unloading the 7th Aus Div at PM. US CV TF under Spruance 12 hexes south of Gilli IJN CV TF spotted in channel 2 hexes ne of Gilli. I did not want to risk my CV except to protect the transports so I moved in nw direction placing me 10 Hexes SW of Gilli (I was uncertain whether IJN would move along north coast of NG to attack transports or come south.)
10 May weather raining I moved north (14,43) to be within SBD range if IJN had moved north Japanese transports had unloaded on Gilli several days earlier and I wanted to be in position to strike any follow on TF. My recon being provided by the 4 CA with the CV (each CA has 4 floatplanes I launched 2 from each) and another CA TF under Lee (3 CA 1 CL 5 DD) I did not expect the battle that resulted when enemy TF appeared in hex right next to mine. (Japs moved south when moving along NG coast would have been just as good for reaching my transports, prehaps they had after all spotted my CV the day before. (If I had seen them spot me I would have moved full speed to the west) I had changed CAP from 20 to 50 percent.
Spruance got off a good strike and it appears won a DV

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/10/42

Air attack on TF at 15,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 32

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 23
SBD Dauntless x 72
TBD Devastator x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 3 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 11 damaged
TBD Devastator x 7 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 2 damaged

LCDR N.Reese of VT-5 is KILLED

Japanese Ships
CVL Shoho, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CA Myoko, Bomb hits 1
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
CA Haguro

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 15,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18

Allied aircraft
Hudson x 6
Wirraway x 5
P-39D Airacobra x 11
A-24 Dauntless x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson x 1 destroyed
Hudson x 1 damaged
Wirraway x 2 destroyed
Wirraway x 1 damaged

WO T.Nikaido of EIII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

SLDR K. Hampshire of 23rd RAAF Squadron is KILLED

Japanese Ships
CVL Shoho, on fire, heavy damage
CV Shokaku, on fire, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x Hudson at 6000 feet
4 x Hudson at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 14,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 34
D3A Val x 38
B5N Kate x 46

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 15

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 7 damaged
B5N Kate x 9 destroyed
B5N Kate x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 damaged

CPO V.Kamisaka of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LCDR W.Isaacs of VF-42 is KILLED

Allied Ships
CV Yorktown, Bomb hits 4
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 1
CA Astoria
DD Morris
CA Chester, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

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

The rain prevented a second strike, the IJN TF has split and I've ordered Lee to move to their present location at full speed and we will track them day by day till he finds them. Spruance is moving 5 hexes south east to be in position for another battle on the 11th. There was no message concerning the IJN TF 2nd strike being cancelled by weather so I am hoping they can not do flight ops. Damage to Lex and Yorktown very minor.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 41

2nd impressions - 5/23/2002 11:12:56 PM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

Having read most of the posts here I can see the point of those who are not into micro-managing their forces. IMHO, I don't see any other way of playing the game and succeeding but to each his own. Gary's games, esp. PacWar have always involved a high level of detail and user control. Many people complained about PacWar that is was too detailed and not user friendly. UV is much more "accessable". There is an answer to avoiding the LBA - put timid commanders in charge of your TF's. Still NO need for a new setting, IMHO.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 42

- 5/23/2002 11:21:22 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

IMHO the react behavior takes ZERO cognizance of LBA threats, timid commanders or not. Try some experiments with cautious commanders. Even if you can get them to react against a carrier group, they will do so oblivious to LBA.

The fact that many micromanagers will not care about a new TF behavior control is irrelevant. What does it hurt to add a new one? Is opposition to the concept explained by the desire of micromanagers to have useless or no features so that micromanagers can beat the non-micromanagers in a PBEM game?

The react setting for carrier groups, given active enemy LBA, is for all intents and purposes useless. I want a useful TF behavior control for carrier TFs.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 43

Micro Managers - 5/24/2002 4:04:26 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Greetings, The game will evolve no doubt in response to what the players suggest and want. Having a few more options won't hurt. I really do think the issue is more one of playing style. In an area where I only have one TF of CV I don't think of it as micro managing to give it explicit orders. If someone else wants the computer controlling their CV's why not let them? I am thinking of these settings all being possible at one time
1. Human/computer TF control
2. Retire/patrol (from enemy TF)
3. react/don't react
4. retire/don't retire from LBA (this would be triggered by detection and amount of enemy LBA known)
5. approach/don't approach range from a specific base-(would use the set target method of selection)

Mainly these settings would help the AI in human versus AI games but humans who don't want to control their TF's could also use them.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 44

Overreaction - 5/24/2002 8:16:12 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

Yes, Mogami, there certainly has been a bit of an overreaction to this point. The suggestion is not to enhance some AI routine that will assist the player; it is one simply to refine an existing command that currently ignores the most critical of considerations! Whether a CV TF Cdr decides to "react" or not would certainly be based on his proximity to enemy LBA. Currently, that is not considered in ANY of the calculations. Truly, given that there is an "auto react" mechanism already, allowing a player to specify restrictions (as in how close to go to an enemy air base, e.g.) is reasonable in the extreme.

Let's not get too wrapped up in individual style. Fact is, the "react" command was intended to relieve some folks of micromanagement. For those who wish it, it ought to have some rational restraints as well... :cool:

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 45

Re: Overreaction - 5/24/2002 6:45:39 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]Fact is, the "react" command was intended to relieve some folks of micromanagement. For those who wish it, it ought to have some rational restraints as well... :cool: [/B][/QUOTE]

And Capitaine has yet another good point : something intended to relieve players of micromanagement is in fact useless for Carrier TFs, thus providing no relief at all.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 46

- 6/10/2002 5:35:21 AM

sbattler

Posts: 6
Joined: 6/10/2002
From: Threshold of Hell
Status: offline

Test :rolleyes:

_____________________________

"Don't you wish...you just might git it!"

Anonomous CSA Pvt, 1862

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 47

- 6/10/2002 10:11:58 PM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

The AI in general is not handling the threat of LBA well. In the Solomons I had Shortland ringed with powerful LBA assets and the AI continued to conduct business as usual out of Shortland. Countless ships from CV's and BB's to at least 50 AP's sit at the bottom of Shortland's harbor.

Either the AI is completely ignoring LBA or there is a problem in how it labels it a threat. Shortland should have been abandoned to shipping -excepting MAYBE emergency convoys- it was that dangerous.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 48