Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves.

 
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 >> Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Another reason why we should be able to set air mission... - 12/21/2002 12:27:17 PM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
I sent my Jap CV task force to attack a worn down AI CV force who had plenty of fighters but few bombers. We both had several fleets in the area but the only one I cared about was the AI CV force. So I set my planes on naval attack and my fighters to escort and what does the wonderful computer choose for my planes to do. It sends all my bombers straight into the AI CV cap without any escort and they are promptly massacred. And it sends all my escorts with about 8 vals to attack a few cruisers. So instead of being able to destroy the AI carriers I lose my entire bomber groups. Yay for not being able to do anything logical that any simple minded commander would know to do!!!!!! And I dont want to hear anything about thats how it could have happened in history because no commander would send all his escorts with a few bombers and then send almost all his bombers with no escorts at all. Please please fix this for WITP!!!!!
Post #: 1
- 12/21/2002 1:00:53 PM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline
I have to agree with you iceboy. The fighter escort should have gone with the group where it would be needed.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 2
- 12/21/2002 1:13:54 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
So you lost and you're pissed. Welcome to the club.

Game on.

Ain't nothin' to be fixed. Your subordinates are idiots and your command control network is gibberish. Reality is a b*tch.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 3
Re: Another reason why we should be able to set air mis... - 12/22/2002 3:21:52 AM   
Matt Erickson

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: santa barbra, calif
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy
[B]I sent my Jap CV task force to attack a worn down AI CV force who had plenty of fighters but few bombers. We both had several fleets in the area but the only one I cared about was the AI CV force. So I set my planes on naval attack and my fighters to escort and what does the wonderful computer choose for my planes to do. It sends all my bombers straight into the AI CV cap without any escort and they are promptly massacred. And it sends all my escorts with about 8 vals to attack a few cruisers. So instead of being able to destroy the AI carriers I lose my entire bomber groups. Yay for not being able to do anything logical that any simple minded commander would know to do!!!!!! And I dont want to hear anything about thats how it could have happened in history because no commander would send all his escorts with a few bombers and then send almost all his bombers with no escorts at all. Please please fix this for WITP!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]

This is precisly what does NOT NEED TO BE DONE....plotting ones move to the decimal point has long be the bane of many a wargame matrix has eliminated most of this...TO WHINE AND CRY THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to beat the algorithim sends the wrong message to matrix....please do not make any changes regarding this.:p

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 4
- 12/22/2002 3:58:48 AM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
We will not be changing this for this game. Remeber you are not directing things from the front but a rear office.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 5
- 12/22/2002 5:43:01 AM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath
[B]We will not be changing this for this game. Remeber you are not directing things from the front but a rear office. [/B][/QUOTE]

Can we at least get the escorts to go with the majority of the bombers and not just a little group of 3 or 4? I need my main attack force protected not a few planes that go off on their own little mission. Im sorry I just dont see this actually happening no matter who is commanding. I love the game its the best Ive ever played Im just looking for perfection :)

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 6
Please... - 12/22/2002 5:54:03 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]Ain't nothin' to be fixed. Your subordinates are idiots and your command control network is gibberish. Reality is a b*tch.
------------
Originally posted by Matt Erickson
This is precisly what does NOT NEED TO BE DONE....plotting ones move to the decimal point has long be the bane of many a wargame matrix has eliminated most of this...TO WHINE AND CRY THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to beat the algorithim sends the wrong message to matrix....please do not make any changes regarding this.:p [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL You guys have got to be kidding. Captain of that carrier is supposed to have an IQ over 50. And one would expect him to be able to plan rudimentary air operations.

But in the example given this is NOT the case. To send ALL of your fighters to "protect" 8 bombers from the awesome CAP that those cruisers can put up and decide that the bulk of bombers attacking the enemy aircraft carrier does not need any escort is plain stupid. :rolleyes:

Directing from the rear is all fine... and I like that. THAT is why I bought the game. But, when this happens then give me the ability to have the man responsible brought up on charges and hung. :mad:

Seriously, if I am to be "...directing things from the...rear office.” only then the game developers have to provide adequate AI . Anything less in a game that can take (literally) months to play out turns it into an exercise in frustration.

And if I spend several weeks swapping turns via email and a game/plan/battle is blow by some stupid AI move like this... yeah I will be a bit pissed off because NO CARRIER CAPT IN THE WOULD BE SO STUPID AS TO DO THIS

And if it happens over and over I put the game away, don’t play it, sell it and frankly think twice about buying again (just being blunt/honest). I expect enjoyment from my games, not frustration.

At this point I have enjoyed the TWO games I have played. But posts like this have me worried...

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 7
- 12/22/2002 8:40:33 AM   
Matt Erickson

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: santa barbra, calif
Status: offline
three words....."torpedo squadron eight"...these arguments have been played over and over again...maybe you should consult the japanese commander and ask him why he sent all his planes to attack and oiler an some destroyers at coral sea.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 8
airstrikes - 12/22/2002 8:53:29 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Often the strike is launched with fighter escort, The strike breaks up into smaller groups enroute and you see
50 fighters escorting 18 divebombers
followed by a strike of 40 divebombers
followed by a strike of 20 torpedo planes
followed by 15 fighters 30 divebombers 15 torpedo planes

It's not the carriers launching strikes unescorted or in clumps, it's just the way they arrive. After the early "broken" strikes you will see 65 fighters escorting 88 divebombers 35 torpedo planes


(The USN strikes at Midway were largely unescorted as a result of this "breaking up")

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 9
- 12/22/2002 9:09:43 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
Yes! Finally someone has pointed out the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the original post. Namely, the possibility that the fighters got separated from the bombers they were supposed to be escorting, and then managed to visually pick up the smaller bomber group and escorted them instead, either not realizing it was the wrong group or else not having any other options besides turning back and not escorting anyone at all. And it makes sense for them to escort somebody in any event ... for example, what if the enemy carrier TF changed course unexpectedly, and those handful of bombers happen to be the only ones who actually find the enemy carriers?

This type of thing happened many times during the war. An assumption that the stupid fleet commander must have planned it the way that it happened is suggestive of someone who bases too much of their WWII knowledge on wargames (where in most cases perfect micromanagement is available), rather than on the kind of things that actually happened historically. UV is one of the few games that gives us the latter experience, and I want it to stay that way, even after I've finished cursing my own squadron commanders for not always going exactly where I wanted and hitting the exact targets I wanted. ("Why are you idiots attacking the destroyer when there's a fleet carrier right there? Argh!") Welcome to simulated reality.

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 10
- 12/22/2002 9:26:28 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy
[B]Can we at least get the escorts to go with the majority of the bombers and not just a little group of 3 or 4? I need my main attack force protected not a few planes that go off on their own little mission. Im sorry I just dont see this actually happening no matter who is commanding. I love the game its the best Ive ever played Im just looking for perfection :) [/B][/QUOTE]

But why should you get perfection? Nimitz didn't get perfection. All too often, he instead got fleet commanders who went on goose chases while forgetting their assigned mission, cloud layers between escorts and bombers that caused them to lose track of each other almost immediately, squadrons commanders who led their bombers off in totally unplanned directions because they thought they knew better than the strike planner where the enemy would be (and once in a blue moon they actually did!), etc. etc. etc.

You may not "see this actually happening no matter who is commanding", but real world commanders in WWII saw it on a regular basis.

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 11
- 12/22/2002 10:14:03 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Yep. Frustration is part of the game. Dealing with the sh1t sandwich you got handed today as theater commander is part of what makes this game so good (although that sounds a little too much like my day job ...).

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 12
- 12/22/2002 10:27:30 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]Yes! Finally someone has pointed out the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the original post. Namely, the possibility that the fighters got separated from the bombers they were supposed to be escorting, and then managed to visually pick up the smaller bomber group and escorted them instead, either not realizing it was the wrong group or else not having any other options besides turning back and not escorting anyone at all. And it makes sense for them to escort somebody in any event ... for example, what if the enemy carrier TF changed course unexpectedly, and those handful of bombers happen to be the only ones who actually find the enemy carriers?

This type of thing happened many times during the war. An assumption that the stupid fleet commander must have planned it the way that it happened is suggestive of someone who bases too much of their WWII knowledge on wargames (where in most cases perfect micromanagement is available), rather than on the kind of things that actually happened historically. UV is one of the few games that gives us the latter experience, and I want it to stay that way, even after I've finished cursing my own squadron commanders for not always going exactly where I wanted and hitting the exact targets I wanted. ("Why are you idiots attacking the destroyer when there's a fleet carrier right there? Argh!") Welcome to simulated reality. [/B][/QUOTE]


Exactly Dsanberg. Nicely put

Iceboy, are you even sure that ALL your fighters were sent with the 8 vals? Did you count them? Maybe your other strike's escort just got seperated. Also are you aware that multiple strikes happen at different times of the day. Example; your first strike lagainst CVs launched in the morning, escort gets losts your bombers find target. Second strike against CA's is luanched in the afternoon, escort doesnt get lost.

Like it or not things like this did happen historically.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 13
- 12/23/2002 2:02:54 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Mistakes like escorts becoming seperated or scouts misidentifying ships and thus bombers attacking 'wrong' targets etc. did happen historically - and they also happen in UV, which is nice and okay.
I think the main problem is REALLY STUPID target selection, like the "3 Hudsons sent to attack MSW vessels in Rabaul harbor only to be shot down by CAP - and my commander at PM sends three more Hudsons the next day, and the next, and so on - although there are easier, more important and more rewarding targets nearby en masse".
So, the AI-driven subordinates should be better in their target selection and should avoid pointless attacks. The 'abort'-function for aircraft during combat resolution is a step too late to remedy the situation.
Btw, being able to set player-controlled air missions targets in UV does not necessarily have to lead to 'perfection' - although the AI commanders should try to carry out orders to attack a specific TF or specific types of ships or leave certain areas alone, the above mentioned mistakes could still happen.

_____________________________


(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 14
- 12/23/2002 8:34:48 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
Yes I agree

And I grow very, very tired of hearing people continue to point out the exceptionally stupid/bad/silly things that happend in real life try to use them to justify things I have seen in 100% of the games I have played (abit that is only three games now).

The point is they were exceptions in real life. I have seen these insane "choices" in every single major fleet action now in three games. :mad: Some by my AI commanders...some by the IJN commanders. Both weaken the game.

If someone can point me to where escorts attacked CAs 100% of the time in real life while ignoring the divebombers attacking the CV's I will stand corrected (for instance). :rolleyes:

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 15
- 12/23/2002 11:36:50 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]If someone can point me to where escorts attacked CAs 100% of the time in real life while ignoring the divebombers attacking the CV's I will stand corrected (for instance). :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Will you settle for me informing you that fighters escorting attacks on surface combat fleets rather than air combat fleets is an exception rather than a rule when I play UV? And based upon my UV experience, I have a very hard time believing that you've had this happening 100% of the time. You're taking your hyperbole in rather too large of doses, I suspect. :p

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 16
- 12/23/2002 12:01:25 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Time to revive a poll I see.

This has been hashed out before and there was even a poll on this subject. As it turned out, 50% of the players wanted no change to the system while 50% wanted to set their own priorities.

I am one of the ones who voted to keep the system unchanged. Learn to laugh when these things happen and your playing experience will be much more enjoyable. Drongo has taught me the value of laughing at the many stupid things that happen in UV. And now I have come to like some of these small entertainments in sheer stupidity.

So leave the system alone! :cool:

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 17
- 12/23/2002 12:10:26 PM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline
Agreed. Leave the system alone. The unpredictability is part of the fun.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 18
- 12/23/2002 12:50:36 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
Grumbling grog,

You stand corrected, becuase it hasnt happen to me 100% of the time. In fact I have been playing for 7 months and its never happen to me. Either you are incredibly unlucky or you are replaying the same saved turn over and over. In which case you will get the same result over in over.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 19
- 12/23/2002 1:29:19 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
You've got to remember that even the most experienced of us are still rookies at UV. The game is just now emerging from its shakedown cruise with the issuance of patch 2.20.

A perfect example of how we need to improve our game play before we criticize the system is found in an earlier post:

"I think the main problem is REALLY STUPID target selection, like the "3 Hudsons sent to attack MSW vessels in Rabaul harbor only to be shot down by CAP - and my commander at PM sends three more Hudsons the next day, and the next, and so on - although there are easier, more important and more rewarding targets nearby en masse".

You have the tools to stop this from happening, and there's no reason it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Obviously, there's a squadron of Hudsons out there within range of Rabaul. Obviously, there are no long-range fighters available for escort. Obviously, the squadron is set for naval attack. Obviously, this Hudson squadron is launching only three aircraft for a reason, possibly lack of supply, lack of air support, lack of an air HQ nearby, lack of morale, lack of rest, or some other lack. So three Hudsons were lost on the first day. Before the second day dawned, it was time to make a change. I don't have all the facts here, but it looks to me like this poor bunch of suckers needed to be taken off of naval attack before more of 'em got their butts shot off. I find that Hudsons are much better used as search or ASW aircraft than as naval strike planes, anyway. What gets 'em into trouble here, apparently, is their range. So put 'em to work doing something they won't get murdered at.

The point is that we are all learning, and we don't know it all yet. We certainly don't know enough at this point to be clamoring for wholesale changes in the game's approach to its subject.

I say we should refine our own skills and then revisit these topics. Every PBEM game I have played and am playing teaches me more about how to play UV, often the hard way. I am grateful to the game system for its richness, and I am grateful to my opponents (yes, even the decrepit old AI) for kicking my @$$ and giving me the opportunity to learn.

As old Lodge Skins said in his death talk in Little Big Man, "Thank you for my victories. Thank you for my defeats."

Let's go get defeated for awhile, eh?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 20
- 12/23/2002 4:55:45 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]
"I think the main problem is REALLY STUPID target selection, like the "3 Hudsons sent to attack MSW vessels in Rabaul harbor only to be shot down by CAP - and my commander at PM sends three more Hudsons the next day, and the next, and so on - although there are easier, more important and more rewarding targets nearby en masse".

You have the tools to stop this from happening, and there's no reason it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Obviously, there's a squadron of Hudsons out there within range of Rabaul. Obviously, there are no long-range fighters available for escort. Obviously, the squadron is set for naval attack. Obviously, this Hudson squadron is launching only three aircraft for a reason, possibly lack of supply, lack of air support, lack of an air HQ nearby, lack of morale, lack of rest, or some other lack. So three Hudsons were lost on the first day. Before the second day dawned, it was time to make a change. I don't have all the facts here, but it looks to me like this poor bunch of suckers needed to be taken off of naval attack before more of 'em got their butts shot off. I find that Hudsons are much better used as search or ASW aircraft than as naval strike planes, anyway. What gets 'em into trouble here, apparently, is their range. So put 'em to work doing something they won't get murdered at.
[/B][/QUOTE]

They wouldn't have get murdered if my AI-commander didn't insist on sending them unescorted to CAP-covered Rabaul - instead of attacking the Jap APs off Buna, for example.
This happens to me all the time in the early days of the #16 and #17 scenarios when the AI (or human opponent) tries to grab Buna and Gili-Gili. The Hudson squadron in question starts at PM, supplies and air support there are at least ample, long-range escorts and air HQs are not yet available, morale and rest is not an issue because they are set to naval attack with no secondary mission and thus only fly those suicide mission to Rabaul, and even with the losses over Rabaul morale remains high and fatigue low (since only a fraction of the squadron actually flies).

The Hudson is a mediocre bomber (a militarized civilian plane) and shouldn't be used for attack missions if possible, especially not outside escort range against defended targets - agreed. But in my case
- they are close to where they are needed (basing them in Northern Australia would keep them out of Rabaul, but bomb load, morale and fatigue would suffer when attacking targets in PNG)
- they are the bomber unit with the highest experience available (and experience matters in obtaining hits, the B-25 & 26 in Australia have low experience and btw would suffer fatigue upon transfer to PM, making them even less effective)
- and despite the limits of the Hudson these planes should be able to attack those APs (which are themselves no big threat to the planes flak-wise, but the troops they carry make them high- value targets).

Instead, my AI-commander on the spot decides to ignore the easy and important targets nearby and sends those Hudsons to their demise over Rabaul for some low-value targets (unescorted raids into Rabaul would be acceptable for me if they try to attack an important target like a CV - no risk, no fun - but daily strikes for some MSWs are unacceptable).
I would expect that the AI-commander knows (or at least learns from experience) about the capabilites and limitations of the units under his command and use them accordingly. But I have to act in his place and have take the Hudsons out of the fight to avoid pointless losses far away - when they are needed most nearby (I don't expect that those Hudsons will save Buna and GG, but if you try to hold those places, you need every help you can get).

So, in the end I cannot use an air asset in a crucial situation for a mission of which it is well capable - because of stupid AI target selection.

I don't even ask for player taget selection, I just ask for more intelligent AI target selection.
UV is a great game and I enjoy every minute playing it - but sometimes I wish I could court-martial my AI-subordinates...

LST

_____________________________


(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 21
- 12/23/2002 4:59:38 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline
I believe the problem is that the roles one can set for TF are way too limited.

After creating a TF it sails always with the same target priorisation regardless of the operational plan you have in your mind. This quote is from Naval Air Attacks -Why can't we... Warspite summarises nicely what I claimed is missing from UV. Have a look on that thread for more details and arguments.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B] the missing elemnent is indeed the ability to assign general standing to a TF, or base. For a TF, historical missions might include:
- decoy (get youself spotted then high tail it out of there (IJN CV at Philipenes)
- 'normal mission' (as today)
- anti invasion(up the priority of AP etc, but most CV will still chase CV if they see one - ref Halsey)
- cautious - main priority is to avoid getting sunk, pass up opportunities if any danger
- cover - protect TF XXX from attack, all other missions secondary
I am sure there are more, but this would enable a basic strategic plan to be enacted. Land bases could have similar range - self defence, air superiority, interdiction, invasion cover, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 22
- 12/23/2002 11:11:37 PM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
quote:

I don't even ask for player target selection, I just ask for more intelligent AI target selection. UV is a great game and I enjoy every minute playing it - but sometimes I wish I could court-martial my AI-subordinates...


Bingo! That is all I think is needed as well. To those that seem to be putting words in "our mouths" and suggesting we want to micromanage even more... :rolleyes:

Bottom line IMHO is that the AI tweaking should not be considered complete. At least I hope it is not.
-----------------

Also, I said I have seen stupid moves by the AI in 100% of the major naval engagements in my games. Not that the one example mentioned in all of my games (that was someone else's example btw, I have not experienced it YET). I also plainly stated I have only completed three games so far. :)

You guys REALLY should read the posts more closely before jumping to the attack. And is it really necessary for me to detail the exact stupid things I have seen the AI do in my three games when many examples of questionable targeting priorities are already given on this forum? I don't see what it would prove, especially when it seems some don't read the entire posts anyway... :rolleyes:

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 23
- 12/24/2002 12:03:57 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]Also, I said I have seen stupid moves by the AI in 100% of the major naval engagements in my games. Not that the one example mentioned in all of my games (that was someone else's example btw, I have not experienced it YET). I also plainly stated I have only completed three games so far. :)

You guys REALLY should read the posts more closely before jumping to the attack. And is it really necessary for me to detail the exact stupid things I have seen the AI do in my three games when many examples of questionable targeting priorities are already given on this forum? I don't see what it would prove, especially when it seems some don't read the entire posts anyway... :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

You'd better start rolling your eyes at yourself. Apparently I'm going to need to quote your previous message and show you PRECISELY why you got the responses you got, since you don't seem to get it (or won't admit it).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
If someone can point me to where escorts attacked CAs 100% of the time in real life while ignoring the divebombers attacking the CV's I will stand corrected (for instance).[/QUOTE]

To repeat and amplify: you say that in order for someone to prove that you are wrong, they must show that real life "escorts attacked CAs 100% of the time" ... that this particular event happens every time.

What I suspect is that you were attempting to imply that this particular event happens 100% of the time in your games, but without actually saying it, since you obviously know it isn't true. Mostly likely you were doing so in an attempt to put one over on readers of your post by asking for proof that goes far above and beyond what would actually be required to logically contradict your point.

Bottom line: you're skewing the facts and making flawed arguments in order to support your particular viewpoint, and when someone calls you on it, you have the audacity to roll YOUR eyes and accuse THEM of not reading carefully? People reading your message carefully is exactly what caused people to respond in the manner they did.

Unfortunately I have no illusions that you are suddenly going to start thinking clearly enough to understand what others are saying ... not when it's easier to just roll your eyes and keep telling yourself everyone else but you is an idiot. Since everyone who is capable of understanding my points has already understood them, I won't be wasting any more of my time with this thread.

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 24
- 12/24/2002 12:19:07 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]You'd better start rolling your eyes at yourself. Apparently I'm going to need to quote your previous message and show you PRECISELY why you got the responses you got, since you don't seem to get it (or won't admit it).



To repeat and amplify: you say that in order for someone to prove that you are wrong, they must show that real life "escorts attacked CAs 100% of the time" ... that this particular event happens every time.

What I suspect is that you were attempting to imply that this particular event happens 100% of the time in your games, but without actually saying it. You were doing so in an attempt to put one over on readers of your post by asking for proof that goes far above and beyond what would actually be required to logically contradict your point.

Bottom line: you're skewing the facts and making flawed arguments in order to support your particular viewpoint, and when someone calls you on it, you have the audacity to roll YOUR eyes and accuse THEM of not reading carefully? People reading your message carefully is exactly what caused people to respond in the manner they did.

Unfortunately I have no illusions that you are suddenly going to start thinking clearly enough to understand what others are saying ... not when it's easier to just roll your eyes and keep telling yourself everyone else but you is an idiot. Since everyone who is capable of understanding my points has already understood them, I won't be wasting any more of my time with this thread. [/B][/QUOTE]

Very cute, but why don't you just stick with what someone posts and stop trying to tell everyone what they are "implying"? I have yet to meet anyone on the Net that is so good as to be able to read my mind from a handful of posts... Or is that too much to ask?

I stated facts: I played three games to completion and I have seen the AI (on both my side and the enemy's side) make very, very stupid moves in every single major naval engagement in those games.

I did not imply anything because there is simply no need to imply anything Or is that too hard to grasp?

quote:

What I suspect is that you were attempting to imply that this particular event happens 100% of the time in your games, but without actually saying it, since you obviously know it isn't true.


Funny thing is I have stated quite clearly, and you quoted me, that this did not even happen in my games... You read my posts you say? YOU are thinking clearly? Yeah...

I am speaking from my (admittedly...several times) limited experience with the game. The issue is that my limited experience has not been good in ANY of the games. And others with much, much more playing time seem to problems with the AI as well.

Try to refrain from reading things INTO other people's posts. I simply stated what I have seen and I was VERY, VERY clear in the number of games in which I saw it. Yes, that does lead me to believe there may be a problem. What fool would NOT think there was a problem with if after firing up a game three times and watching the AI do stupid things each and every game? Exactly what is your accepted number of games I must play before I can post about stupid AI anyway? 6? 10? 20? 50? :rolleyes:

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 25
- 12/24/2002 1:52:05 AM   
CommC

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline
The bottom line for me is that in my opinion, based on my experience with UV, is that UV does not give me, the theater commander, enough tools to execute my intent. This is true for both TFs and air groups.

For example, if I want my air groups to attack shipping to defend against invasion of Buna and Gili, if I set them to Naval attack, I can't prevent them from attacking any naval target to the extreme of their range, while an invasion proceeds unmolested.

If I want an AC TF to attack an unloading transport TF, and I set them to Naval attack, they may attack a surface group that has already unloaded and is steaming away, instead of the critical unloading TF I need them to attack.

UV as it stands now has no mechanism to allow me to give these orders, and communicate my intent to my TF and air group commanders.

This could be changed with some minor additions to the interface, such as under the naval attack order, allow a set target, or set priority command. The list could include, unloading transports, surface TFs, etc. The default AI priority could be enemy AC TFs, but if those are at extreme range, if the priority is transport TF X, then the AI should execute those orders. The set target command could always be interpreted as a priority, not an absolute, if a threatening AC TF showed up, then the AI would still be free to shift to attack that.

Unexpected occurences such as not being able to find the TF could still occur, giving air groups and TFs a target would not mean we had to abandon all the random events that can happen in war such as engine trouble or an unexpected squall causing the escorts to get lost.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 26
How to manage Airgroups - 12/24/2002 2:08:04 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Some of the ways I get my airgroups to do what I want

Range: Do not place long range aircraft up front where they might fly into "bad" aircombats. Place short range types on bases you want them to defend. But....(read next)

Mission: Do not set airgroups to offensive mission types unless a suitable target has been located. After tracking the enemy TF for enough time to decide where it is headed and what it is up to, change mission for airgroups you want to engage.

Search: Have aircraft on bases where bombers are located set on search. Select search aircraft for range you want bombers to fly by using short range search planes where you only want short range attacks. Place PBY/Mavis types on bases with long range bombers.

Examples:
I wish to protect Port Moresby from Japanese invasion TF's
I place bombers with range of 14-16 at Cooktown. All groups set to training 0 percent (to raise morale /reduce fatigue and prevent "fly offs"
I place longer range aircraft at Cairns/Townsville. Search plane PBY at Cairns and Townsville preform Naval Search.

Port Moresby gets shorter range aircraft (SBD)

When enemy TF with transports is spotted rounding Gili Gili, I set one of the Cooktown groups to search, the others to Naval attack.


In short don't place aircraft in range of targets you do not want them attacking. Place them in range of bases you want them defending.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 27
- 12/24/2002 2:11:16 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Fresh blood....
I too would like to be able to assign my own strikes,especially when enemy carriers present the greatest threat,but I also know "fog of war" can alter the true perception of what the greatest threat is..
Halsey went chasing north,toward what he recognized as "the greatest threat",and allowed a cve fleet to come under direct fire when the main Japanese surface fleet came charging out of Suragio Straights........
I expect my commanders to use their best judgements based on knowledge "at hand",but when the planes are at their maximum fuel limits,(as at Midway),I suspect the "guy at the pointy end of the spear" is gonna make a judgement the guy back on the ship is just not gonna appreciate..
Another Grigsby venture "Carrier Strike" was one of the best tactical simulations around,of this genre,but I feel Uncommon Valor has carried the idea (and ability to recreate/replay history of this genre further,and I suspect it's a lot more historical,(for those of us seeking historically correctness..)
When I have had 10 different air missions,and maybe even a fleet sub identify a target,and position,it's still possible to be wrong,and hit a near-by tanker,instead of a flat-top..
If anything is changed,(in the ability to assign definite targets),I suspect being able to limit the planes to a certain type of target,in an absolute area,would be more correct than demanding a flattop be hit in a sea of targets..??????:)

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 28
Naval attack - 12/24/2002 3:31:14 AM   
Owl

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/4/2000
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
I WOULD like to be able to order my aircraft NOT to attack naval targets at ports. Example in a current game I am playing Japanese and have PM. My planes attack naval taskforces in port in Australia - taking losses from flak and cap where I'd prefer they only attacked the task forces they spotted off the coast.

Order to level bombers: Naval attack, ships at sea only.

_____________________________

(.) (.)

...V...

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 29
Re: How to manage Airgroups - 12/29/2002 2:05:50 AM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
Yes... This is the way players have to do it... These are methods I have used... And which I'm going to use... But if these are not 'gamey', I really don't know which would be 'gamey' way to play the game...

I don't like this ;) Wery annoying... Tools for effective way of playing have been provided but there is no way to stear those tools ´way you like...

Way of the Mogami's causes airgroups to get fatigued... and does resolve the problem only in simplier cases... For example if US player would wan't to hit everything next to cavieng and to leave resources in Rabaul be free...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Some of the ways I get my airgroups to do what I want

Range: Do not place long range aircraft up front where they might fly into "bad" aircombats. Place short range types on bases you want them to defend. But....(read next)

Mission: Do not set airgroups to offensive mission types unless a suitable target has been located. After tracking the enemy TF for enough time to decide where it is headed and what it is up to, change mission for airgroups you want to engage.

Search: Have aircraft on bases where bombers are located set on search. Select search aircraft for range you want bombers to fly by using short range search planes where you only want short range attacks. Place PBY/Mavis types on bases with long range bombers.

Examples:
I wish to protect Port Moresby from Japanese invasion TF's
I place bombers with range of 14-16 at Cooktown. All groups set to training 0 percent (to raise morale /reduce fatigue and prevent "fly offs"
I place longer range aircraft at Cairns/Townsville. Search plane PBY at Cairns and Townsville preform Naval Search.

Port Moresby gets shorter range aircraft (SBD)

When enemy TF with transports is spotted rounding Gili Gili, I set one of the Cooktown groups to search, the others to Naval attack.


In short don't place aircraft in range of targets you do not want them attacking. Place them in range of bases you want them defending. [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

2.829