Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 12/29/2002 2:34:41 PM   
Bc2of5

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 2/8/2002
Status: offline 		The plan:Japan will train it's units and save aircraft to subdue Pm in 6 weeks,enough Zeroes should be able to have an numerical and qualitative advantage.

Time passes.Training goes on,number of planes grows.

I amassed acording to my plan a huge fleet of fighters to protect my bombers on my offensive against the PM airfield.finally the clear weather was there and the theater commander gave the order to launch the attack..............several hours later

First report of attack on PM received,local area commander decided to make full use of its large bomber force and send all alvaible Nell's and Betty's (around 60) to crush the airfield within one attack,he send too an token escort of 9 Zeros(all aces!,each of them fight like 5 normal pilots:mad: ).Surprisingly there ia opposition over PM and the raid faced it's demise.

The color of the head of the theater commander turns red as he read the loss report.

later that day,another raid is ordered against Pm,with
100(!) Zeros,protecting 3(!) Nells.

Luckily,that 3 Nell went through and harrassed the airfield.Sure,it will need now a little more time to harm really the airfield there,because allmost all level bomber were gone on a madman's mission,but I am sure within 2 or 3 months this losses can be replaced.I am not very glad about this behaviour of my staff,surely they will make mistakes,but this,I would think somebody would stop him from ordering such attacks(or call me)

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 31
- 12/29/2002 4:26:24 PM   
mholmgren

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chandler, AZ
Status: offline 		I agree with those who say the system should be changed to allow you to pick targets, especially when it comes to naval shipping.

Yes, it may be that the scope of the game is such that you're supposed to be at a higher level of command, but when the AI does bonehead things like escorting a strike against cruisers rather than a strike against carriers, there is clearly a problem. And, no, clearly this wasn't a case of the computer simulating the escort becoming separated from the strike, but rather a bad decision about where to send the fighters.

Gary Grigsby did a game very similar to this back in the '80s for the Apple II (maybe IBM as well) called Guadalcanal. UV incorporates basically every major flaw that Guadalcanal had and adds a few more. Some of that is offset by apparent influence from Carriers at War. What we need here is more Carriers at War and less Guadalcanal.

This idea that you are theater commander too high up the chain of command to be picking bombing targets is an interesting idea, but what this game really turns into is a logistics simulation. I feel like that's the only area where I really have any control. And that's just not fun gaming.

That's my two cents at this stage of the game - I haven't played a whole lot because it crashes all the time for me. Hopefully I'll get that sorted out and be able to enjoy the game more.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 32
- 12/30/2002 3:20:00 AM   
dcoop

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/16/2002
Status: offline 		I had some of those troubles myself. 2 seperate (2)CV TF's stationed off of Gualdalcanal with 2 VMF's from irau providing LRCAP for an invasion (padding the kill stats for the jarheads with wings:D ) CV TF's awaiting the imminent arrival of the Jap CV's. Well down the slot they come and out go the strikes - 40 TBD's and 15 Avengers and NO fighters. Mind you all 4 CV VF's were set to escort. Wasn't pretty. Second was just about the same, except 3 Wildcats decided to witness the crime. Okay maybe they're protecting mother. Jap strike comes on in, with a mighty fine Zero escort I must say, and out of the 100 or so 'Cats who failed to go on my strike, 30 get airborne???:confused: . Even the most ignorant of Naval commanders wouldnt fail to provide adequate CAP knowing full well that Jap CV's were around. If anyone cares, fatigue for 2 squadrons was in the 20's and the other 2 was in the teens. I agree that some sort of fix should be considered. Not so much total micro-management, but maybe more intelligent AI and some control over target priority.

Coop

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 33
- 12/30/2002 3:40:25 AM   
Arnir


Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline 		I'm having similar problems. In the Coral Sea scenario, my US CV based planes seem to be terrified of the Japanese carriers and keep hitting the same decimated troop transport task force mission after mission. While troop filled task forces are good targets, I don't understand why my planes keep rejecting the Japanese carriers (who are sighted and closer than the transports). I realize that my tactics might account for why I get creamed from time to time (and I'm perfectly fine with that), but only my Army and Aussie aircraft will go after the carriers. I've got P-39s strafing the **** things and 3 Hudsons going in all alone, but the **** carriers won't attack anything but the transports.

In playing the scenario twice in the past two days, my carrier planes attaced the Japanese carriers once.

(Wow, I just lost my lurker status.)

I can fully accept the role as theatre commander, but even a theatre commander would be able to tell subordinates that if they don't get off their butts and attack the enemy carriers (at least once in a while) their jobs will be in Minnesota next week. Who knows, maybe after a 100 games it will even out in the end. Right now I need to vent. :)

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 34
- 12/30/2002 3:59:51 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dcoop
[B]I had some of those troubles myself. 2 seperate (2)CV TF's stationed off of Gualdalcanal with 2 VMF's from irau providing LRCAP for an invasion (padding the kill stats for the jarheads with wings:D ) CV TF's awaiting the imminent arrival of the Jap CV's. Well down the slot they come and out go the strikes - 40 TBD's and 15 Avengers and NO fighters. Mind you all 4 CV VF's were set to escort. Wasn't pretty. Second was just about the same, except 3 Wildcats decided to witness the crime. Okay maybe they're protecting mother. Jap strike comes on in, with a mighty fine Zero escort I must say, and out of the 100 or so 'Cats who failed to go on my strike, 30 get airborne???:confused: . Even the most ignorant of Naval commanders wouldnt fail to provide adequate CAP knowing full well that Jap CV's were around. If anyone cares, fatigue for 2 squadrons was in the 20's and the other 2 was in the teens. I agree that some sort of fix should be considered. Not so much total micro-management, but maybe more intelligent AI and some control over target priority.

Coop [/B][/QUOTE]


In this case the most likely cause was that the escort separated from the bombers, or went with another part of the strike, and perhaps that part of the strike did not sight the carriers. We realize that people want control, although I'm not sure we're going to give it in this or WitP (due to many reasons previously stated by us and other UV players). Another approach would be to give more messages explaining exactly why things happened the way they did. Depending on how the code is written this might not be an easy thing for us to do either. We realize that the sense of control is important for the fun factor of a game and trying to give enough control was a primary design consideration during development.

For perhaps the last time, however, I just want to remind you of all of the events during the actual carrier battles that in hindsight would seem idiotic (full strike hitting a tanker and DD thinking it was a carrier at Coral Sea), TBD's getting murdered with no escort only to lead to a complete US victory at Midway (although the SBD group came close to missing the Japanese and turning back). I can go on and on and relate just about any event you come up with in the game to something that happened in history that was not what the commanders had planned (or what was "reasonably" expected to happen). I can't argue your "fun factor", as everyone has a different threshold of what they are willing to have happen outside their control. Each of you has to decide if the game is fun for you.

I feel Mike Wood has done a good job of adding messages during different combat that gives a better sense of what is happening. I appreciate all the work he has put in during the patches, and hopefully this has added to the fun factor. We'll continue to evaluate whether other changes should/could be made to the system.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 35
- 12/30/2002 7:53:32 AM   
Arnir


Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline 		This time through the US carrier planes went after the Japanese carriers. Much nicer this time.

I'm really looking forward to the full Pacific theatre game.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 36
- 1/1/2003 5:07:44 AM   
dcoop

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/16/2002
Status: offline 		I understand that some of my 'Cats may have lost their way, that's to be expected. But I'm not going to assume that just because there's no escort, there ever was an escort. If any of my bombers can't find the target, they at least have the decency to tell me. If I see a strike that has 40 SBD's and 15 TBD's with no escort, I have to assume that no escort was sent, since they never reported that they could not "find the target".

I'm not knocking the game, I love it! I just want a little accountability when it comes to airstrikes. If my escort gets separated, let me know. Something like "airstrike approaches ships 40 SBD's 15 TBD's VF-8 gets separated from group" That's not too much to ask is it?

Coop

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 37
- 1/1/2003 6:49:34 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dcoop
[B]I understand that some of my 'Cats may have lost their way, that's to be expected. But I'm not going to assume that just because there's no escort, there ever was an escort. If any of my bombers can't find the target, they at least have the decency to tell me. If I see a strike that has 40 SBD's and 15 TBD's with no escort, I have to assume that no escort was sent, since they never reported that they could not "find the target".

I'm not knocking the game, I love it! I just want a little accountability when it comes to airstrikes. If my escort gets separated, let me know. Something like "airstrike approaches ships 40 SBD's 15 TBD's VF-8 gets separated from group" That's not too much to ask is it?

Coop [/B][/QUOTE]

No, not too much to ask for. I'm pretty sure their is no message to inform you of escorts that get separated so you can bet that's what happened assuming you didn't have everyone on CAP. In fact there are no separation messages at all, so if your bombers split into multiple groups you aren't told at the moment of separation.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 38
Re. David Heath's Reply About Selecting TF's for CV Attack - 1/2/2003 6:45:58 PM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		UV rep Heath says there are no plans to change the rules regarding human CV commanders' selection of enemy TF's. Too bad. I've been playing Grigsby (and Billings) games for two decades now, including the C64 father to this game (as well as Carriers at War and several others coming out of that group of very talented programmers). Good games. Heath defends the non-target-selection feature of UV by arguing that we're commanding from behind a desk at the rear, not from the deck of a CV. But would someone at the rear behind a desk be setting the CAP percentage for fighter groups or the search percentage for dive bomber groups or the altitudes for strike and escort groups, and even allow us to abort the whole TF thing by changing target types and putting squardrons on training or rest missions? Hardly. Here's a possible scenario to challenge the non-target (c)ommission: After slugging it out, in one nearby hex is an enemy CV TF with some defensive capability left, but retiring at decent speed; in another, 90 to 180 degrees away from the former, is a lagging, badly hurt enemy CV with little escort and no remaining air defense capability. You're telling me I can't choose whether to go after the former with my remaining strike capability (and perhaps waning daylight hours) while hoping to finish off the other one later, or to play it safe and go after the cripple now? These objectives would require sending the aircraft in very different directions. But I have no choice? I see no defense for this non-targeting rule. Of course I don't expect planes necessarily to find their targets or to keep their squadrons together. But to completely dismiss player choice of naval targets? I'm very disappointed in a greatly admired programmer (maybe two) who go back to the old C64 days for me. They have not really substantially improved this game since then, in my opinion.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 39
- 1/2/2003 7:58:50 PM   
Inigo Montoya

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 11/6/2002
Status: offline 		I completely reject both the line of reasoning and the tone of Ron Amerine's post and I apologize to David Heath. I very much appreciate hearing the cold, hard facts. When people like Ron Amerine attack the truth-tellers, the consequence is we don't hear anything from the powers that be. Mr. Amerine, please feel free to disagree with Mr. Heath, and post away. But I take issue with you writing, "...If he's a PR guy, he's just a tool and should stay out of this debate." You, Mr. Amerine, are the tool.

Not cool.

_____________________________

I am looking for a six-fingered man.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 40
It's still silly - 1/2/2003 8:45:57 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		The main problem is that the AI sent a strike after the cruisers
AT ALL! While I don't want to be able to micro-manage my "strike packages" at this level, the game SCREAMS for being able to designate targets in some fashon. It's one thing to strike the wrong target if your attack overflies it on the way, or if it's in the same hex. It's quite another for the STUPID AI to send your A/C
off on worthless missions in 2-3 directions. Variations and blunders are fine---IF THEY MAKE SENSE! But even against naval targets, airstrikes are launched on a vector towards the target.
They aren't splattered out to all points of the compass the way the AI is prone to do. And the overall commander SHOULD/MUST
be able to give some priority. Nimitz wasn't afloat for Midway---but he made sure Spruance and Fletcher KNEW that their target
was Nagumo's carriers first and formost. They didn't go hairing off chasing cruisers and transports, they went for Kido Butai. And when some of the searching strikes overflew a Japanese DD, they didn't immediately attack it---they used it as a guide to find
the carriers.
There ARE times in a campaign when it makes a lot of sense for the overall commander to specify a different priority than the AI
is want to do. Like when an invasion force is coming in..., it may
make a great deal more sense to make the transports carring the troops the number one target rather than the carriers supporting them. It's the MARINES that are going to invade you, not the flattops. That IS a choice that should be up to the player. You
may not succeed, the strike could sight a bombardment force in the same hex and go after it instead. But at least it wouldn't
automatically turn itself into a long-ranged and hopeless attack on the supporting carriers 100 miles to the rear of the transports.
THAT'S JUST STUPID!!!

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 41
Re: Re. David Heath's Reply About Selecting TF's for CV... - 1/2/2003 9:59:58 PM   
OG_Gleep

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 12/27/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Amerine
[B] If Heath is in on programming decisions, he should rethink this. If he's a PR guy, he's just a tool and should stay out of this debate. Grigsby is very, very good. I'd like to hear him on this this. [/B][/QUOTE]

You should be fricken jumping for joy that someone on the staff is even HERE. Lets take a look at your first sentence.....If he is one of the programmers then 99% chance he is here participating on his own time, when he could be doing a 100 other things besides this. 2nd sentence......I have a 1001 flames for it, but that would just be a flame on a flame. IF he is a PR guy, which I doubt (most message board monitors are paid to do just that, monitor the boards, and report the important threads back to the team, MBA's are big bucks), then the company has paid for someone to take our concerns back to them. He is representing the company in everything he says.

I'll break this down so you can understand:

1) PR Guy reads thread
2) PR Guy asks the staff what their official stance is
3) PR Guy comes back and replies to post

So as you can see Grisgby is going to tell you the same thing...so is every other staff member. That was pretty bold telling anyone let alone a staff member he can't participate in a discussion.



I think providing messages would clear ALOT of this up, for me it would clear it all up. The problem is, we are so used to a certain formula, so when something happens, like no escorts showing up when everything in our power to set is correct, we automatically think its broken. That's our problem. Your problem is you get posts like this, get called "tools", and people get turned off from the game.

Addressing the people who are turned off is important, from a business standpoint. Unless you don't mind, which a lot of HC Wargame companies don't. But AI sliders, giving the user more control of how the AI handles things, and the ability for Realism toned down, like turning off individual AI in Close Combat.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 42
- 1/2/2003 10:12:41 PM   
Inigo Montoya

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 11/6/2002
Status: offline 		Thank you, OG_Gleep, for crafting a reasonable and coherent response to that post. I was so angry I retorted with a flame. You put my thoughts into words perfectly.

_____________________________

I am looking for a six-fingered man.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 43
- 1/2/2003 10:31:55 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Grigsby is very, very good. I'd like to hear him on this this.[/QUOTE]

You did "hear from Grigsby". He designed the game and if he had wanted you to be able to target specific enemy ships, he would have designed it differently.

IF it were a tactical game then the player would make tactical decesions like what search arcs to deploy search planes in and overseeing the tactical execution of naval air strikes.

BUT ITS NOT A TACTICAL GAME, and from your situation room in the rear, running the whole theater, you can't directly oversee that tactical execution.

There can be disagreement on what constitutes "operational decision making" in a few areas, but overall the game strives to put you in the role of the Three-Star back hearing the situation reports come in after planning the operation, not CAG giving tactical orders.

And by the way , David Heath runs Matrix Games, he is no "PR Tool". The time he spends responding on this forum, with all the irons he has in the fire trying to establish a viable source of high quality wargames continually amazes me...

although the tone of some who seem to think buying the game entitles them to an edition personally crafted to their individual whims probably amazes me even more...:rolleyes:

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 44
- 1/2/2003 11:00:22 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]BUT ITS NOT A TACTICAL GAME, and from your situation room in the rear, running the whole theater, you can't directly oversee that tactical execution. [/QUOTE]

One of the very real problems us computer simmers have is that we want the whole world on a platter. We want to be able to issue commands all the way down to the individual grunt yet also command the entire world.

One of the great advantages we have is (a) TIME and (b) Save Games.

This game sits nicely at the theater level command, with enough semi tactical stuff thrown in to make it fun even though they probably don't belong at the theater level.

Between reporting upstream to some really unhappy commanders and the constant reports being walked into your room with semi-real/imaginary details being plotted out on tables covered with maps coupled with the very real stress of total lack of information coming in...

You should limit yourself to only playing at 4am in the morning after no sleep and covering your machine with a pile of paper with written scraps of wrong info :D and only giving yourself 10 seconds to scan the after action reports! Thats what we are missing sitting here at our nice safe computers...

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 45
- 1/2/2003 11:03:12 PM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		Perhaps Ron Amerine's tone is rough but he does have a point.

It was a point I thought about making a week or so ago and just blew off because of the knee jerk reaction this thread (and the other) drew.

Most of the posts refuting that the player should have control over which enemy TF to target have been based on the premise that we as players are "Commanding from the rear" and playing the role of Nimitz/Big Mac and staff (or something of the sort).

quote:

IF it were a tactical game then the player would make tactical decesions like what search arcs to deploy search planes in and overseeing the tactical execution of naval air strikes.

BUT ITS NOT A TACTICAL GAME, and from your situation room in the rear, running the whole theater, you can't directly oversee that tactical execution.


In fact it is very easy to see in this game this is simply not the case much of the time and Ron Amerine points out several instances where this is clearly not the case (cap %, training, etc.) And some of us wonder why we can set these "tactical" decisions in the game and something as huge as what enemy TF to attack in a major fleet engagement that could turn the tide of the entire war in the Pacific we are shut out? Is that so hard to understand? :confused:

So, if Matrix wants to say the "feature" is not in the game and it will never be in the game that is fine. But to say it is not "in character" for the game because of the "scale" of the decisions the player makes are above the targeting of individual TFs is simply not "consistant".

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 46
- 1/3/2003 12:37:31 AM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline 		Hello Guys

A "PR Tool"....well I've been called worse. :eek: I did talk with both Gary and Joel and that was the design choice they made. I fully understand both points of view and stand behind them on their choice.

I will also say that the AI may at times may make a bad choice and we are working on improving that but remember it is AI and it will never be everything to everyone.

Like everything else done at Matrix we all do read the forums and will see what we can do to improve this in the near future.

David Heath

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 47
- 1/3/2003 3:12:30 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]In fact it is very easy to see in this game this is simply not the case much of the time and Ron Amerine points out several instances where this is clearly not the case (cap %, training, etc.) And some of us wonder why we can set these "tactical" decisions in the game and something as huge as what enemy TF to attack in a major fleet engagement that could turn the tide of the entire war in the Pacific we are shut out? Is that so hard to understand? [/QUOTE]

"Much of the time"...please... That there are a few options that some consider "under the operational line" is hardly a rationale to open the flood gates and turn the game into a tactical game!!

The vast majority of "stupid tactical decisions" arise, as Mogami has repeatedly tried to point out, becasue players put their forces into positions where bad decisions can hurt them, or are easy to be made. The whole point of the game is that if you use sound operational level planning, then more times than not your will rewarded with tactical victory, but to argue that the game doesn't allow you to make up for poor operational decisionmaking by "pulling your fat out of the fire" with tactical decisions, well you are just reaping what you sow.

If you have properly "set the table" operationally for that major fleet action, then there is no need to suddenly have to "be the CAG" to win. You have to look at what is going one from an "operational level" mindset, not a tactical one. You position yourself and gather your intelligence, THEN you take action. WHen you do that wwell in the game it rewards you with few "stupid decisions".

Is that so hard to understand???

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 48
A little levity... - 1/3/2003 3:16:09 AM   
mbatch729


Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]There can be disagreement on what constitutes "operational decision making" in a few areas, but overall the game strives to put you in the role of the Three-Star back hearing the situation reports come in after planning the operation, not CAG giving tactical orders. [/B][/QUOTE]

If I'm a frigging three star, why only two bells?!?!? Shouldn't I receive a full eight bell salute when starting the game?!?!? :p

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 49
Try to stick with the issue if you can. - 1/3/2003 4:09:54 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


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

"Much of the time"...please... That there are a few options that some consider "under the operational line" is hardly a rationale to open the flood gates and turn the game into a tactical game!!


This is exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction I was talking about.

You (should) know the game better than I do (heck, I have only had it for about two weeks). But, do you REALLY want me to go into detail on the MANY, MANY things that a player can control that are far more "tactical" and FAR, FAR more trivial than telling my dive bombers to hit that wounded CV that is 90 miles east and NOT to fly the all the way to freakin Rabul to try to nail a $%^& merchant that is parked in the harbor?

You seem to be suggesting that all of the other "tactical" choices we are given are okay because... (? Sorry but you never elaborate as to why). And the "line was drawn" on this issue so as not to "open the flood gates"...:confused: ...as you say PLEASE!.

BUT, even if that was so, I would suggest that the designers deciding to "draw the line" on the issue of who is targeted by naval air combat missions in a game based upon the South Pacific in WWII is an astoundingly poor choice! Sure, I can hear it now:
quote:

(hypothetical quote) No, I want them to be able to adjust training by each 10%...BUT heck no they can not tell their air to attack enemy carriers 60 miles away and ignore transports in port 150 miles in the other direction! Now, THAT would be too "tactical".


quote:

The vast majority of "stupid tactical decisions" arise, as Mogami has repeatedly tried to point out, becasue players put their forces into positions where bad decisions can hurt them, or are easy to be made...


Perhaps, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of this thread. When my land based air at PM flys all the freaking way to Rabul to nail a transport docked in harbor (facing CAP with no escort btw) instead of flying 90 miles east to nail that incoming BB TF that we have seen for three days there is not a whole lot I can do about that is there?

quote:

The whole point of the game is that if you use sound operational level planning, then more times than not your will rewarded with tactical victory, but to argue that the game doesn't allow you to make up for poor operational decisionmaking by "pulling your fat out of the fire" with tactical decisions, well you are just reaping what you sow.


Bull, this is a classic strawman. Nobody is debating that if you screw up "operationally" you shouldn't pay. Please try to stick with the issue if you can.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 50
A quick list - 1/3/2003 4:39:28 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		I have owned the game less than two weeks. I have now completed only four games solo. I am at work and do not have access to the manual or the game (i.e. these are off the top of my head):

1. Training by unit to the nearest 10% of operational aircraft when standing down
2. CAP percentages by 10% increments of operational aircraft on a daily basis
3. Air escort missions (if they should be used at all and) rough % of operational aircraft used by unit by day
4. Sweep missions exact location and size by 10% increments of operational aircraft
5. Where long range CAP is best distributed by base, by final location by group by day
6. Routine supply runs (et al)
7. Naval search by base, TF, squadron, down to the nearest 10% of operational aircraft by day
8. Individual orders to individual ships down to the level of a sub or transport on a daily basis
9. Ground attack TYPE orders (I would think the local commander would decide to "Banzai" or not)
10. Ground units to march N, NE, NW, E, S, SE, SW, W to the degree of the closest 30 miles on a daily basis
11. Exact position of all task forces down to the nearest 30 miles


These last three/four kinda shoot the entire argument to hell if you ask me because without them you don't really have much of a game, thus "tactical" issue can be considered important enough to make the cut.

As a player I can perform all of the above "tactical" operations and yet I can not tell my dive bombers to ignore that damned transport docked 200 miles away to the north in a heavily defended harbor and just try to attack the enemy TF that is 60 miles south (i.e. the other way!)?

THAT is the issue. And from what I have seen of Gary Grigsby's and Matrix's commitment to their games I really don't have any long term worries (really). I am pretty sure that it will be addressed in one manner or another.

Hell, now if someone had said "The money/time ran out and it was never added" or "We never thought of that and it is too late now" or something of the sort I would have no problem. BUT please don't post illogical inconsistent (knee jerk) arguments trying to justify a "feature" that simply does not mesh with the rest of the game and expect anyone with two wits about them to accept it as fact.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 51
- 1/3/2003 4:46:40 AM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline 		So...when you take all the personal insults and hyberbole out of this thread, it boils down to this:

There is some inconsistency between the amount of tactical control in various aspects of the game, target selection being the most obvious.

Matrix, while acknowledging that this does exist, has stated that this was a design decision, and will not be changed.

Some customers are upset at both the original design decision, and the decision to not alter said design decision in the future.

Can we all agree to disagree on this issue and cease with the personal attacks, please? This is a great game, and a great community. It would be a shame to lose the participation of the development staff because of a falling out on this topic.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 52
I agree...except... - 1/3/2003 4:59:40 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		Yep, I agree with you except you missed this bit:

quote:


I will also say that the AI may at times may make a bad choice and we are working on improving that but remember it is AI and it will never be everything to everyone.

Like everything else done at Matrix we all do read the forums and will see what we can do to improve this in the near future.

David Heath


(BOLD added by me)

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 53
Re: It's still silly - 1/3/2003 5:10:51 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]The main problem is that the AI sent a strike after the cruisers
AT ALL! While I don't want to be able to micro-manage my "strike packages" at this level, the game SCREAMS for being able to designate targets in some fashon. It's one thing to strike the wrong target if your attack overflies it on the way, or if it's in the same hex. It's quite another for the STUPID AI to send your A/C
off on worthless missions in 2-3 directions. Variations and blunders are fine---IF THEY MAKE SENSE! But even against naval targets, airstrikes are launched on a vector towards the target.
They aren't splattered out to all points of the compass the way the AI is prone to do. And the overall commander SHOULD/MUST
be able to give some priority. Nimitz wasn't afloat for Midway---but he made sure Spruance and Fletcher KNEW that their target
was Nagumo's carriers first and formost. They didn't go hairing off chasing cruisers and transports, they went for Kido Butai. And when some of the searching strikes overflew a Japanese DD, they didn't immediately attack it---they used it as a guide to find
the carriers.
There ARE times in a campaign when it makes a lot of sense for the overall commander to specify a different priority than the AI
is want to do. Like when an invasion force is coming in..., it may
make a great deal more sense to make the transports carring the troops the number one target rather than the carriers supporting them. It's the MARINES that are going to invade you, not the flattops. That IS a choice that should be up to the player. You
may not succeed, the strike could sight a bombardment force in the same hex and go after it instead. But at least it wouldn't
automatically turn itself into a long-ranged and hopeless attack on the supporting carriers 100 miles to the rear of the transports.
THAT'S JUST STUPID!!! [/B][/QUOTE]

Mike

Sorry I dont see it your way at all.

Lets see you think the AI is broken if it sends strikes out to what YOU consider worthless missions.

You mean like Fletcher sending his A/C to attack a few empty transports at Tuligi instead of PM invasion fleet or Hara's CV TF ?

Or do you mean like Fletcher sending his whole strike to sink a single CVL ?

Or do you mean Hara sending his whole strike to attack an Oiler and DD?

Or do you mean like at the battle of Santa Cruz when the USN CVs TFs were sending out strikes here, there and everywhere, with very little to show for it.

What you have to realize that even though all sightings are reported in the search phase of a turn, thes sightings do NOT happen simutaneously. Perhaps the CAs were sighted first. The strike was launced and then the CVs were sighted. This happened all the time

Re:"THATS JUST STUPID". I disagree. It makes a lot more sense to attack those covering CVs first instead the invasion force. Did Spraunce attack Nagumo's CVs or Kondos Invasion Force at Midway? Did Fletcher attack the CVs or the PM invasion force at Coral Sea? Of course you deal with the threat first and then you deal with the transports. Thats an example of SMART AI not STUPID AI.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 54
- 1/3/2003 5:12:35 AM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline 		I have to add my 2 cents here. I am fine with the design decisions mentioned, although I suggest implementation could be improved in a relatively simple way. Carriers are magnets for attacks, in my view too much so. A carrier CV sitting off the coast will draw to itself all the LBA, leaving surface groups and the actual invasion TF alone. Time and time again my defending air foirces will launch suicidal attacks, many time unescorted, against superior CAP, to the point where I have to ground my planes and simply not use them. This is the part that doesn't sound reasonable.

It's fine to treat carriers as priority targets, but the priority shouldn't be so high that all other options are ignored. Maybe this is the cause of a lot of the frustration expressed. Just tone down some the priority of carriers. It would help a lot.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 55
Re: Re: It's still silly - 1/3/2003 5:29:20 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]

SNIP...

Did Spraunce attack Nagumo's CVs or Kondos Invasion Force at Midway? [/B][/QUOTE]

Spruance didn't attack the invasion force because Nimitz informed him it was not the carrier force. Nimitz intervened in a way that is not possible in UV. This is a good argument for why a supreme commander should be allowed to designate targets.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the game system target choices and agree with the design decision as it is. David Heath put it well in his last post.

However, the argument that choosing naval targets shouldn't be allowed because it's too tactical doesn't hold water at all. If I'm in charge of the theater I can influence whatever I choose to. Now, I wouldn't muck around in the tactical decisions because it would undermine my commanders; not because I wasn't able to. Also, there are some things I should be able to do that I can't, such as replace an inept squadron commander.

Overall I'm impressed with the game and I expect WitP to be even better.

Edit - As good as the system is there are some improvements that could be added that would be in keeping with the level of command.

I'd like to be able to set a primary objective for my land based air. For instance I could set Buna as a primary objective for my bombers in PM. This way they'll attack the transports landing there rather than a supply convoy heading into Kavieng.

I'd like to be able to put fighters on pure CAP. A mission such as: keep 30% on CAP otherwise stand down. As it is now, I sometimes have escorts I don't want or need that cause unnecessary fatigue.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 56
- 1/3/2003 9:48:24 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Mjk328

Exactly my point, the priority was to ambush the covering IJN carriers not the invasion fleet. Mike on the other hand, stated that he considered it a "stupid AI blunder" to go after the covering CV force instead of hitting the invasion fleet in a game he was playing.

Nimitz's intellegence assets clarified the FOW a bit, but he did not intervene as you say tactically.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 57
- 1/3/2003 10:04:49 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		My needs are few - Americans to hate and a camel to hump - No, wait, wrong thread...

Let me start over. My needs are few - just the ability to order my subordinates NOT to do obnoxiously ridiculous things. I don't want to micromanage air strikes, I just want to set some rules of engagement as a good theater commander would do. Let's consider a situation I have found myself in (PBEM game). I am the Allies in sc. 17, and it's April, 1943. I control Lae and it is my primary forward base in the SWPAC area. I have six B-25J squadrons and three P-38G squadrons (plus other assets for naval search) stationed there. I am getting ready to campaign further against Wewak, the Admiralties, and eventually Rabaul itself. I want to interdict IJN shipping in the Bismarck Sea (and please correct that misspelling someday, Matrix). There are 180+ fighter aircraft at Rabaul. I don't dare set my B-25Js on naval attack, because the next thing I know, they are going after a couple of DDs docked at Rabaul and getting annihilated (along with a good share of their P-38 escorts).

I just want to order AirOpsLae to launch strikes of opportunity against naval targets AT SEA, not DOCKED AT RABAUL. Too much to ask of a game that allows me to sit at Noumea and set the precise altitude of the CAP fighters over Vila? Personally, I would rather lose the latter ability in exchange for the former...

_____________________________

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 #: 58
UV orders - 1/3/2003 11:22:41 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		"Spruance didn't attack the invasion force because Nimitz informed him it was not the carrier force. Nimitz intervened in a way that is not possible in UV. This is a good argument for why a supreme commander should be allowed to designate targets"

OK in game terms suppose the PBY contacting the forward landing force had reported the transports as "6 CV"?

Lets go over a few terms being used in this thread.

Tactical, Strategic, Operational

Strategy: The process of making plans to achieve a goal.
Strategic: Important to success of failure of plan

Operations: Actions utilizing material in an attempt to realize the strategic goal.
Operational: The level of command that allots material and co-ordinates their movement, doctrine, and logistics

Tactics: The manner in which material involved in operations reacts to contact with the enemy.
Tactical: The level where material engages the opposing material.

What levels at which points are required for a program such as UV?
Strategy requires no programing code (except of course for AI where it needs to be "fixed" and because of this any un foreseen behavior by the human can cause the AI strategy to become disrupted and made obsolete or inappropriate)

Stratigic level player imputs involve the commitment of troops to general areas "Do I borrow 3rd Aus Div and transport it to SOPAC?"
Where do these B-17's belong?

Much of the strategic matter in UV is handled by the program. Aircraft replacements, ship commitment levels, arrival dates for material.

Operations are quite clearly the main concern of UV.
Operational control, every aspect should be under the players control. There are defaults to provide help but only the player knows the goals and intents of the material he is using in any operation. If the plan is to first wear out Port Moresby's air defense and recon has indecated that defense to be composed of fighters with poor high altitude performance. the operational plan would/could specify high level attacks. This is not an invasion of the tactical commanders role. He still must engage using his leadership and tactics based on the experiance and morale and aircraft type of his unit.
Nothing in UV is tactical. (permitting player interface. He can watch the results of tactical events but not intervene)
Deciding what level of ground attack is operational. It reflects the amount of supply to consume, the level of casualties to accept.
Setting the level of commitment for airgroups for missions is not tactical. The tactics will be employed by the pilots/groups over the target based on the operational orders and national characteristics. The operational orders are mission selected, altitude.
You do not witness tactics in UV, only their results. If your material is producing undesired or unacceptable results you first need to examine how they are being employed.

Contact with the enemy in UV is for the most part unpredictable. Both sides are involved in both acting and reacting. Contact reports are not reliable.
Giving specific orders like "only engage enemy transports within 60 miles" would not be within the realm of operational control but instead tactical however it would produce equally unsatisfactory results simply because it is an attempt to cure a symptom not the problem. If 10 transport TF's moved within 60 miles on same turn, if Transport TF's were mis identified, if non transport TF was mis identified. The problem is not bombers flying off to bomb Rabaul when they were intended to defend Buna. It is placing bombers with a range to Rabaul on an airbase to far forward.
But that is not the real issue. Assigning targets before they exist as targets and specific ship types. Why not tell airgroups "only engage unescorted bombers"
Submarines "only attack CV" Would that be tactics, strategy or operations?
It appears to be in the realm of impacting how material reacts not which material reacts. Operations are deciding, what, where, when,
tactics is the how.
The operational commander must understand the limits and capabilities of his material and deploy it accordingly. The player has a vast amount of control but not down to the last detail. I see a large differance between deciding a certain airgroup is not combat ready and assigning it to training and telling a deployed airgroup in a forward combat area specific (as yet undiscovered)targets to engage.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 59
- 1/3/2003 12:18:10 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Mogami, my friend, I hate to disagree with you because I have such great respect for your scholarship and commentary on UV (okay, we gave him the molasses, now let's feed him the sulfur).

Your abstract characterization of "strategy, operations, and tactics" is fine, but fails to support your later discussion. To say, for example, that "operations are actions utilizing material in an attempt to realize the strategic goal" and then later to add that "operations are deciding, what, where, when," attempting to contrast that with "tactics is the how" is to engage in self-contradiction and leaves you wound up in a syntactical and definitional morass on which your argument cannot stand.

What many of the posters here seek (and I hope I have made it clear that I do not want to go as far as many, primarily for reasons that agree with the main thrust of your analysis) is nothing more (or less) than consistency. They see numerous methods of taking tactical actions (what else can you call the means of creating barges and PT boats, for example?), and yet, feel frustrated at not being able to impose general, doctrinal constraints on their air units (whose specific, tactical-combat altitudes, among other things, they are free to dictate).

In particular, there is no demonstrable consistency, as far as I am concerned, between the theater commander being empowered to order an air operations officer to attack not only a particular base, but particular assets at that base, and not being able to instruct him on how to direct his anti-naval air assets (other than generally to say, "send 'em out to sink boats").

My b*tch is not a big one (she lost a lot of weight recently). All I want is what I perceive to be the same level of operational control over my anti-shipping assets as I already have over my other mission assignments.

I don't want to be able to second-guess my air ops officer's tactical decisions on the basis of my interpretation of current intelligence. All I want to be able to do is to instruct him, beforehand and operationally, on what guidelines to follow. I want to be able to say, "Keep your aircraft away from Rabaul, it's too dangerous up there, but be on the lookout for attempts to resupply bases to the west and southwest."

To say that my B-25J losses over Rabaul are my own fault for stationing them too close to that base is silly. You could as easily say that my child's burning her finger in the fire is my fault for having a fireplace in the house. Those aircraft are my best anti-shipping planes. I ought at least to be able to instruct their commander, "Tell the dumb little kids to keep their fingers out of there." I really would hate to see UV (and WITP) degenerate into a system where your planning depends on keeping your best aircraft back far enough away from major enemy bases that they won't inadvertently fly up there and get killed.

Furthermore, the arguments used against the assertion that it ought to be possible to give general ship-type attack priorities are equally nonsensical. In the historical campaigns in the Pacific theater, such guidance was always given (of what other use was the pre-mission briefing?). The errors, misidentifications, and silly attacks occurred primarily because the pilots thought they were seeing what they were supposed to be attacking (Neosho and Sims, for example, were reported as high-priority targets, and thus, were overwhelmed. If they had been identified properly, it is likely that they would have lived to be unimportant for another day).

That's my story, officer, and I'm sticking with it.

_____________________________

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 #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  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

0.813