Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

OK we agree (almost)

 
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 >> OK we agree (almost) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OK we agree (almost) - 1/3/2003 12:26:29 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I'm lousey at getting simple points across.

If players could set targets there would still be persons here posting problems,


"I set my B-25 airgroups at Lae to protect Buna from enemy transports. But the dumb morons just sat there when bombardment TFs sailed into Lae and blew the crap out of their airbase. The the idiots sat there with 6 enemy carriers parked 3 hexes away, they never did attack...stupid game"


"What settings did you use?"

"I had them set to attack at 100 feet, transports TF's within 60 miles of Buna. Avoid enemy CAP"

What would happen when the canny Japanese player stopped putting up CAP over Rabual and assigned it to flying over his transports?

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 61
- 1/3/2003 12:36:23 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Well, there's no apologizing for the conscious ignorance of players, Mog. I know I've done some things that have left me wondering seriously about my own mental competence.

Anyway, I don't suggest the "attack only transports within 60 miles of Lae" formula. I merely hope for "attack target type (1) _____, (2) _____, (3) _____" (in that order) and "naval attack - only at sea" and "naval attack - any" as options.

Thanks for being so receptive to reading and understanding my quite possibly hare-brained suggestions.

_____________________________

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 #: 62
- 1/3/2003 1:06:51 PM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline 		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.

I am new to the game and have been following this thread. i would have to agree that some sort of priorty or better yet orders saying "you are not to bomb the defended base you are to go after ships at sea " needs to be implemented. otherwise you really have to keep your best stuff back aliitle because one wrong or "dumb" move will be all it take to turn the tide. i still fail to understand why you cannot have a priority on naval attacks ie: target only APs or CVs , i mean is not the whole point of naval aviation to target and destroy certain target at given points in time? i know there are these exceptions i keep reading, but really when my TF is setup to destroy transports i dont want to engage a CF that i know i have no chance against . i think some more perameters is all thats needed.

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton


(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 63
- 1/3/2003 1:07:02 PM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Hmm... How about following scenario as Japanese:
Japan have succeeded in invading Solomons and New Guinea but not been able to build up neither so far. US have somehow been able to get enough resources to simultaneously attack both eastern Salomons and PM. JPN have decides that he has enough recources to defend only other of these places and chooses to defend New Guinea and evacuate as much recources from eastern Salomons as possible.

Because only base with enough supplies ,support and security is Rabaul are all JPN level bombers locationed there. US brings out carriers and surface combat TF's in both frontiers to protect transports.

You get the picture? Fighting in two areas, quite far away from each other Japanese concentrate only on the other one hoping to win it and later win the other. Problem lies in japanese level bombers... Player have no control where they might attack. They ar as likely to raid US ships unloading troops at Lunga as in New Guinea... I'd presume that most of the players would like level bombers to attack Allied in NG where JPN have decided to fight back. If player could order them to attack transports, even better...

In this case it would be enough to be able to tell those JPN level bombers to make raids only targets that are to west from Rabaul. Or to prioritise New Guinea area above everything else as target zone for AC. Such "high priority zones" could be placed in general map with no need meddle with single squadrons or bases... What this sounds like?

I'd presume that reallife operational commander could be able to give such commands as: "New Guinea is top priority, sink as many ships there as possible at all costs..." or "Blocade Port Moresby, we'll keep enemy troops there unsuplied without reinforcements...". etc.

To me it's been made clear that targeting single TF's is not good thing implement... Better do nothing than allow it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]"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??? [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 64
Re: Re: It's still silly - 1/3/2003 1:14:31 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]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 ?
This occured because he had not sighted Hara's force at the time.
Or do you mean like Fletcher sending his whole strike to sink a single CVL ?
Again, this attack occured when Hara had not yet been spotted.
Or do you mean Hara sending his whole strike to attack an Oiler and DD?
A "speculative attack" launched because Hara knew the American carriers were out there somewhere in that direction and was taking a risk to get in the first strike.
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. [/B][/QUOTE]
What I said was there may be times when it makes more strategic sense to go after the transports---like if your available aircraft are inferior in numbers or quality to the enemy's. They might be able to stop transports, but going after carriers is suicidal. Game makes suicide the only answer. As for an example, the whole Japanese Leyte Gulf plan was based on getting a part of their inferior fleet loose among the transports---they knew they couldn't been the 3rd Fleet.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 65
understanding - 1/3/2003 1:16:22 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I really do understand what people are asking for. However I don't really think it is the solution to a problem. My airgroups sometimes get massacured but only when I tell them to.
I have offered ways of getting your material to do what you want.
And even though I think it is a large change to go from simple
port attack, airfield attack, ground attack, naval attack to "bomb 41st Infantry Regt" "attack transports at sea, without CAP" I'm willing to be persuded to change my mind.

Lets look at the present system and then see what changes might produce.

Allied player want to use Lae as forward airbase. He wants to interdict Japanese supply routes and task forces but not engage any "hard" targets.
UV offensive mission routine calls for a check to see if group will fly to target without escort. If it fails mission is aborted. If passed group may find enemy CAP too strong (but at take off group leader using his judgment thought it could be done. (every game one of these idiots drops a bomb on at least one of my carriers)(I'd like your "do not fly there" better.)

Every aircraft type can display range circles. Certain landbased aircraft are only suited for short range "defensive" type missions
But instead of using these factors we'll go ahead and add specific
targeting instructions.
How detailed would they need to be?

attack target type (1) _____, (2) _____, (3) _____" (in that order) and "naval attack - only at sea" and "naval attack - any" as options.
in that order: does this mean attack first target type spotted?
wait for all recon/search before deciding? (otherwise the group might attack a target type but ignore higher priority target spotted later.
How many options for at sea are there? Transport, Aircombat, Surface Combat.
180 fighters stationed at Rabaul can fly CAP over any target you can reach. (Zeros normal ranges are 13 and 17 hexes)
Spotting aircraft might contact TF and not spot CAP (or at least know the exact number)(then again CAP might not be over target when your bombers get there.)

only at sea: does not solve CAP issue as many bases will have less CAP then many at sea TF's (I know I try to assign CAP to any TF in enemy air range)

I don't think war is as easy to manage without actually doing your self more harm then good. Simply posting long range bombers back a bit will solve more problems then you think.

What I am struggling to explain, is I do not think the problem is crazy airgroups attacking Rabaul. (I've seen it work too many times by players who do it on purpose)
Telling anyone "don't play with fire" when their job is to engage the enemy and kill/destry them is a problem for me. How much is too much, and how do you know from day to day that the too much is where you think it is. Target selection with attributes set to only allow good missions is asking more then just using equipment wisely. Next we'll have TF leaders told "go bombard Lunga but abort if enemy TF stronger then you is present."
How's he to know what the enemy TF contains untill it's too late?

"Don't fly where you can be hurt" well low rated leaders will never fly.

Whats interesting to me, is we have threads trying to stop airgroups from flying, and we have threads asking how to get airgroups to do what the other thread is trying to prevent.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 66
Re: understanding - 1/3/2003 1:37:28 PM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]
Every aircraft type can display range circles. Certain landbased aircraft are only suited for short range "defensive" type missions
But instead of using these factors we'll go ahead and add specific
targeting instructions.
How detailed would they need to be?
...
only at sea: does not solve CAP issue as many bases will have less CAP then many at sea TF's (I know I try to assign CAP to any TF in enemy air range)

I don't think war is as easy to manage without actually doing your self more harm then good. Simply posting long range bombers back a bit will solve more problems then you think.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Range:
The longer range AC(bomber) have, more it would need instructions. I'd think bombers as such weapon which give strategic advantage at certain place at certain time... Wery long range bombers are a little bit too random as a weapon presently. Most of the time they work quite well... Problems arises only when there are lots of targets in various places.

CAP&losses&errors:
Ofcourse these should happen... If planes fly to a dangerous place then they should pay for that. And ofcourse this should be allowed to happen.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 67
- 1/3/2003 2:25:49 PM   
mjk428

 

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

I must respectfully disagree. CINCPAC sent the following urgent message to Fletcher immediately after the invasion fleet was reported: "Main Body...that is not, repeat not, the enemy striking force". (Pacific War - Pg 284)

Nimitz made darn sure that Spruance/Fletcher didn't attack the transports. Whether or not this is "intervening tactically" is semantics IMHO. It is an example of how a theater command can influence target selection.

Spruance/Fletcher's mission was to ambush the IJN CV's and that was made very clear to him. The problem is that sometimes the transports might be more important. Generally speaking I believe that CV's should always have enemy CV's as their top priority target. Land based bombers probably should have transports headed to friendly bases as their top priority.

Let me reiterate that I'm not in favor of having to target individual TF's. I do think that additional mission choices would improve the game while still leaving open the possibility of errors. I agree with Pasternaski re: attacking TF's "at sea". It seems that there are some small things that could be done that would alleviate much frustration. This may be more about WitP than UV at this point.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 68
Re: UV orders - 1/3/2003 2:41:55 PM   
mjk428

 

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

Probably the transports would have been turned back due to heavy losses and while waiting to recover their planes 3 USN CV's would have been sunk by the IJN strike force. Basically Yamamoto's plan to ambush the US CV's would have succeeded. I'm glad that the PBY that spotted them got it right. :)

As for there being nothing tactical in the player's control I must again respectfully disagree. Setting the altitude of every air group, knowing the fatigue level of each individual pilot, ordering the precise composition of every TF, ordering the movement of each individual submarine are some examples of control down to "tactical" levels. There's nothing wrong with this but UV is not a pure operational command simulation (thankfully).

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 69
- 1/4/2003 1:55:43 AM   
CommC

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline 		Many have characterized UV as a "great" game. And maybe it is. In my view UV is a good game, a very interesting game, with one major flaw. And that is: the player can't control air groups the way they were historically. Whether you call it tactics, operations, strategy or whatever, the player needs, and doesn't have now, the ability to direct his air power as it was directed historically. This would take UV to the realm of a "great" wargame.

I think the programming changes would be relatively minor to implement the better control.

Under the Naval attack setting for air groups, put the following choices:
* Let AI commander decide
* Designate interdiction hexes
* Set maximum strike range to ______
* Set attack priority to invading transport TFs
* Set attack priority to AC TFs
* Set attack priority to surface combat TFs
* Set attack priority to spotted TF _______

These could then be turned on and off with the toggle radio buttons. The "designate interdiction hexes" choice could work by taking the player to the map, where he then clicks on the hexes he wants the air group to limit their attacks to, these would be marked by a color change or dot or something on the map.

To set the maximum range limit, the player just enters a number in hexes. This would be the maximum range the strike would fly to attack a naval target, always less than the normal maximum range of the aircraft.

If "Let AI commander decide" is chosen, the game would function as it does now.

To set the attack priority to a certain TF, the player would be taken to the map, where he could then click to select the spotted enemy TF he wishes to target. Of course if contact is lost during the next turn, then the mission wouldn't proceed. If it is respotted, the attack could proceed under the previously designated priorities.

This is not too much micro-management, given the complexity and detail already present in the game. This would add the needed control, while still preserving the FOW element already beautifully rendered in UV.

I really hope the Matrix team will decide to implement this added feature in a future patch for UV. :)

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 70
- 1/4/2003 2:44:09 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Interesting thread ;

Several points occur to me (some of which I, and others have made before):
- people are not differentiating between fundamentally poor AI decisions, and good AI decisions being interfered with by the game system (e.g. launching 'unescorted' strikes, vs. escorts failing to rendezvous with the strike). Messages might help here.

- no one has commented that players are using their all seeing 'eye in the sky' to judge the actions of the commander on the ground. Security, poor comms, pure administrative SNAFU, etc. means that local commanders should still screw-up EVEN IF YOU MICROMANAGE TARGET SELECTION. I can just see the thread now 'stupid AI attacked the carriers even though I told it not to'.

- If setting CAP % etc is inconsistant with not setting detailed target priority, we could ask Matrix to delete all the 'tactical' options you don't like :D

- I think Matrix have said that they will not be adding target selection, so why are we still talking?

- The 'attacking Rabaul' issue just needs the base perception of likely threats (CAP levels) to be looked at, but I bet you we will then get 'I want to attack Rabaul and attrit the CAP, but the base wont attack' thread

- What the game should really have are 'stances' or missions, for each TF/base that allow a broad operational plan to be devolved to the TF/bases. These stances would be strictly limited in number, and would effect aggression, use of supplies, choice of target (to an extent). I proposed this in another Thread. Any comment Matrix (too late for UV, possible for WitP?)

- Lets play nicely with the nice Matrix people or they might take their ball home :D. Lets give them credit where it's due. If you know a better game, go play it!


Just my post Christmas brain dump. All that food must be making me short tempered.:eek:

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 71
Differant strokes - 1/4/2003 3:15:05 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I am not against target selection. However I do not think it will fix anyone's problems simply because (unless you play with FOW off) Everything that now occurs will still occur. (groups will still attack wrong target or they will fail to attack the target you want.) Range limits are very simple. Use aircraft with the ranges you want. (I'm really having a hard time understanding the difficulty with placing aircraft at bases where they can be MOST!!! effective.) Of course none of this will improve the AI. It always uses the default settings. (ever see AI controlled B-17s attack ships at 100 feet?)
Basicly I think target selection (all the do this and don't do that's) are not really improvements. I won't debate what is tactics versus what is operations. I think the system at present works just fine. We'll just have to disagree here. I do not want to project the image that I know everything. Only that for myself target selection would not produce any major change in how I played (I'd stick with "If it's in range go get em boys, or " Hey, move back out of the line of fire before you get hurt")

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 72
- 1/4/2003 3:22:28 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


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

Several points occur to me (some of which I, and others have made before):
- people are not differentiating between fundamentally poor AI decisions, and good AI decisions being interfered with by the game system (e.g. launching 'unescorted' strikes, vs. escorts failing to rendezvous with the strike). Messages might help here.


Yes, and this point has been made. Please note however that NOBODY is saying we want all strikes to perform exactly as ordered all the time. We all want the game to screw up strikes in the game just like they had screw-ups in reality.


quote:

- no one has commented that players are using their all seeing 'eye in the sky' to judge the actions of the commander on the ground. Security, poor comms, pure administrative SNAFU, etc. means that local commanders should still screw-up EVEN IF YOU MICROMANAGE TARGET SELECTION. I can just see the thread now 'stupid AI attacked the carriers even though I told it not to'.


No I don't think so. And you will excuse me if I call this a strawman arguement.

IF the game allowed you so simply say "Attack ships at sea" and "Give top priority to this TF " and then the game went off and did something else (especailly if messages were added as you mention above) we could all swear/laugh at typical military SNAFUs happening in the game as we would be able to KNOW the correct assignment was at least attempted by the game duing turn execution. Currently this is not the case. This is not the same thing as the AI simply making a bad choice and thinking it is the right thing to do (like attacking docked transports as an enemy TF is 60 miles away and closing...)


quote:

- If setting CAP % etc is inconsistant with not setting detailed target priority, we could ask Matrix to delete all the 'tactical' options you don't like.


I have no issue with the other "tactical" things in the game. Refer this to those that scream we are not allowed to have "tactical control" because this is a "strategy game". :)


quote:

- I think Matrix have said that they will not be adding target selection, so why are we still talking?


No, they have not. Read the last post by Mr. Heath (I already quoted it once for someone else in this thread...) Frankly I suspect what we will get is AI tweaking, which may very well be sufficient IMHO. :)


quote:

- The 'attacking Rabaul' issue just needs the base perception of likely threats (CAP levels) to be looked at, but I bet you we will then get 'I want to attack Rabaul and attrit the CAP, but the base wont attack' thread


First off, why not cross that bridge when we come to it eh? But more importantly if I want to "attrit CAP" over Rabaul I don't do it with naval attack missions... :rolleyes: And even if I wanted to do it with naval attacks a simple option to tell my naval attack missions to: "Target ships in port" and "Priority to " would do the trick would it not?


quote:

- What the game should really have are 'stances' or missions, for each TF/base that allow a broad operational plan to be devolved to the TF/bases. These stances would be strictly limited in number, and would effect aggression, use of supplies, choice of target (to an extent). I proposed this in another Thread. Any comment Matrix (too late for UV, possible for WitP?)


Perhaps, but frankly this sounds like a whole heck of a lot more work and is much different from the way the game already works. Players can already select TF with air units on missions. All we need is the ability to do this for naval attack missions and if we could get a drop box with the three attack options of: Ships at sea; Ships in port; Any I think the current game could handle the job very well.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 73
Help me I'm lost - 1/4/2003 4:01:46 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, First this post is not an attempt to refute anyone. I just want to be clear once and for all what it is everyone thinks needs to be changed.

Ability to target TF's the day before mission is flown (you spot TF on 1st and order attack on 2nd) (without knowing if said TF can even be found the following day)(even if another, more serious threat appears the next day)

Ability to define targets, I know I'm slow here but I'm still not certain what will make a good target and what will make a bad target. CAP/AA? Both can be larger over an at sea TF then a TF docked at a port so I want someone to clarify the difference between "Don't attack undefended TF at base but do attack heavily defended TF at sea."

Are these changes for the AI to use or do players want to be able to set them?

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 74
Re: Help me I'm lost - 1/4/2003 4:41:10 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, First this post is not an attempt to refute anyone. I just want to be clear once and for all what it is everyone thinks needs to be changed.

Ability to target TF's the day before mission is flown (you spot TF on 1st and order attack on 2nd) (without knowing if said TF can even be found the following day)(even if another, more serious threat appears the next day)

Ability to define targets, I know I'm slow here but I'm still not certain what will make a good target and what will make a bad target. CAP/AA? Both can be larger over an at sea TF then a TF docked at a port so I want someone to clarify the difference between "Don't attack undefended TF at base but do attack heavily defended TF at sea."

Are these changes for the AI to use or do players want to be able to set them? [/B][/QUOTE]

Speaking only for myself (as always) I think allowing the player the ability to select an enemy TF or base as the target for a naval attack mission with full knowledge that my orders will be give priority would do it.

Please note: I said priority not absolute 100% control. So IOW, yes the game can still model SNAFUs and the like just fine. Also note that the ability to set specific targets/TFs for air missions is already in the game (long range CAP, sweeps, etc) so no change in game scope can be claimed (with any validity anyway :rolleyes: ).

I also would like the ability to set my naval attack missions on one of three simple, settings: "Any"; "Ships in port"; "Ships at sea". Thus, when I assign a strike to an enemy TF steaming at me and the AI has a SNAFU and can't find it or whatever it will still give priority to "Ships at Sea" and not fly off 200+ miles to Rabul to hit docked transports under anything short of the most extrememe SNAFU situations. :(

But, as I mentioned above I think the current game system (i.e. with zero targeting control of naval attack missions) could be made bearable with some AI tweaking and added messages. I also think this is the most likely fix (if any) we will see in UV.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 75
$0.02 - 1/4/2003 4:45:49 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Originally posted by Pasternakski:
[I]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.
(...)
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."[/I]


I agree. The design decision to leave the naval attack target selection to the AI is fine with me - the only problem is that those AI decisions are sometimes very questionable.

I don't question 'errors' and blunders like misidentifying targets or escorts getting separated (these things did happen IRL and it is well modelled in UV, although a few more messages during combat resolution might help to explain what has happened).
I question decisions to attack low-value targets far away that pose no immediate threat (e.g. MSW at Rabaul) time and again despite high costs (CAP, fatigue, morale, weather, operational losses) but little success - and even worse, to do this when at the same time high-value targets directly threatening my bases are close and abundant (e.g. invasion TF off GG)! [Yes, might be a weather issue, but how realistic is this: "We can't find the invasion TF in our backyard because it's socked in, so we better take off to hit this MSW at Rabaul". Yeah, sure.]

I have nothing against high-risk missions accepting heavy casualties as such - but only if the price is worth it. When my bombers attack an invasion TF on its way to GG for example, find the TF covered by LRCAP and suffer heavy losses - so be it. This is war and we have to seek combat and accept losses.
But I want my AI subordinates to realize that it is silly to risk destruction of entire squadrons just to attack small fry at a place like Rabaul. One or two sharp defeats of my bombers should be enough to teach my commanders that the bomber not always gets through, and they should change targets and tactics accordingly and leave this place alone until fighter escort is available. Unfortunately my commanders don't seem to learn from defeat.

[B] So what we need are better AI subordinates. I don't ask for the ability to target individual TFs or to assign target priorities myself. I'm asking for a more intelligent AI target selection to avoid suicidal attacks against low-value/high-risk targets far away while high-value/most-likely-less-risky targets nearby are ignored.[/B]

Now this is easy to demand, but may be hard to implement. I'm not a programmer, but to incorporate a coherent concept of 'calculated risk' and 'cost-benefit analysis' into the AI target selection sounds difficult to me.
One way around it might be limited player target control: restrict naval attack missions to 'at sea only' by default - if you want to allow naval attacks into the base hex, you would have to use the 'port attack' or a new 'attack ships in port' option as secondary mission.

But let's keep it in proportion, the lack of player naval target selection or the sometimes poor AI decisions does not make UV unplayable. To give some credit were it's due: IMO UV is the best game to date in this genre and the Matrix staff deserve highest praise for the game, the exemplary player support and the continuous patching efforts. I for my part am more than willing to pay for an add-on if it includes certain enhancing features - target priority selections for air and subs, being able to designate patrol zones for subs, interception for surface TFs, and a 'pure CAP/stand down'-option, to name the most important ones.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 76
- 1/4/2003 4:54:51 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I want to emphasize again that I am not recommending changes that allow micromanagement or "tactical oversight" of air ops commanders' mission assignments.

All I ask is this:

1- an additional button that allows assignment to "naval attack - at sea."
2- a general priority-setting function that expresses the player's wishes (for good or ill) in terms of task force type priorities for attack. This would not be an absolute override, only a prioritization. The usual stupidies can be committed, anyway (misidentification of TF, attack of a low-priority TF type because a higher priority one either was not spotted or not spotted in time, you know, the usual crap we already put up with and love).

As far as the possibility of aircraft encountering a more robust CAP over ships than over a land base, the risk is different because what is under that CAP is ships you want to damage or sink, especially carriers and transports. Note that an SBD hit on the Zuikaku is vastly more important than a runway dimple caused by a B-25. Losing 30 SBDs in order to disable a carrier may be worth it. Losing 30 B-25s in order to make Zeros swerve around a pothole when taking off may not be.

_____________________________

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 #: 77
Light bulb - 1/4/2003 4:56:35 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I think I just recognized something.
It's not airgroups hitting Rabaul or what. It's the Airgroup target priority that bothers people.
Rather then go by ship value, you would prefer threat assessment and have airgroups attack in that manner.
CV TF far away is less threat then Transport TF unloading on your base.
Kind of like a "react to enemy" only for airgroups.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 78
Re: Light bulb - 1/4/2003 7:00:39 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I think I just recognized something.
It's not airgroups hitting Rabaul or what. It's the Airgroup target priority that bothers people.
Rather then go by ship value, you would prefer threat assessment and have airgroups attack in that manner.
CV TF far away is less threat then Transport TF unloading on your base.
Kind of like a "react to enemy" only for airgroups. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sure, and what you describe could be done with AI adjustments. Whether adjusting the AI to be able to do this is easier or harder than putting in a couple of buttons for players to control settings for naval attacks we have no way to know. Settings that the player can already adjust for gound attacks, sweeps, airbase attacks, port attacks and LRCAP. ;)

AI can be a bugger but so can changing a GUI interface on an already existing product in production (especially when you are working on another project :( )

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 79
Re: Light bulb - 1/4/2003 7:23:13 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I think I just recognized something.
It's not airgroups hitting Rabaul or what. It's the Airgroup target priority that bothers people.
Rather then go by ship value, you would prefer threat assessment and have airgroups attack in that manner.
CV TF far away is less threat then Transport TF unloading on your base.
Kind of like a "react to enemy" only for airgroups. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, kind of, but this is not the biggest concern for me. I DO want to restrain air groups set on "naval attack" from committing hara-kiri on ships docked at bases with large numbers of CAP fighters.

The priority-of-attack feature would increase the chances of your air attacks going in against targets you favor, not guarantee it. You may be thinking, "I sure wish my LBA would hit those carriers I know from spotting reports in the previous turn are going to show up here tomorrow." You want to let your air ops commander know that these are the targets you want hit. After 0500 coffee, air ops walks into the briefing room and says, "COMSOPAC says Jap CVs are headed our way. Our job is to sink 'em. Recon will launch at 0530 and conduct search. We hope they find the Jap CV TF. When they do, you guys are on your way. Escort will be from so-and-so squadrons ..." And so on. Success or failure still depend on the vagaries of war, but you have sent your message: "Attack IJN CVs expected your area tomorrow. Secondary target surface combatants. Good luck and good hunting." So when the unexpected transport TF shows up and drops off 20,000 of your little yellow brothers at your base, tough luck, admiral. Bad publicity may be avoided if you agree not to ask for court martial and accept a useful desk job somewhere. Then again, your enterprising squadron commanders may see those transports, figure that no better targets are available, and ventilate a few of them. C'est la guerre.

_____________________________

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 #: 80
Re: Light bulb - 1/4/2003 5:45:59 PM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I think I just recognized something.
It's not airgroups hitting Rabaul or what. It's the Airgroup target priority that bothers people.
Rather then go by ship value, you would prefer threat assessment and have airgroups attack in that manner.
CV TF far away is less threat then Transport TF unloading on your base.
Kind of like a "react to enemy" only for airgroups. [/B][/QUOTE]

yes, thats it !! Call it ATP "Airgroup Target Priority" thats whats missing. we should be able to set what type of targets we want to engage. (could be maybe 6-10 differnt threat assessments . pick your top 2 or pick 1 and only 1) its basically that simple. some of these missions are insane. i mean come on naval attack? way to vague. when you see a wounded CV group , i want to be able to move in for the kill , not have half my pilots mistake my order for killing that group with going hundreds of miles in the wrong direction and getting creamed. should be easy enough , i dont think its asking too much. i do believe its the missing link to greatness.
the game is good but this willy nilly naval strke command is just not the best imo. my 2cents. if we lobby hard enough ?
:D

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton


(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 81
One more plea for sanity - 1/4/2003 6:20:26 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		I'd like to start with the example someone brought up earlier
of the situation at Pt. Moresby on May 1. The Hudson Sqdrn.
there is the reccon asset. That was their primary mission in
historical terms in the RAAF. To keep an eye out for whatever
the Japanese were getting up to between Rabaul and New
Guinea. So here we sit a few turns into the game when the
Hudsons spot an IJN TF bringing troops into Buna. It's what
navies refer to as an "all hands to the pumps" situation. So
the Hudsons get switched to naval attack to meet the threat.

.....And the AI sends them to bomb an oiler in Rabaul!!! At
extended range... Threatening no-one... Over and over
again.... I'm sorry, but this is idiotic. Always was idiotic, and
always will be idiotic. At the VERY LEAST the game has to
give the player better control than that!

Bombing the wrong target should be part of the game. I have
no quarrel with that.., it happened a lot. But it happened
when there were multiple targets IN THE SAME AREA! Not
hundreds of miles apart in different directions. If you ordered
a ground unit to march from Townsville to Cooktown, and it
wandered off towards Brisbane everyone would scream the
game was screwed up. But people defend it when the AI does
it with their air units. The results are TOO random to be
believable as an historical re-creation. "Wrong-way Corrigan"went the wrong way---but he did it on purpose!
The AI seems to feel that half or more of all naval strikes should
do it every time. Give us some means of indicating at least the
general direction of the enemy we'd like them to hit so that the
players can feel like they ARE in command. Right now many of
the most critical moments of a long game seem to be crap
shoots in the dark. Please.., at least turn on the lights.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 82
- 1/4/2003 7:35:24 PM   
Bc2of5

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 2/8/2002
Status: offline 		And a strike should use it's escorts when they are available;) ,it would be reeeeally nice when some messages would tell the theater commander in the execution phase what is going on his airfields....like airfield commander depatch raid containg 37 bombers and 50 escorts towrds hex...to engage suspected naval force there.An futher message when the raid arrives to tell the theather commander if all boys are there,or what unsuspecting things had happen underway.

I am not sure,but I think that fighter pilots on training mission might(should) scramble to met the threat when the airfield is under attack.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 83
- 1/5/2003 9:41:17 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		It seems to me that one of THE major complaints people are having is when bombers set to "naval attack", attack ships in ports instead of ones at sea. Rabaul in particular seems to pose problems for SOME players. Although I personally cant say I have accountered this phenomenmom very often, perhaps a simple remedy would be to make it so planes can only attack ships in port, when set to "port attack" . When planes are set at "naval attack" they would only attack ships at sea. This would solve unwanted port attacks without fiddleing too much with the AI and the operational flavor of the game.

As far as targeting specific TFs I just dont get what all the fuss is about. Im sorry but I just dont seem to have any problems getting my CV strikes to do what I want them to do. Sure the AI makes some mistakes occasionally, but people are makeing it seem like the AI does nothing right all the time.

It seems to me all some people want is some extra chrome/text explaining what happened. Something like "Strike launched at CA TF"...... "Ememy CV TF sighted unable to divert strike". or " Lost contact with ememy CV TF...... strike diverted to CA TF.

If that what it takes to make players feel better. Its fine with me, but personally I dont need text to confirm what can be easily infered as reasonable explanations.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 84
- 1/5/2003 11:28:10 AM   
CommC

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline 		For long-range bombers on Naval attack, we at least need to be able to set strike zones and/or exclusion zones. The strike zones would be hexes where an attack would be launched if an enemy TF was spotted. Exclusion zones (these are also used in Harpoon) are areas of known enemy threat where the air group would not be allowed to operate in, to fly through or launch attacks in.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 85
- 1/5/2003 12:13:24 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		A simple modification here would be to add a "max range" button for land bases when 'naval attack' is selected. Carrier TF's dont suffer this issue given the limited range of their aircraft and therefore dont really need it. People seem to be complaining most about the occaisonal to rare penny packet type raid at extreme long range against TF's in a port hex protected by a CAP.

I can see the value and logic of such an addition as it seems reasonable to order a certain base, or set of bases to patrol and attack an established area or "kill zone" More so since the base's location is static. I do admit to the occaisional frustration when i see an important convoy sailing unopposed to Buna while a two AP TF at Rabaul gets attacked instead.

More than that though i cant see in a game of this scale. Given that UV puts you in the role of Strategic commander, the player is already given a huge amount of control over their tactical groups....control far superior to PacWar. If your Carrier TF attacks the wrong target on occasion, fortunes and fog of war I say.

Dont see it as a major issue though. Yes occasionally a few isolated bombers attack at long range against a well defended base but not enough for me to consider it a game-buster. A better case can be made for the IJN player though, given the long range of some of their bombers. The AI lost some valuable planes to me attacking Lunga at extreme range (against mass CAP forces) in order to also be able to attack less well defended Port Morosby which i was also supplying via naval transport. Historically, the commanders 'did' shift priority from the New Guniea theater to the Solomons at the strategic/tactical level

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 86
- 1/5/2003 1:15:45 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Playing the IJN vs the AI in Scenario 17, I just had a situation where I was *glad* I was able to designate "Naval Attack" without more specificity. I had spotted a couple of USN TFs in the Gili Gili and PM areas, but nothing near Lunga. (Due to my almost comical incompetence, it's early June and the USN still holds both Lunga and Gili.) In fact I'd flown recon several turns over Lunga, air search missions out of Shortland, etc., and saw nothing around Guadalcanal. So I sent in a Bombardment TF to wake up the Yanks on Guadalcanal.

Well, the TFs near PM/Gili turned out to be routine convoys, and I'm very glad my pilots didn't attack them, because my Bombardment TF encountered an opposing USN surface fleet at Lunga. (It was quite a fight. Almost no ship emerged unscathed.) After the surface battle, my pilots wisely ignored the transports I'd planned to attack and instead nailed the remnants of the surface TF at Lunga. Yessss!

I'm not opposed to having somewhat greater control over which TFs we target, but I wanted to point out that there is (sometimes) a "fun" upside to the current system. My pilots turned out to be smarter than I am.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 87
- 1/6/2003 5:15:28 AM   
dcoop

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/16/2002
Status: offline 		I think what most people are looking for is an AI that is consistant with the theater commander's(player's) strategic goals. It seems that the only way to accomplish this is to either trick the system (by not puting LRB's in range of unwanted targets) or by giving the player a little more control over target designation. I'm not one who wants a complete make-over as to micro-manage my "commanders", but I don't think that it is too much to ask that either 1) AI commanders not make ridiculous decisions, or 2) Theater Commanders are given more input as to what is considered a target of opportunity.
I want to trust my commanders, but sometimes CDR's and LCDR's are making SN mistakes.

Coop

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 88
- 1/6/2003 1:10:20 PM   
mholmgren

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chandler, AZ
Status: offline 		I don't have time to pick targets for airstrikes, because I'm too busy concentrating on which troops get on which transport. :rolleyes:

I agree with the Grumbling Grognard's comments on this matter. It should be changed. This game plays just like SSI's old Guadalcanal Campaign.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 89
- 1/6/2003 2:55:34 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		Maybe if there was something akin to the "doctrine" settings that were in TOH_BOTR for the Axis aircraft, where you set global targeting and attack methods by type of aircfraft, but still had the ability to change the settings by squadron.

It is the obvious do's and dont's for the squadron commanders that are the source of frustration. There should be some mechanisms to help reduce these serious miscues. Not neccesarily eliminate them, as the conduct of warfare at this period of time is rife with mistakes and miscommunications.

I think that a better way to provide guidance without micromanaging would seem to be the best approach.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> OK we agree (almost) 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

1.063