Piiska
Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline
|
Please stop using the "this is operational game not a tactical game" argument. It is bad.
The issue of airgroups attacking targets in wrong AREAS in relation to overall strategic/operational situation can not be justified with any silly comments about SNAFUs, tactical mistakes, divine interventions or bad flukes.
I hate repeating, but even more I hate misconceptions about terms. Therefore, to illustrate my point I walk you through the basic flow of military decicion making. I have been part of it and I have a very good grasp how the system works (or at least it should work in theory).
Unless the consepts: "tactical", "operational" and "strategic" have not changed since I checked the last time, the following should be true to any military organisation that has any coherence.
So here we go:
The high command decides which is the broad strategic plan.
For Allied in the Pacific it could be to hold on and defend Australia untill more assets are available. This level would also think how it is best to defend Australia.
They might decide that for Australia's defence, holding on to Port Moresby is a vital key. Based on their intelligence, they might learn that enemy is gathering forces in Rabaul. They might guess the invasion fleet is headed for PM in a timeframe of 2 months. They would choose to launch an operation defend PM, gather the assets, choose an operational commander(s) and allocate the assets for him or them.
The operational commander X then receives 10 ships and three airgroups. He is told that defence of Australia is the strategic goal at the moment and in that plan the defece of PM is crucial.
Operational commander X then uses the assets in the best possible way to defend PM. He might put the airgroups to PM and ships to Cairs. Then again he might try to hide his ships in Gili Gili in hope to make a surprise attack on enemy. He might even decide to leave the whole PM empty and concentrate all his forces in Guadalcanal. This, however, would be a very bad operational decicion and result in loss of PM very easily in which case he would be fired. After he has deviced an operational plan he then gets the seal of approval from his superiors, who would make appropriate changes to it. Such as ordering him not to commit he's defence force to Guadalcanal.
It does't matter where he commits his forces, what matters is that he is the one who chooses where to commit what sort of forces, where to stirike and with what assets. His job is just to get the defence job done.
For his assets, such as airgroups, he would tell who is responsible of what area and how to react if enemy is spotted. For example he would brief his squadron leader followingly: "We expect enemy to attempt invasion from Rabaul". Do not attempt to engage the heavily protected CV, instead strike enemy troopships regardless your losses. If, however, opportunity arises, attack any targets of opportunity, but conserve all the possible assest for a strike against the troop carriers".
(These two steps should be the much talked operational scope of the game, but currently the operational/strategic commander cant tell his subordinates what are the key areas for operations.)
"Acknowledged", says the Squadron leader and off he goes to his base to brief his squadron.
He would be the one to conduct the operations within the boundaries given by his superior (operational commander). He would be responsible of making sure that once those troopships arrive, he has enough rested men and operational planes at his disposal to strike the troopships. He would choose at what time to launch the strike and from what altitude using which ordnance. He would make sure the base has enough CAP. He would know when his men are tired.
(These are tactical decisions, yet we do them. Actually in the game you make all the other calls, except the most important operational ones. Funny that people scream about operational game eh?)
Is there anyone here who wants to dispute this?
So how does my rant relate to UV?
Well. If you insist, I say it once more and pray to powers that I get my point across without pissing off all you guys:
To claim that its ok for the player to adjust CAP levels and flying altitudes for individual squadrons, while not being able to set up operational areas and target priorities for the same squadrons is simply too much.
That argument is exactly as dead as one famous parrot in one silly scetch of Monty Python.
Why am I so passinate about this? Why can't I simply enjoy UV?
But I do!!! I love it!! Its the best wargame I have ever played!
If it wasn't I wouldn't be this passionate.
I wish that the player input based on our experiences with UV can affect the future shape of WITP and I wish that when it is finally released it is THE wargame.
Never have I been this close of having the game of my dreams. It only is a matter of removing one inconsistency and now that Apollo presented his suggestion I just felt YES! THATS it! Finally a solution for that itch that I have been trying scratch all along, but not quite knowing where the scab is.
Hopefully Matrix listens to this and gives it a deep consideration.
Based on the poll in the other thread One thing is for sure: Something is not quite right with the system. Its close, but not quite right.
Hopefully Apollo's solution is implemented.
|
Printable Version
Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search&q... - 
- 
Staff work - 
Wondering - 
Re: Wondering - 
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