'Set & Forget' air ops

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

'Set & Forget' air ops

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> 'Set & Forget' air ops

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

'Set & Forget' air ops - 7/6/2003 6:28:33 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

posted by Mr. Frag in the 'Naval Air Strike Priority' thread:
[QUOTE]
It would be great to have some simple'ish scripting that would let you control things a tad better.

Such as:

Fly mission type a to range x until fatigue > y with z% of available aircraft.

This would take care of two things: extreme range silliness and overflying, allowing you to set and forget a base without having planes run off and commit suicide for nothing.[/QUOTE]

The above made me think about managing air ops in general. I wonder how much time and mouse clicks it will take to go through all those air groups in WitP, checking morale, fatigue, mission etc. each turn - provided the current UV system is used without changes. It's a hassle within the limited scale of UV already, and IMO too much micromanagement will kill the fun factor.
Mr. Frag's solution looks good and the principle looks familiar from Talonsoft's 'Battle of Britain', where you could assign thresholds for certain parameters, e.g. 'fly missions only if morale is >50, fatigue <50 and cloud cover <7/10'.

However, this might be a bit too 'tactical' for WitP. What I have in mind is a button on each 'air group screen' toggling the effort of the group between 'sustained' (sustainable?) and 'all-out'. 'Sustained effort' would automatically use only those pilots with reasonable fatigue and moral values (say fatigue <30 and morale >60) and would only allow missions if the unit is at least at say 50% of nominal strength and weather isn't lousy. 'All-out effort' is self-explanatory. Once set to 'sustained' the unit should be able to operate without needing the player's attention each turn.
Furthermore, it might be useful to have an indicator (e.g. red border) on the airfield symbols if the base contains units on 'max effort', so the player could easily recognize the bases that need his closer supervision.

This idea probably isn't thought-out too well, so what do you guys think?

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

Post #: 1

- 7/6/2003 6:30:40 PM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

This idea is called "taking advantage of computers to make better wargames"

The idea needs to be extended to all facets of the game.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 2

- 7/7/2003 1:58:52 AM

juliet7bravo

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

"The idea needs to be extended to all facets of the game."

If it's a "strategic level game", and you're the Theatre Commander, then you'd have a STAFF. You should be able to automate 90% of the mindless micro-management at the start of the game by giving your STAFF guidance/orders outlining your SOP's. Call it scripting, call it an Aid de Camp, call it a Staff...but its got to be there.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 3

- 7/7/2003 4:44:06 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

The whole "staff" thing is how we got into the raging debate over need for player-controlled naval air strike targeting. Your "STAFF," in UV and WITP, is the same AI that plays idiot on the other side when you don't have a human opponent available.

No wonder so many players hope for "micromanagement" control. Until your computer "STAFF" measures up to the task, you're better off trusting yourself, no matter how much time and painstaking attention to detail it takes.

The only problem, as I see it, is, when you've had too much BEER, you're stupider than the AI. There ought to be a toggle switch for when you've over the limit and the AI needs to take over the detail work - better yet, you could buy one of those surplus automobile starter interlock breath test devices and hook it up to your computer. You have to blow into the tube every turn - I suppose the best time would be before you are allowed to give orders - and, if your blood alcohol content is above a certain level, the computer automatically takes over ... I can think of a couple of PBEM games where this might have saved my @$$ ...

_____________________________

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 LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 4

- 7/7/2003 4:45:47 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Frankly, I see WitP as a mega-flop if it does not drastically reduce the number of clicks required to get things done as it sits in UV.

Computers exist to automate mindless things so we can pay attention to the important things that require thought. I am sure there are few of us here who have not been in the situation many times where we've forgotten to do some clicking here and there simply due to the large amount of details we are forced to manage at the UV level.

WitP is 4+ times the scale and timeframe. While it may be fun the first few times, the frustration levels are going to grow exponentially in short order.

The UI in UV is rather primative to say the least, if it was not for the game behind the interface being so fun, it would have vanished off my machine a long time ago. Lets hope there is a serious overhaul to the UI aimed at reducing the workload to a managable level for one person to still be able to enjoy the game considering that we are looking at a scale that will take years to play out to conclusion. Remember from a design standpoint, we're looking at a 2007 game here. UV interface'wise strikes me as a 1999 style click fest which has long since passed.

One other feature that would be absolutely fantastic would be a turn lookahead feature which would show you where things will be 1/2/etc turns in the future coupled with a rangefinder tool due to the scale.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 5

- 7/7/2003 5:11:16 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Frankly, I see WitP as a mega-flop if it does not drastically reduce the number of clicks required to get things done as it sits in UV.[/B][/QUOTE]

Mr. Frag, I completely agree with you. I only want to add that the "automated" tasks have to be just that - recordkeeping and routine. Anything that makes you depend on the AI for discretionary decisionmaking, particularly with reference to command and control, will make WitP just as much an abject failure, IMHO.

_____________________________

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 LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 6

- 7/7/2003 5:57:47 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I will probably get WITP not because I am a naval fan but because I am a wargamer.

I am hoping there will be a sequal - UV in the Med.

I will probably play some of the smaller scenarios of WITP and that will be it.

The points made by the posters above are extremly telling.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 7

- 7/7/2003 6:52:58 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98
[B]I am hoping there will be a sequal - UV in the Med.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, yes, yes, Raverdave in Heaven, do you hear the words of another disciple (all bow down to the glorious messiaussie - let us pray - "oh, blinding light, oh, light that blinds, I cannot see, look out for me - OUCH!)?

Seriously, I think that the Mediterranean theater in WWII will turn out being a better subject for the UV system than the original was (as long as ground combat and the abstracting of overarching ETO concerns are modeled successfully).

I agree, Joe. If there was competition, things might be different, but as it is, it's the only show in town - and it ain't bad.

_____________________________

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 LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 8

- 7/7/2003 7:06:17 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]The whole "staff" thing is how we got into the raging debate over need for player-controlled naval air strike targeting. Your "STAFF," in UV and WITP, is the same AI that plays idiot on the other side when you don't have a human opponent available.

No wonder so many players hope for "micromanagement" control. Until your computer "STAFF" measures up to the task, you're better off trusting yourself, no matter how much time and painstaking attention to detail it takes.

The only problem, as I see it, is, when you've had too much BEER, you're stupider than the AI. There ought to be a toggle switch for when you've over the limit and the AI needs to take over the detail work - better yet, you could buy one of those surplus automobile starter interlock breath test devices and hook it up to your computer. You have to blow into the tube every turn - I suppose the best time would be before you are allowed to give orders - and, if your blood alcohol content is above a certain level, the computer automatically takes over ... I can think of a couple of PBEM games where this might have saved my @$$ ... [/B][/QUOTE] Exactly! As soon as you get the AI to control things, players will soon scream for control back. Maybe a toggle to give you manual or AI control within certain parameters. Or let the AI concern itself to logistics issues only and leave all combat decisions to the human, regardless of alcohol intake( Fog of Intoxication).

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 9

- 7/7/2003 9:06:03 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Fog of Intoxication[/QUOTE]

Understand the problem, with WitP, you are talking about a 10 hour drinking fest every turn. I'm not sure just how many turns are going to get completed with folks passing out in their chairs. :(

I've got my eye on Airborne Assault and will probably be living in it for quite some time to come so Matrix will still get my money, but WitP without a serious scripting extension to allow some fairly complex automation is simply beyond the amount of time I have in my life. I'll buy it simply because I feel the need to support one of the last companies still producing war games. ;)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 10

Aircombat - 7/7/2003 9:33:07 AM

mogami

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

Hi, Well so far it is my impression the aircombat will not be a major time consuming issue. Because the bases that will be conducting air ops are limited to begin with. And as operations in the NEI proceed they will diminish in number. (at start the allies will be letting the groups fly no matter what, or ground them no matter what (so they can move when repaired)

After the NEI you have the Burma area, and where ever the Japanese go for their next adventure. (with a certain amount of time to move units and stockpile supply. )

WITP has reduced fatigue for airgroups that fly CAP (without combat)
I think most players will cycle through advanced bases every turn regardless. (You can look at the map and be aware of possible air events)(If it's in range you set CAP if it's not you let your groups rest except for a bare coverage-just in case)
The player preparing an air event will know where and when to change air group status.

After the turn resolves you'll know where to look to check airgroups. (If nothing occurs you don't need to change airgroup status) Search planes suffer lower fatigue as well in WITP.

My point is, you won't have to look at every airgroup every turn.
I do my turns by cycling through my bases. I get a feel for where the action is (so I know where to stop and pay closer attention)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 11

- 7/7/2003 10:49:47 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

I understand what you are saying Mogami, with lowered levels of fatigue to CAP and Search, it will certainly help. Does this also apply to ASW operations?

The current UV problem is that airgroups get hurt, new pilots coming in are low skilled and end up getting killed in operational losses, more pilots, more planes, more deaths, more pilots, more planes, more deaths, and the skill just keeps sliding downhill.

I know at one point UV was patched to cause the less trained pilots to fly more often to try and skill them up, but this has a side effect that obviously was not thought out, that of the death cycle with low skilled pilots.

Two options to counter this. Complete withdraw of the air group for months of training because of a few bad pilots OR some ability in the game UI to control who flys and who sits in ground school.

Personally, I don't care how it is solved, but due to the scale of WitP, I think some game mechanics need to change to enable people to step back from this grind where you can not play multiple day turns due to the fatigue suicide curve on offensive missions. Due to the number of turns in a WitP game, it would be great if the UI was enhanced in a manner that multi-day turns could actually be played.

I do have to look at it objectively, and sometimes picking experts like yourself to beta test leaves an excellent game yet way beyond the normal folks in terms of playability. I remember reading your first post on turn length and wondering ... If it took you 10 hours, with my over"anal"izing, it would probably be more like 20 hours ;)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 12

- 7/7/2003 2:35:51 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by Mr. Frag
[QUOTE]I do have to look at it objectively, and sometimes picking experts like yourself to beta test leaves an excellent game yet way beyond the normal folks in terms of playability.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, for every Mogami, there's always a Drongo to balance things out.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 13

- 7/8/2003 1:37:22 PM

Shot2Pieces

Posts: 8
Joined: 8/7/2002
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Status: offline

How about a simple drop down box for air groups, showing 'Fly mission every 'x' days', where x is shown in the drop down box.

X could be a value from one to 7, meaning fly as often as every day or as little as once/week.

So you could set an airfield attack mission to fly every 2 or 3 days for example, which would keep fatigue and morale well under control.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 14

Re: 'Set & Forget' air ops - 7/10/2003 9:03:38 AM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

Going back some months, this topic was debated severely among many individuals...I still like this type idea - offensive/ defensive fight choices and then the parameters to define flight types. I liked Battle of Britian's Wing/Squadron screens and the ability to highlight and choose roles from there.

I would like to ask the Beta-Testers about what is currently being tested - and how they like/dislike it & why...

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 15

- 7/10/2003 8:05:13 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

No fan of micromanagement, I think some of the micro management can be alleviated by better reporting than is available in UV. Let's take the air groups since that is the big topic. In UV things would be so much better if the listing of land/naval airgroups had some more information and you could sort on multiple fields. There is plenty of room across the screen for more info and with multiple sorts you would not have to click through all of your airbases to see individual units - saving dozens of clicks (if not more).

Another suggestion which I heartily endorse is a range calulator. Select a hex as you do now then right click on another hex and a range is given - very helpful.

As to automating some things, well, my view is that as much of the micromanagement should be automated as is possible. The one big problem I see in that stems from my experiences with the automated supply in UV which IMHO was a failure. It is a good idea, but if it is gonna screw up then please let me handle the details myself. I do like the idea of setting levels of fatigue and morale for air ops - it seems an easy thing to do. Scripting however seems like it could be a nightmare. There are too many quirks in UV which we don't need multiplied in WitP.:)

P.S. Have i ever mentioned my suggestion about right clicking on a TF and the clicking the DH so you could move it without having to look at the TF screen and click move to and.....Oh, I probably have.:D

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 16

- 7/11/2003 9:03:20 AM

CommC

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline

I've got to jump in here and addmy thoughts on this.

I'm in full agreement that WiTP has got to be simplified or automated to be playable, as compared to UV. LBA, rear area supply, submarine operations can all be automated. The player should have the option to automate or control in detail all of these.

The focus should be one front line operations, including naval, naval air, surface and supply. The computer should handle rear area supply, submarine interdiction and supply except on frontline areas. Otherwise WiTP will be too massive to be playable.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 17