Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Really? How long have you been playing this game?

Do you really need some one to lay this out for you?

If you want your Surface Combat TFs to actually fight you probably need to be setting them to the highest levels possible.

If you don't want your cargo TFs to stray into enemy air range you probably need to be setting them to the lowest levels possible.

Sorry for the lack of specific setting references, but I don't currently have the game open.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would need to ask for help figuring this out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Really? How long have you been playing this game?

Do you really need some one to lay this out for you?

If you want your Surface Combat TFs to actually fight you probably need to be setting them to the highest levels possible.

If you don't want your cargo TFs to stray into enemy air range you probably need to be setting them to the lowest levels possible.

Sorry for the lack of specific setting references, but I don't currently have the game open.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would need to ask for help figuring this out.

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

I've always used remain on station or retire from danger with normal threat tolerance and normal or direct pathing and it has always worked well. On normal it seems to avoid airpower fine. I almost always have to click direct to get rid of the crazy routes around empty enemy bases. No problems with SC not fighting. I don't send unprotected task forces into bomber attack range. Have not really had any reasons to change things just looking to see if I should use other settings more not looking for a fight about it.

As I've said I've searched the manual and the forum. Searching for threat or threat tolerance has not shown me much at all.

If you just want to take my thread and turn it into another flame war please don't bother I've got a life. Please do direct me if I've missed something. Or not. Either is fine. Just bitching and wasting everyone's time is not.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/searchpro.asp?phrase=threat&author=&forumid=528&topicreply=both&message=body&timeframe=%3E&timefilter=0&language=single&top=300&criteria=AND&minRank=0&sortMethod=r&submitbutton=+OK+

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

Lowpe: 4th: I love threat tolerance set to low

Lowpe did you really mean this? Wouldn't that result in TFs being reluctant to engage?

Absolutely! Almost 100% of the time. How it seems to work in game, after extensive use, is that there seems to be no reluctance to engage although this might be due to the fact most Allied players use aggressive leaders. Each task force will usually only have one combat and then withdraw...

But my SAG tend to disengage early, so I get an initial torpedo launch and then if out gunned a retreat. There seems to be no effect against normal merchant convoys.

As Japan I try to maximize the torpedo attacks and slight skirmish instead of a punishing slugfest for a variety of reasons.

quote:


Take a look at your initial question. Did it convey that you had looked through the manual? Searched the forum? Watched tutorial videos? What specific situations you are concerned about getting right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

When I say something is answered in the manual, or patch notes, or by using a specific search term, I know for a FACT doing so answers the query because I have checked those precise steps before I posted my response. I do not provide direct guidance unless I am satisfied that the returns contain the answer.

Hence Tanaka is:

* calling me a liar, or

* or was too lazy/incompetent to do the simple things pointed out to him, or

* simply lacks the comprehension skills to understand the answers


The link provided in post #4 does indeed return relevant threads. That Tanaka did not say why the returns (which included contributions from relevant devs and myself) were inadequate show the above 3 points are correct. What did he expect to retrieve, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? the Sydney Opera House? And of course he has been totally silent on what the patch notes say, which only confirms he has as is always the case with Tanaka, not bothered to consult the patch notes.

Tanaka is one of those AE players, and there are many of them who fall within this category, who expect someone else to:

(a) go and find the tiger, or any other wild game,

(b) shoot the tiger with a tranquilizer dart,

(c) tie up to a stake in the ground the sedated tiger

(d) load up a double barreled shotgun, hand over the shotgun but stand behind him aiming the shotgun at the sedated, tethered tiger,

at which point Tanaka squeezes the trigger and then walks the 3 paces to the now dead tiger to have his picture taken of the big game hunter bagging a tiger.


Anyone who uses the excuse they have a life to explain why they can't properly learn how to play AE, simply doesn't have the time to waste playing AE badly. How arrogant to believe the rest of us don't also have lives to live but are indentured servants who in return for receiving bread and water, are expected to answer anything which Milord demands from his indentured servants.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

Strongly agree with this. Way too much "grumpy old man" syndrome in what used to be one of the best forums around. If you don't like someone's question, or think it is a dumb question, just move on and ignore it. No need to be the self-appointed forum gatekeeper.

Having said that, I rarely use anything but "normal" setting on my TFs. Never had a problem with surface or air TFs not engaging. On rare occasions I'll use "absolute" threat tolerance, when I want a TF to follow a specific route regardless (like when escaping from an even bigger threat).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

In case you haven't found it: The patch notes are in the readme file in your game folder, if you search for the keyword "threat" you will find the entry Alfred likely meant.
As far as I understand it the threat tolerance mechanic was implemented after the initial release of WITPAE and is thus not directly covered in the manual, but the patch notes contain a description of the mechanic.

I personally only used the settings "normal" or "absolute" until now, but what Lowpe wrote in the thread you quoted is definitely interesting, will need to think about how I can integrate this into my game.
The "absolute" setting can also be useful if you want your TFs to ignore a threat you know they will encounter, but you also know is not that big of a deal or you know you can manage.
For example if you want to invade Java in the early game but the Dutch air force still has some bombers around who tbh rarely hit a ship anyway, you can set your amphibious TFs to "absolute" so they won't retreat because they perceive the air threat as too great.
In general setting your amphibious TFs to "absolute" if you want to invade a location where you know you will face opposition can help greatly in pulling the invasion of according to plan. Take this with a grain of salt though, this is only helpful if you can assess your opponents strength correctly and have enough force in the area to keep your TFs safe from attacks.
If your opponent can slip a large SCTF in the hex you try to invade while your invasion TF approaches with an "absolute" threat tolerance .......well you probably get the picture

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
So will low tolerance work on ignoring those pesky PT boat squadrons that just get in the way and use up all of your ammo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
So will low tolerance work on ignoring those pesky PT boat squadrons that just get in the way and use up all of your ammo?

I don't think it will necessarily work like you intend it to work, because:
- PT Boats are quite fast, so as long you are in their range, they will likely get you.
- If your TF perceive PT Boats as large enough of a threat to retreat from them, they will basically retreat from everything else too.

I haven't used the "low" setting before so I am not 100% sure how things play out with this setting though.
This is probably something you just need to experiment and get experience with to use it properly.

Also while PT Boats are rarely a threat to surface combatants, they can wreak havoc on your transport ships, so it may be wise to not ignore them. And I can vaguely remember that there was this AAR where a PT Boat sunk Yamato, wasn't it Greyjoys AAR?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
So will low tolerance work on ignoring those pesky PT boat squadrons that just get in the way and use up all of your ammo?

I don't think it will necessarily work like you intend it to work, because:
- PT Boats are quite fast, so as long you are in their range, they will likely get you.
- If your TF perceive PT Boats as large enough of a threat to retreat from them, they will basically retreat from everything else too.

I haven't used the "low" setting before so I am not 100% sure how things play out with this setting though.
This is probably something you just need to experiment and get experience with to use it properly.

Also while PT Boats are rarely a threat to surface combatants, they can wreak havoc on your transport ships, so it may be wise to not ignore them. And I can vaguely remember that there was this AAR where a PT Boat sunk Yamato, wasn't it Greyjoys AAR?

Yes, it was Greyjoy's AAR. Some of the PTs greatest successes have been disrupting landings. Just by appearing and trying to attack the unloading ships they cause the invasion TFs to cease unloading and get underway, often with collisions ensuing. The interruption can happen again after that combat finishes if the PTs are still around. That means less gets unloaded by the landing TF which could mean too small a force to meet the enemy on that turn. Escorts should not ignore PTs under any circumstance because the merchant ships cannot ignore them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

+1

One of the main thing with PT boats is moonlight.

You want your amphibious landings to launch when when there is a full moon or close to it.

When the moon is dark PT boats can get in very close to a task force before combat.

I’ve seen a squadron of PT boats wreck a surface or amphibious task force on a
dark night landing and punch major holes in several capital ships.

I modified my Operations Report to show the phases of the moon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Really? How long have you been playing this game?

Do you really need some one to lay this out for you?

If you want your Surface Combat TFs to actually fight you probably need to be setting them to the highest levels possible.

If you don't want your cargo TFs to stray into enemy air range you probably need to be setting them to the lowest levels possible.

Sorry for the lack of specific setting references, but I don't currently have the game open.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would need to ask for help figuring this out.

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

I've always used remain on station or retire from danger with normal threat tolerance and normal or direct pathing and it has always worked well. On normal it seems to avoid airpower fine. I almost always have to click direct to get rid of the crazy routes around empty enemy bases. No problems with SC not fighting. I don't send unprotected task forces into bomber attack range. Have not really had any reasons to change things just looking to see if I should use other settings more not looking for a fight about it.

As I've said I've searched the manual and the forum. Searching for threat or threat tolerance has not shown me much at all.

If you just want to take my thread and turn it into another flame war please don't bother I've got a life. Please do direct me if I've missed something. Or not. Either is fine. Just bitching and wasting everyone's time is not.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/searchpro.asp?phrase=threat&author=&forumid=528&topicreply=both&message=body&timeframe=%3E&timefilter=0&language=single&top=300&criteria=AND&minRank=0&sortMethod=r&submitbutton=+OK+

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Really? How long have you been playing this game?

Do you really need some one to lay this out for you?

If you want your Surface Combat TFs to actually fight you probably need to be setting them to the highest levels possible.

If you don't want your cargo TFs to stray into enemy air range you probably need to be setting them to the lowest levels possible.

Sorry for the lack of specific setting references, but I don't currently have the game open.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would need to ask for help figuring this out.

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

I've always used remain on station or retire from danger with normal threat tolerance and normal or direct pathing and it has always worked well. On normal it seems to avoid airpower fine. I almost always have to click direct to get rid of the crazy routes around empty enemy bases. No problems with SC not fighting. I don't send unprotected task forces into bomber attack range. Have not really had any reasons to change things just looking to see if I should use other settings more not looking for a fight about it.

As I've said I've searched the manual and the forum. Searching for threat or threat tolerance has not shown me much at all.

If you just want to take my thread and turn it into another flame war please don't bother I've got a life. Please do direct me if I've missed something. Or not. Either is fine. Just bitching and wasting everyone's time is not.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/searchpro.asp?phrase=threat&author=&forumid=528&topicreply=both&message=body&timeframe=%3E&timefilter=0&language=single&top=300&criteria=AND&minRank=0&sortMethod=r&submitbutton=+OK+

The irony floats so thick here, you could slice it.

Tanaka, you have indeed missed something. What you have missed is that you have asked - not for the first time, but the umpteenth - a lazy question, within easy reach of a simple search here, apparently after a rather limited attempt to find the answer.

So, to adapt your phrase, how about you cease and desist from "bitching" at other people who you accuse of "bitching" when you have just wasted their time? I agree with you, wasting everyone's time is not OK, which is why, after I wasted 15 minutes of my life answering your recent question about air transfers and missions - and then you wanted to argue about it - I don't bother anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Tanaka, you should ask the admins to change your log-in to "Tow-truck".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The tow-truck.

First at the scene of any disaster.