Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

us float plane tactics

 
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 >> us float plane tactics Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
us float plane tactics - 5/18/2004 3:07:35 AM   
waynec


Posts: 299
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Colorado, littleton
Status: offline 		had this game since it came and am finally getting into it in preparation for war in the pacific. was originally turned off by the lack of control (which is realsitic but disconcerting at times). but i digress:
i notice in the game that the us can use float planes from BB's and cruisers for search. i know the japanese did this all the time but i didn't think the us did. is this a flaw or did i miss something in all my reading (game manuals and history books)? i know when i play the allies i can just turn it off. this strikes me as a possible preference like japanese submarine tactics.
just won my first coral sea (as us). could have done better but as i was using this scenario for game training i forced a carrier v carrier confrontation just for the hell of it.
second question: the manual talks about surface warfare tactics such as crossing the "T". I thought surface combat was completely controlled by the computer once contact was made. again did i miss something?

thanks
Post #: 1
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/18/2004 3:35:30 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		The US used them in a primarily ASW role but that is basically a naval search in itself.....the US planes didn't have near thye range the japanese did though.

As for the manual......in two words....it sucks. I just used it as a reference for upgrade paths and such....it is helpful in the tables concerning react and do not react for more desired results.

< Message edited by rogueusmc -- 5/18/2004 7:36:12 AM >

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to waynec)
Post #: 2
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/18/2004 11:36:24 AM   
scorryuk

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline 		Surface Combat completely up up to AI. Pick a good commander, put him in charge of good experienced fleet and let him do his job. And sometimes he crosses the T and supposedly gains the advantage. Though last time one of my commanders did this it was still pretty even battle.

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 3
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 12:46:07 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		I think the main use of BB and CA floatplanes during the war was artillery observation against ground targets... something not present in UV, except if you use Seagulls and Kingfisher to fly recon of land targets. They are not very useful for naval search because of their short range. And I can't remember to have seen a Seagull hit a Japanese submarine... and I have seen a lot of IJN subs go down....

For both sides, I land most of the floatplanes, especially the short-range ones (Pete and Seagulls) so they won't be lost with the ship if she is sunk, so saving some points.

And in 1943 Japanese floaplanes can be used with some success as 'Washing Machine Charlie'. In one of my games a dozen Jakes destroyed 3 planes and score 2 supply hits in some nights.

(in reply to waynec)
Post #: 4
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 2:50:50 AM   
waynec


Posts: 299
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Colorado, littleton
Status: offline 		that has been my understanding as well. i don't even think we used them as asw but only as spotting for bombardment. i recall we tried to use them in one slot battle in a manner similar to the japanese at savo island, but it didn't work and i think most every ship got rid of them if they expected a fight, especially at night.
well, guess this is a "gamey" question. how close do i want to play to the history (tactics wise) or is part of the whole wargame experience doing what would not or could not have been done.
sounds like the topic for an article. how much can you vary from history before a wargame is so distorted it is meaningless for anything except a game?

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 5
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 3:20:52 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		In every game I play, I attempt to use the assets in their historical role.

If the commanders attacked to the left I have no problem with alternative history – and I might attempt an attack to the right.

But I will continue to use the assets in their historical role.

If the game designers make errors, then a player could use a Tiger tank to attack submarines. This is meant only as an extreme example.

I would continue to use the Tiger tank in its historical role. But some players would use gamey tactics and use the Tiger tank in a ASW role because the game allows it. The only way to beat the gamey player is to:

- apply a patch so players are forced to use assets in their historical role or;
- use gamey tactics yourself to win

Before using the latter I would throw the game in the bin
-

_____________________________


(in reply to waynec)
Post #: 6
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 5:03:55 AM   
waynec


Posts: 299
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Colorado, littleton
Status: offline 		i know. back in '76 when i was stationed in germany we would play Terrible Swift Sword, 2-3 guys per side. according to the game, the confederates could break of a brigade from heth's division and force march them south to interdict the iron brigade moving north before the iron brigade got to gettysburg proper (and into the line to the west). none of the players ever did that because it would have beeen inconsistent with civil war infantry tactics.

which, of course, has nothing to do with ww2. i think the grander the scale and scope of the game, the greater the possibility that the game system will allow for these ahistorical tactics. not a flaw, just the nature of game and ai design.

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 7
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 1:06:40 PM   
scorryuk

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline 		Some intresting points of view on using only historical tactics. But I have always felt the purpose of games like this was not to repeat history but to re-write it. To indulge yourself with what if`s. And one way of doing this is to fight on your own terms using your own tactics and doctrines on how best to do that.

(in reply to waynec)
Post #: 8
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 6:42:18 PM   
609IAP_Thumper

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 3/18/2003
From: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		Hey waynec, now I finally met one other guy on the planet who has Terrible Swift Sword. I loved the game, but could never get too far before something upset those stacks of cardboard pieces. Trying to straighten up that huge board was a real task. That sure is a blast from the past.

(in reply to scorryuk)
Post #: 9
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 7:22:14 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: waynec

that has been my understanding as well. i don't even think we used them as asw but only as spotting for bombardment. i recall we tried to use them in one slot battle in a manner similar to the japanese at savo island, but it didn't work and i think most every ship got rid of them if they expected a fight, especially at night.
well, guess this is a "gamey" question. how close do i want to play to the history (tactics wise) or is part of the whole wargame experience doing what would not or could not have been done.
sounds like the topic for an article. how much can you vary from history before a wargame is so distorted it is meaningless for anything except a game?


Yes, a lot of times they were flown off the ship if a naval battle was expected. If they remained on deck the concussion from the main arament would blow them to bits and could start a fire. IIRC The Houston did this very thing to herself early in the war.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to waynec)
Post #: 10
RE: us float plane tactics - 5/19/2004 7:25:26 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scorryuk

Some intresting points of view on using only historical tactics. But I have always felt the purpose of games like this was not to repeat history but to re-write it. To indulge yourself with what if`s. And one way of doing this is to fight on your own terms using your own tactics and doctrines on how best to do that.


A great game for its day. I played to a lot solo. I liked "Gleam of Bayonets" even better. We used to play it two on three. The wing commanders for the Union could not communicate tactics except by time delayed dispatch. Made for a great game.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to scorryuk)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> us float plane tactics Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750