Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sdj420

I have two questions:

1. Is there anything I can do that I didn't already to prevent this undesirable behavior? I tried targeting the TF, but it said I couldn't target enemy TFs directly, is there something I'm missing? (I've printed and read the major FAQs as well as the manual.)


You were outclassed by superior fighter pilots that have 70% to 80% experience levels.
You have to train your pilots up to a sufficient experience level to have an affect.

setting your planes to 70% cap meant your SBD'S and TBF'S were probably slaughtered
upon arrival at the IJN fleets.
set cap to 40% to 50% levels to allow for fighter support.
and don't attack the IJN carrier fleet to early in tthe game as they have the experience
and momentum at this point in time. ( they are taking over half the pacific at this period)


2. If this is just the way it is, is WITP better? I mean, this is pretty pathetic decision making as far as target value goes and I can't imagine what kind of formula would make such target decisions unless there was a serious bug in the implementation.


The LBA probably would not attack an enormous carrier fleet without huge fighter support
as it is suicide.
I will base a fighter sqdn and an SBD or TBF sqdn with the LBA and chances are they will
join in with the experienced carrier pilots.
You have to attack the IJN carriers when they are fatiuged and you are well rested and
with good morale, preferebly when they have been thinned out in there ranks a bit and
been in combat for several day's and you are very fresh and experienced.


I can handle losing my carriers from my own decisions, but to have the game directly disobey the specific orders I've given it is completely unacceptable. I enjoyed Scenario 18, because this never came up where I had such a confrontation after I learned about the "do not respond" command. But this is frustrating and I don't spend $50 or more on a game only to be frustrated because things don't work right.

If you think you are frustrated now try playing a PBEM game and you will have the japanese at brisbane in 4 months.
there are so many aspects to this game series that it is mind boggling, training, fatiuge,
Morale, logistics, fuel, aggressive commanders who overide your do not react settings
Malaria, etc. etc. etc.


If this is the best that Matrix games can do I'll avoid them in the future.


UV and WITP are the best strategic, tactical and logistical war simulation games on the market. ( these are not shoot um up games as they are designed for the long haul)

I have been playing UV for almost two years now with only 8 months of PBEM time
under my belt I will never play thru against the AI again as a solid PBEM player is far
better than the AI can ever imagine. ( playing either side against you)
I still have a lot to learn in these games and can hold my own against moderate players
which I consider myself to be after almost two years.
WITP is mind boggling in size and takes a good 7 - 12 hours to make your fist move
but there is nothing to compare to the shear size and complexity of this game on the market.
most war games are put on the shelf after a 6 month period as they get boring after
you know all the ins and outs of the game.
I will be playing WITP and UV for the next five years or more and I can not say that about any other game on the market.

So I suggest you find a new or moderate player to PBEM against and learn the game the way it is meant to be played, get your clock cleaned a few times, ask questions and
see if your mind changes in six months time as that is how you learn this game.

then appoligise to matrix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sdj420


BTW, I have my carriers set to "do not react" and "do not retire" and all other TFs set to "do not retire". My bombers are all set on "Naval Attack" with "Airfield Attack" as their secondary target.

1. If you have an aggressive commander assigned to your carrier group, then they are very likely to ignore your "do not react command" If you are in a position where you want your carriers to be cautious then you must assign a cautious commander. This is a purpose design into the game. Works for surface forces as well. The designer did not want players to be able to totally micromanage events, because carrier battles in the South Pacific were if anything, unpredictable.

Now comes the wierd part. The JP carriers approach PM and now parked 5 hexes away. And what do my carriers do, but advance one hex away from PM and the protective air umbrella, where they obliterated by JP carrier planes, despite having 70% CAP level at 15000 feet. And what do my land-based Army and Navy bombers do? Instead of attacking the tempting 3x CV TF just five hexes away, they go for milk runs over Lae and Buna.

I have two questions:

1. Is there anything I can do that I didn't already to prevent this undesirable behavior? I tried targeting the TF, but it said I couldn't target enemy TFs directly, is there something I'm missing? (I've printed and read the major FAQs as well as the manual.


As said before, use a cautious commander. You may not target specific TF, the computer does it for you. Sometimes this works beautifully but then again not. There are a lot of factors involved, threat level, spotting level, taget CAP, weather. The only thing I can promise you is that sh*t will happen. You must remember that this was the first time ever in history for major carrier battles. In May and June of 42, neither side was very good at it, and a lot of things did not happen as planned. The designers want this to happen in the game as well.


2. If this is just the way it is, is WITP better? I mean, this is pretty pathetic decision making as far as target value goes and I can't imagine what kind of formula would make such target decisions unless there was a serious bug in the implementation.

I can handle losing my carriers from my own decisions, but to have the game directly disobey the specific orders I've given it is completely unacceptable. I enjoyed Scenario 18, because this never came up where I had such a confrontation after I learned about the "do not respond" command. But this is frustrating and I don't spend $50 or more on a game only to be frustrated because things don't work right.

Don't jump to hasty conclusions. The game works very right most of the time. You have a lot to learn grasshopper. This is an excellent game but not easy to master.

If this is the best that Matrix games can do I'll avoid them in the future.

quote:

And what do my carriers do, but advance one hex away from PM and the protective air umbrella, where they obliterated by JP carrier planes, despite having 70% CAP level at 15000 feet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blitzer

The answer: plaster their bases and send their carriers to the bottom with swarms of torpedoes and a hail of AP bombs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sdj420

>> However, the first few months I had the game I would periodically switch sides midgame. I noted what the AI used its planes for and the settings it had for these aircraft. I found this real helpful <<

Excellent idea, thanks!

BTW, I'm an old board wargamer from back in the '70s and have a couple boxes full of AH and SPI games that I'll never play again (War in the East, Advanced Squad Leader, Air War, etc.). It was fun but terribly tedious and computer wargames are generally better. However, sometimes the computer interface can be just as tedious (though less messy) than the board games. For example, I counted it out and it takes a minimum of 7 mouse clicks to split a single AK out of a transport TF and give it the same orders as it had before. To break up a 10 ship convoy thus takes a minimum of 63 clicks. Yowza! There's got to be an easier way.

I was just about set to buy WITP but now I'm a bit concerned that it will be an even more tedious process because of its larger scope. CMDRMCTOAST saying it takes 7-12 hours to make a move is truly frightening. That would be most of one day's available gaming time! ;)