Ron Saueracker
Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3rd ACR Tanker
I've not had that kind of luck but here's what I did have:
2 CV's in one task force, 3 CVL's one CVE in the other separated by 12 hexes in the area north of Truk East of Palau and West of Ein looking to interdict his SLOC's. During the Day I found a Jap Task force of 2 BB's, 1 CV plus assorted escorts, another TF consisting of 1 damaged BB (from an earlier port strike) 3 CA's and a few escorts. Also in range were a 10 ship AK / AP task force, a 5 ship task force of TK, MSW and a DD. Both of my Task Forces located the first two TF's between them, so I manuevered my TF's a bit more north and south to try and sink them both. Next Day Airstrikes went off, did they go after the first two TF's?? not in force, even though the first task force was only 3 hexes away from my CV TF. Majority of my strikes in larger numbers went after the merchies both in the am and pm. Only 20 SBD's and TBF's went after the first TF, 15 and 10 after the second only getting in a couple of torp hits, and a few bomb hits. Now I did maul the merchies, but still not happy. Wish there was a way we could designate Shipping / TF priorities for Carrier Aircraft based upon DL level instead of trusting the computer to do it for us...any thoughts???
Boy, do I have thoughts.  Goes hand in hand with the series of checks which are conducted at the squadron level, even individual aircraft level when determining strike packages. Unfortunate that military command structure was overlooked in a military sim in this way. My suggestions called for more player imput on the individual base, Command HQ and Theatre HQ level and less on the squadron, individual unit, level. I wanted a target priority menu for the base, along with a intensity level slider (instead of the rather clunky squadron target/CAP % we have to deal with). Considering this an operational level game, we must micromanage details which we should not have to and can't manage details which operational commanders normally would, like set target/operational priorities, engagement doctrines etc.
But these suggestions were made during the Beta phase of UV, not the Alpha when major design revisions are conceivable. (I arrived as a late Beta for UV) Considering that UV was the meat and potatoes of WITP, the devs would have probably had to rewrite complete sections of the design, then test if it worked with the older design elements...can't blame them for not attempting it.
The one suggestion I regret not seeing attempted was my ideas for submarine handling and bases. I suggested historical submarine HQs which would have leaders like Lockwood, Christie, Fife, English etc (and their Japanese and Allied counterparts), and upon entering the respective HQ menu the player could define his own sub doctrine (by accessing the COMSUBPAC HQ or equivalent) as opposed to having the undefinable hard coded one which needed to be selected as game is started.
There would be a chain of command structure of lesser HQs down to submarine squadron level. Submarine bases were to be built at the base as are airfields, ports and fortifications are presently with torpedo stocks dependent upon supply and depot size level. (suggested this for mine depots and naval bases as well, with mine stocks dependent on supply and depot size level for mine depots, and specialist naval ordnance for naval bases...all ports could provide fuel). Neccesitates the importance of submarine and naval bases and restricts ahistoric refuel/rearm at any base ability we presently have.
Within the base menu, one could access the submarine base sub-menu which allowed you to assign subs to the base or to squadrons (SUBRONS) and set the base's submarines (those not in a squadron with an AS as flagship...I'll elaborate later) or entire submarine squadrons stationed at this base to be set to AI or player control (notice, this could be set at the base level, SUBRON level or individual submarine level). From this base menu, one can assign the various patrol areas (WITP map was to be divided into a large number of individual patrol areas which were static and would be utilized to segment the map for both the Allied and Japanese player)
From the submarine base sub-menu, one could have accessed the SUBRONS menu. Each SUBRON had an AS (or in IJN case, a Katori class CL as well) as a flagship. Maximum of eight subs per SUBRON. If no qualifying ship was available the subs are not assigned to SUBRONS but to the sub base itself (as you will see, having a flagship would allow a bit more strategic flexibility and subs benefit from its repair facilities as we have now). Basically, having the flagship would allow the player to further define the patrol area (a player could select specific patrol areas for it's submarines (ie, those which included choke points) whereas bases with no SUBRON flagship must go with the entire patrol area. The more submarine flagships a base has, the more SUBRONs and therefore more strategic flexibility.
The main reason for this structure was to facilitate a more useful AI. Each patrol area would be the area which the subs set to AI control would roam). They would not just go to where the designers programmed them to. Manual player control of subs if selected primarily for those who wish extreme control and to allow special missions such as mine laying, transport etc)
Personally, I still think the game is not to far into development for this to be attempted.
What do ya think?
_____________________________
  Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
|
Printable Version
RE: Should Allied carriers bother to fight in 1942? - 
). If WW2 were to run again (being hypothetical for a moment), I doubt Midway would happen just how it did before. Call it Providence or sheer dumb luck, but I don't think we'd see the same results. Yes, truth is stranger than fiction, but we should not expect the strange to happen every game. 
) He sidles up with his carrier planes, and nothing can stop him. Betties and Nells fall from the sky like rain, Marus are sinking all over the place. After six days of this, he turns to head for home, and my remaining KB , which had been loitering 300 m east of Buka while the carnage continued, comes through the Shortland Buin gap (forget the name)and sinks all five of his, with only the loss of Junyo. His whole plan of attack is ruined for four months (happpened late Aug). Wouldn't it have been better to have two of the five in reserve, and of course, not linger so long? 
RE: Death Star formation - 
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