RE: Carrier action off Fiji

RE: Carrier action off Fiji (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports

Message

denisonh -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/21/2006 1:56:57 AM)
Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)? I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case.

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/21/2006 2:36:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: denisonh Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)? I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case. I believe it was a surface action fleet that reacted. I had something similar happen to me near the same place. Two of my CVs launched dive bombers on a transport TF and not the CV TF that was one hex closer. I did not get a strike in on his CVs and lost both of mine. I was upset like you would not believe. I am holding on in that game with only CVEs and 1 CV. It is still a long time off before I receive the Essex class CVs. I can not ask Ron since I have not heard from him since that turn.

denisonh -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/21/2006 2:46:21 AM)
The whole problem relates back to a big bitch about aircraft flying to thier death to make a naval strike in the UV days, because all aircraft would attempt to strike the CVs and get butchered by the CAP. It would have been better to fix the CAP and how it is modeled, but they chose instead to "fix" how targets were selected. So we are left with a model that seeks to hit the undefended target and leave the heavily protected target alone. This has opened the door for the "soak off" TF made up of empty transports to attract the CV strikes and allow CV TFs to go untouched. I am not saying you did that Halsey, but it is a by product of that "fix". *Edited for spelling* Drunk and dslexic is no way to go through life, but what choice do I have? quote: ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey quote: ORIGINAL: denisonh Si I would assume Ron's small CV TF reacted to thier doom, reacting to a place where they couldn't even strike but simply be a target (5 hexes away)? I think I would probably react the same way if that is the case. I believe it was a surface action fleet that reacted. I had something similar happen to me near the same place. Two of my CVs launched dive bombers on a transport TF and not the CV TF that was one hex closer. I did not get a strike in on his CVs and lost both of mine. I was upset like you would not believe. I am holding on in that game with only CVEs and 1 CV. It is still a long time off before I receive the Essex class CVs. I can not ask Ron since I have not heard from him since that turn.

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/21/2006 3:12:57 AM)
quote: The whole problem relates back to a big bitch about aircraft flying to thier death to make a naval strike in the UV days, because all aircraft would attempt to strike the CVs and get butchered by the CAP. It would have been better to fix the CAP and how it is modeled, but they chose instead to "fix" how targets were selected. So we are left with a model that seeks to hit the undefended target and leave the heavily protected target alone. This has opened the door for the "soak off" TF made up of empty transports to attract the CV strikes and allow CV TFs to go untouched. I am not saying you did that Halsey, but it is a by product of that "fix". I have seen that tactic used on me before. Ron's CVs were just not in strike range, mine were but the CAP bug drove them from the CVs. That strike was even unescorted. I understand what Ron is trying to get acrossed by posting what he does. The game we were playing was modified by him in an attempt to fix A2A loses. The changes he made work to keep down the loses. I would even consider letting him change his moves with his CVs so the loss of them does not happen. I just like playing the game for the fun and challenge.

jwxspoon -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/21/2006 6:41:57 PM)
I've had a half dozen opponents that quit after I killed their CV's. Basically they bring out the CV's to fight, engage, and if they lose they quit. I suspect that if they had won and the tables were turned around they'd be keen to continue. In one of my games with Bill, my 3 US CV's were stalking his CVE's and made the mistake of getting a little too close. Close enough for his Kates to hit me, but not close enough for me to hit him. I lost Saratoga for no gain on that one. Next turn I corrected the mistake and was lucky enough to get all of his CVE's. C'est la Guerre. That's why I really value playing Bill in both of my games with him - sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses. But when you have 6 months of life into a game, you want an opponent to continue. It's a long war, and the Americans in particular can recover from CV losses. jw

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/21/2006 7:05:25 PM)
quote: That's why I really value playing Bill in both of my games with him - sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses. But when you have 6 months of life into a game, you want an opponent to continue. It's a long war, and the Americans in particular can recover from CV losses. I have lost all of my starting CVs in the game as allies I have the Hornet and Wasp to arrives yet in that game. I can not remember what I was able to do against his carriers. In the other game it is a 2 vs 1. I am playing the Japanese and they are giving me a hard time. I have lost all the Japanese CVLs and CVE against the America carriers in action in the South Pacific. They lost the Saratoga and I think Enterprise and Lexington took some hits.

wyrmmy -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/22/2006 1:05:49 AM)
The reaction stank, and I too have noticed the problem with strikes, I lost ALL of KB in March 42 in about the same place for Lex only. The tin can CV's and CVL's have managed to get York, Sara and Hornet since then, we are now in June 42. Watchin 1/2 of KB's strike go in against transports with the sara and York w/in one hex Almost made me quit.[8\|]

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/22/2006 5:09:47 PM)
I am not saying there are not things that should be fix. There are. 1 Auto Convoys sending out lone ships with no escort. 2 Auto Convoys taking a path past a base within range of bombers. 3 Air units not flying that have good moral and low fatiuge. 4 Priority of targets for naval strikes. 5 Land movement hang ups. 6 Units not able to withdrawal from an enemy hex to disengage from combat. I am sure there are other things that could be fix. The game as a whole I enjoy playing. I just hate to lose friends over a game. I am not sure if Ron will log back on to the forum or not but I have to heard from him.

Nemo121 -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/22/2006 5:31:30 PM)
Well, it is war, **** happens. The way I view it is that if it is a game mechanic which applies equally to both sides then one should just roll with it but if it is a clear case of something being broken or only applying to one side or the other then calling the game off is reasonable. To be fair though what happened here could have happened the other way round quite easily. It is bad luck and the result of poor programming but it could happen to either side and if you start calling games on the basis of things which could happen to both sides then no game would go beyond the first week.

treespider -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/24/2006 10:00:16 PM)
Reading the above posts I could not help but think the American and Japanese commanders at the Battle of Coral Sea felt much like the players do. Fletcher - "Why are my planes attacking a light carrier while two fleet carrierrs are out there?" Admiral Takagi " Why is my full strike attacking an oiler while two fleet carriers are out there?"

wyrmmy -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/24/2006 11:04:06 PM)
It's not so much the strikes, as in my case, KB was on 0 react, follow invasion TF, and instead reacted to the carriers, but did not strike at them, but at merchants. If that were the case, they should have reacted to the merchants.

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/27/2006 6:48:23 PM)
That is kind of the way I was looking at it when I lost my American CVs. Your Pilots are sent out on a course to the last known position of the enemy ships. What if the spotters made a mistake? What happens when your pilots get over the target and realize that there are no carriers to be hit? Do they continue to search the area and maybe not find anything? Do they return to the carriers with their bombs dropped on they way into the ocean? Do they attack the shipping then return to get off another strike before dark?

denisonh -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/28/2006 3:32:40 AM)
Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models. I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP. quote: ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey That is kind of the way I was looking at it when I lost my American CVs. Your Pilots are sent out on a course to the last known position of the enemy ships. What if the spotters made a mistake? What happens when your pilots get over the target and realize that there are no carriers to be hit? Do they continue to search the area and maybe not find anything? Do they return to the carriers with their bombs dropped on they way into the ocean? Do they attack the shipping then return to get off another strike before dark? [/quot

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/28/2006 6:48:57 PM)
quote: Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models. I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP. What can be done to fix the problem?

denisonh -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/29/2006 1:26:10 AM)
The only option available short of a patch are house rules and scenario mods. Some of the problems would be improved with the inclusion of a better command and control model. The differentiation of computer controlled and human controlled actions overlap in a seemingly "haphazard" level, making the human at times a tactical commander and at other times an operational commander. Modeling the command and control properly to link player decisions to operations planning and subsequent execution at tactical level would go a long way in addressing this issue. Only problem is that would be a major programming change and not likely for WitP at this point. quote: ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey quote: Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models. I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP. What can be done to fix the problem?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (1/17/2007 3:04:20 PM)
Heyho. Well, it has been a month away from this latest frustrating one sided battle and I'm less stressed. Did not help that I was awaiting a response from the medics regarding a tumour biopsy in my head! Benign thankfully. I wonder if the tumour is WITPs fault...being so close to a monitor for years?! My big arse beef regarding this result is that yet again the Allied CVs get pounded without launching (every CV battle Bill and I've had in both our games have been one sided with the Japs launching over two air phases at extreme range and the Allied CVs never launching or reacting one hex to close the range). This is not exactly sour grapes. For one thing, Bill and I are playing two games, one in 43 which I'm winning as Allies (no CVs lost on either side despite two CV exchanges where the USN was hit at extreme IJN range and unable to respond against IJN CVs) and this one in mid 42 which Bill is leading. I'm not throwing in the towel because of one bad result, we have had three consecutive one sided exchanges in two games (100% of the CV battles) which just does not wash IMO. Secondly, ust for the record, can anyone post an historical example of a CV exchange where one side had the range advantage in aircraft endurance and the opposing CVs could not reply during the same period due to shorter ranged aircraft? (The IJN strikes by Ozawa during Phillipine Sea can't be mentioned here as they launched well outside their own range and were to utilize Marianas airstrips between themselves and the USN TFs, which is one of the many things the game can't handle) The naval air model is not really capable of handling the range differences in aircraft because of its' inherent level of abstractness. Not only can't a Midway result happen with aircraft caught on a carriers deck when the enemy is within range of each other (unless of course the Allies get nailed at range extreme range[;)]...the only way a Midway result happens it seems, especially since the search model is so generous to the recon aircraft) but I've sat through three consecutive CV "battles" where the Allies get creamed at long range and don't respond, despite having friendly air bases between themselves and the enemy CVs (which would also permit a launch and safe recovery in lieu of the TFs themselves closing the range to allow recovery). The reaction rules fail to alleviate this because folks tend to set reaction to 0 or 1 to reign in the uncontrollable urge of CVs to close vastly superior forces regardless of a setting of zero reaction, damage, LBA, cautious COs and lastly the inability of TFs set to follow to do just that if the lead TF reacts (basically each TF reacts and does not remain cohesive resulting in your TFs being spread out over multiple haexes and open to destruction in detail). In lieu of any programming modifications the only thing I can think of to make this acceptable is to equalize the ranges of naval aircraft to ensure mutual exchanges within this very abstract model. Hard to handle playing for a year only to have something totally unrealistic and strategically decisive happen such as CVs not launching because of the limitations of the model whereas in real life every CV battle we experienced with the IJN pounding the Allies at extreme range with impunity would have seen mutual air group launchings instead. I still have the games and saves on my PC Bill. If there was a way we could fix this so that both our CVs launched then I'd be happy to continue. Longer term fixes outside of database adjustments or reprogramming might be as simple as limiting the max launch range for Jap CV aircraft to the max of the Allied CV aircraft.

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (1/17/2007 4:05:11 PM)
I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time. I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report. Take care and hope to talk to you soon.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (1/17/2007 5:35:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time. I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report. Take care and hope to talk to you soon. PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc?

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (1/17/2007 6:08:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time. I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report. Take care and hope to talk to you soon. PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc? I will adjust the range from 5 to 4 for IJN carrier planes. Then lets see what happens after that.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (1/17/2007 9:15:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time. I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report. Take care and hope to talk to you soon. PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc? I will adjust the range from 5 to 4 for IJN carrier planes. Then lets see what happens after that. OK. I'll resend the turn. Interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I dislike redos but this is a serious flaw IMO.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (12/5/2007 12:18:46 PM)
Wow. I'm in such serious withdrawl I looked this AAR up today. We replayed the turn and if I remember correctly the CVs did not react to each other but an Allied surface combat TF reacted to a Japanese invasion TF and ended up in one of the Fiji base hexes, stopped, and got ponded by KB. Why it reacted I have no idea as the Japanese Transport TF did not even move towards Fiji. If one is to have a reaction feature, one also needs a proper withdrawl feature, preferably a more user's intention orders feature with a multitude of player selected "conditions" from which to chose from so units react with more variation yet reasonably within a player's intent. Also what is needed is some sort of UI capability which facilitates friendly TF interaction. Right now all we have is the "follow" order which fails once the reaction routines are triggered. I'm really curious as to what the big announcement is on Pearl Harbor Day. Maybe something has been implemented to alleviate these and many other issues and make the game mechanics less frustrating. I've always enjoyed a tough challenge and play through adversity through play of the game (nothing like getting pounded by a good player like Bill and weathering the result), I just find it difficult to play through mechanics issues. How's it going Bill, by the way?

ADM Halsey -> RE: Carrier action off Fiji (2/29/2008 5:58:43 PM)
I tried to respond to your IM but it said you in box is full.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375