why this f****** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????

why this f****** cv react when they are ordered to stay ???? (Full Version)

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

Message

Sneer -> why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/8/2006 12:18:29 PM)
i'm pissed off it is bug

Halsey -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/8/2006 12:57:00 PM)
It's the TF commanders aggressiveness rating. Was it set to follow a SCTF, or was it operating on its own?

Terminus -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/8/2006 5:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer i'm pissed off it is bug It's been said 11 million times that TF commanders can and do go off on their own if they feel the odds are in their favour. It's meant to be that way, so stop calling it a bug; it's not.

Sneer -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/9/2006 10:27:35 AM)
3 carriers against death star ? unknown logic not counting abandoning formation so if it is a feature[X(] it is calculated wierdly

witpqs -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/9/2006 11:06:19 AM)
... or if they feel that they will be in greater danger not reacting by being within enemy range but out of their own planes' range and not able to launch effective strikes of their own.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/9/2006 1:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer i'm pissed off it is bug It's been said 11 million times that TF commanders can and do go off on their own if they feel the odds are in their favour. It's meant to be that way, so stop calling it a bug; it's not. The design needs work because damaged CVs with no planes still react towards enemy CVs when they would retire IRL.

witpqs -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/9/2006 1:57:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker The design needs work because damaged CVs with no planes still react towards enemy CVs when they would retire IRL. Ouch! [&:]

Feinder -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/9/2006 6:08:57 PM)
quote: TF commanders can and do go off on their own if they feel the odds are in their favour. Unfortunately, -most- TF commanders in WitP are evidently collossally stupid. I feel your pain Sneer. Been there, done that. And no, I did NOT have overly agressive admirals (Halsy) in my TF (just the default captains). In one game, -ALL- of my 0-react CV TFs reacted into LBA range, got attacked in AM by LBA (disrupted CAP), then got stomped by by KB in the afternoon. It was not a happy day. I agree, if you say "no react" it shoud mean "no react". Bug. -F-

Andy Mac -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/9/2006 6:31:58 PM)
Pauk has suffered from this a lot !!!

Halsey -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 1:11:11 AM)
Your reposte justifies my reasoning for not answering questions on this forum much anymore. What you describe, I've never had happen to me in FOUR years using the UV/WITP engine. The reason? I know the mechanics. I won't explain again how to prepare and initiate a CV vs CV action. It's been explained a gozillian times already. It's just like school. If you don't pay attention, you will fail. Now I understand a little more of Mr Frags attitude when he posted on this forum. Poor gameplay isn't always a bug in the game mechanics.[;)][:'(]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 1:33:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey Your reposte justifies my reasoning for not answering questions on this forum much anymore. What you describe, I've never had happen to me in FOUR years using the UV/WITP engine. The reason? I know the mechanics. I won't explain again how to prepare and initiate a CV vs CV action. It's been explained a gozillian times already. It's just like school. If you don't pay attention, you will fail. Now I understand a little more of Mr Frags attitude when he posted on this forum. Poor gameplay isn't always a bug in the game mechanics.[;)][:'(] You've never had your CVs react towards the enemy CVs?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 1:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey Your reposte justifies my reasoning for not answering questions on this forum much anymore. What you describe, I've never had happen to me in FOUR years using the UV/WITP engine. The reason? I know the mechanics. I won't explain again how to prepare and initiate a CV vs CV action. It's been explained a gozillian times already. It's just like school. If you don't pay attention, you will fail. Now I understand a little more of Mr Frags attitude when he posted on this forum. Poor gameplay isn't always a bug in the game mechanics.[;)][:'(] Frag was vehement in his denial of the existance of "UberCAP" so I would not be so quick to blame poor gameplay and defend poor game design mechanics.

Terminus -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 2:04:35 AM)
"Poor design" is not the same as a "bug"...

VSWG -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 2:29:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey Your reposte justifies my reasoning for not answering questions on this forum much anymore. What you describe, I've never had happen to me in FOUR years using the UV/WITP engine. The reason? I know the mechanics. I won't explain again how to prepare and initiate a CV vs CV action. It's been explained a gozillian times already. It's just like school. If you don't pay attention, you will fail. Now I understand a little more of Mr Frags attitude when he posted on this forum. Poor gameplay isn't always a bug in the game mechanics.[;)][:'(] Link? [:)]

Yakface -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 6:18:50 AM)
I for one (as a relatively new player) would appreciate another explanation Halsey

Feinder -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 7:08:06 AM)
YF, Halsey is -correct- in that it the reaction is due to the commander's aggression rating. It's just that it's not a terribly popular "feature" (I know I called it a "bug" in previous post, call it frustration). -F-

Sneer -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 10:23:17 AM)
it was 7th or 8 th carrier combat in this PBEM not counting other ones i had few TF merging in rear areas of my teritory pity now 3 fleet carriers are within 40 sys what means 4 months out of duty and enemy is at gates

pauk -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 3:11:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey Your reposte justifies my reasoning for not answering questions on this forum much anymore. What you describe, I've never had happen to me in FOUR years using the UV/WITP engine. The reason? I know the mechanics. I won't explain again how to prepare and initiate a CV vs CV action. It's been explained a gozillian times already. It's just like school. If you don't pay attention, you will fail. Now I understand a little more of Mr Frags attitude when he posted on this forum. Poor gameplay isn't always a bug in the game mechanics.[;)][:'(] Well, i had reaction too... despite leaders low aggression ratings, despite "ordered to follow SC TF".... even more funny, my CVs didn't move at all during night phase when they are ordered....they stay in the same hex! poor gameplay... yes....[8\|]

jwilkerson -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 4:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer i'm pissed off it is bug It's been said 11 million times that TF commanders can and do go off on their own if they feel the odds are in their favour. It's meant to be that way, so stop calling it a bug; it's not. The design needs work because damaged CVs with no planes still react towards enemy CVs when they would retire IRL. I've also had a report that ACTF with all carriers sunk still react towards enemy CVs (Nagumo?). Carriers reacting has certainly been around since UV days, though it seems like there were examples (Saipan) where the "no react" order stood and perhaps (depending on who we think is issuing the orders) Leyete might be an example of the "no react" order being disobeyed. Whether "bug" or "feature" ... question is should it be changed .. and how important is it when compared to other things? Many things "should be changed" .. but not everything is in the top 5.

Sneer -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 4:39:00 PM)
react 0 is react 0 if commander was the only in this fleet gropu ok - but he was not

Feinder -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 5:22:14 PM)
J - I know someone would bring up Halsey at Leyte. But were Halsey's orders actually to sit on top of the invasion TF at all costs? If I'm not mistaken (and I might well be), his orders were to cover the landings and engage enemy TFs. Just because the Japanese ruse actually worked, doesn't mean he was disobeying orders (which is what we would percieve a reaction when set to 0 would be). Either way, it's the ONE example that folks will offer to justify reacting when they shouldn't. It happens ALL THE TIME in WitP. If it happend historically as often as it does in WitP, Hornet would have chared after KB at Midway, and Lex would have lone-rangerd after Shok and Zui at Coral Sea. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. ONE historical instance does not justify a frequent occurance in WitP. -F-

Ron Saueracker -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 6:25:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer i'm pissed off it is bug It's been said 11 million times that TF commanders can and do go off on their own if they feel the odds are in their favour. It's meant to be that way, so stop calling it a bug; it's not. The design needs work because damaged CVs with no planes still react towards enemy CVs when they would retire IRL. I've also had a report that ACTF with all carriers sunk still react towards enemy CVs (Nagumo?). Carriers reacting has certainly been around since UV days, though it seems like there were examples (Saipan) where the "no react" order stood and perhaps (depending on who we think is issuing the orders) Leyete might be an example of the "no react" order being disobeyed. Whether "bug" or "feature" ... question is should it be changed .. and how important is it when compared to other things? Many things "should be changed" .. but not everything is in the top 5. I applaud the fact that you guys are intending to change some things.[&o] Is A2A one of the biggest and a front burner? If so, should we all pipe up and impart our views on the issues in a constructive suggestion thread?

jwilkerson -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 7:23:59 PM)
quote: Is A2A one of the biggest and a front burner? If so, should we all pipe up and impart our views on the issues in a constructive suggestion thread? I would certainly think so. Yes we should pipe ... but lemme cogitate a bit longer on the best format in which to pipe ... don't wanna burn out the pipes b4 we're ready ... will be soon ... [:)]

VSWG -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 7:37:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: Is A2A one of the biggest and a front burner? If so, should we all pipe up and impart our views on the issues in a constructive suggestion thread? I would certainly think so. Yes we should pipe ... but lemme cogitate a bit longer on the best format in which to pipe ... don't wanna burn out the pipes b4 we're ready ... will be soon ... [:)] [image]http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/woohoo.gif[/image]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/10/2006 7:47:00 PM)
Roger...love you long time![8D]

Redan -> RE: why this f***** cv react when they are ordered to stay ????* (11/11/2006 7:14:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder J - I know someone would bring up Halsey at Leyte. But were Halsey's orders actually to sit on top of the invasion TF at all costs? If I'm not mistaken (and I might well be), his orders were to cover the landings and engage enemy TFs. Just because the Japanese ruse actually worked, doesn't mean he was disobeying orders (which is what we would percieve a reaction when set to 0 would be). Either way, it's the ONE example that folks will offer to justify reacting when they shouldn't. It happens ALL THE TIME in WitP. If it happend historically as often as it does in WitP, Hornet would have chared after KB at Midway, and Lex would have lone-rangerd after Shok and Zui at Coral Sea. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. ONE historical instance does not justify a frequent occurance in WitP. -F- Spruance caught hell four months before at the Saipan invasion for NOT going after the Japanese carriers. Oddly enough, the thing that may have set Halsey off was a filler phrase in the code...After every real sentence in the transmissions to Halsey a fake "filler" sentence was added. One of the filler transmissions was something like "The world wonders" in close proximity to Where are your carriers? King, Marshall and Roosevelt were in the Oval Office listening to a live feed of all the radio traffic...more exciting than Sirius or XM, no?[;)]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.953125