Poll - How long should turns be:

Poll - How long should turns be: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

IChristie -> Poll - How long should turns be: (5/28/2002 11:20:49 PM)
Let's try this again:

Rob Roberson -> ? (5/29/2002 12:44:11 AM)
Do you mean length it takes to complete a turn? I generally can pound through mine in 15 minutes (particually early when neither side has that many units). Rob

Reiryc -> Re: ? (5/29/2002 12:54:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rob Roberson [B]Do you mean length it takes to complete a turn? I generally can pound through mine in 15 minutes (particually early when neither side has that many units). Rob [/B][/QUOTE] lol... No, he means when you hit the turn button, should it process 24 hours of time or less... Reiryc

Slaughtermeyer -> (5/29/2002 1:00:10 AM)
Is continuous allowing interruption what Harpoon uses? I really like that about Harpoon but you would need to implement internet play capability in order to have multiplayer games. Assuming that will not be done to UV, I voted for one hour turns although I'd probably use 6-hour turns in PBEM if it were available unless I was playing a short scenario in which case 1-hour turns would be a possibility.

Erik Rutins -> Harpoon... (5/29/2002 1:08:01 AM)
It can make sense in a modern naval game. For something of UV's time period, frankly at this command level 48 hour turns would make more sense than reducing it to 12 hour or 1 hour. I realize there are folks for whom this makes perfect sense, but I can't figure out how 1 hour turns fit together with WWII operational warfare at the theater command level. Are you guys familiar with the time it took to plan operations, send out orders... i.e. get all the ducks in a row? Most "quick" operations were based on local initiative. That's what your lower level commmanders do. Pick your local commanders wisely, give them the proper strategy and you'll get into the rhythm of this game. Regards, - Erik

Slaughtermeyer -> Re: Harpoon... (5/29/2002 1:26:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins [B]Most "quick" operations were based on local initiative. That's what your lower level commmanders do. Pick your local commanders wisely, give them the proper strategy and you'll get into the rhythm of this game. [/B][/QUOTE] "Giving them the proper strategy" is in some cases impossible, such as an order to TF commanders to stay away from enemy land-based bomber range regardless of circumstances. It seems that even the most cautious commanders in UV do not consider land-based bomber range when making their decisions.

IKerensky -> (5/29/2002 1:33:36 AM)
From an other topic but it deserve a place there : [QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins [B]Do you folks who want shorter turns really think Ghormley could pick up a line to Fletcher as a battle was starting, get a sitrep and just tell him what to do or how to change his plans? I'm afraid I don't understand the problem here. In my opinion, UV is not only accurate for its scale in terms of command level, but the need to turn local operations over to your commanders to some degree increases the suspense and immersiveness for me. - Erik [/B][/QUOTE] And of you do think it is normal that Mc Arthur send a line every day to all his ship to tell them how what portion of they air component need to be flying ? setting the CAP ? enquiring about the pilot stats and asking them to rest ? Plotting the route of all and every convoy ? subs ? Why is the problem of when we ask for a bit more control we are rebuffed as it isn't operationnal scale and when we ask for less control and more automation we are rebuffed too for the very sake of detail ? Why did you provide us with the tactical command feeling but just keep it away from our grasp , is it a new Tantalus torture ? Frankly if you want to keep us with those 24h turn , ok, but get away with all the micro management too !! If we cant orer our TF to react to the ennemy we haven't to order them how to use their air component too ! ( at last the rest/CAP part ).

Erik Rutins -> You can't be serious... (5/29/2002 1:50:38 AM)
Torture? Please, set aside the hyperbole for the moment. Wargamers love detail and control. We all understand that. However, taken to the nth degree, it makes games of this scale and complexity (not to mention the upcoming War in the Pacific) totally unplayable. In my opinion, Uncommon Valor does an excellent job of blending a great interface with Gary's traditional grognard-level detail. I don't think anyone here is against more automation or interface improvements. I'm stating my own opinion that one of the key design choices that in fact I consider a great success in defining the game's scale is the 24 hour (or longer) turn. I've played 3 day turn games without any problem - you just have to plan ahead further. This game has the tools at your disposal to make and execute some excellent plans. Sometimes success or failure depends on your local subordinates but I've found skilled players make all the difference. The whole react/range suggestion was certainly noted. I state again that we're not discarding or dismissing any suggestions. However, I personally can't understand mixing 1 hour or 6 hour turns with this scale of game. Regards, - Erik

IKerensky -> (5/29/2002 1:54:37 AM)
neither do I, in fact. I am barely ok with 24hours game turn. All I want is that we cant get ride of all that we are not supposed to control as we are not the TF commander. If he choose how to react given our direction , ok . But so why isn't he smart enough to make all the others decision about his TF ? why is it to us to make them ? especially the rest/training/Cap one. What I mean is : let us make all the decision or none this middle ground is unsettling .

Reiryc -> (5/29/2002 2:09:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KERENSKY [B]neither do I, in fact. I am barely ok with 24hours game turn. All I want is that we cant get ride of all that we are not supposed to control as we are not the TF commander. If he choose how to react given our direction , ok . But so why isn't he smart enough to make all the others decision about his TF ? why is it to us to make them ? especially the rest/training/Cap one. What I mean is : let us make all the decision or none this middle ground is unsettling . [/B][/QUOTE] Unsettling? That's a bit strong... Personally I have no problems with the middle ground. Every game has to make some choices on where to 'fudge' things in the interest of gameplay. UV seems to have made the choice in areas of rest/cap etc. I don't find these things to be unsettling by any stretch. If one doesn't like these choices, so be it. But to call them torture, unsettling, etc is just being overly dramatic. Speaking of being overly dramatic, are you my wife secretly playing this game and not telling me? :p Reiryc

Spooky -> (5/29/2002 2:11:57 AM)
I would really enjoy a PacWar-based game allowing interruption at any time ... but in this case, it should be an upgraded /updated CAW and not UV. GG's BTR was a continous play game on a Grand Theater scale ... and it was not by far the best GG game ! Too much micromanagement !!! BTW, since SSG is now working with Matrix on Decisive Battles of World War II: Korsun Pocket, maybe we can hope for a new Carrier At War published by Matrix :) Spooky

NorthStar -> (5/29/2002 2:41:59 AM)
Actually, I'm not sure this is a middle ground, as Kerensky says. Consider that if you order a squadron on Training or Rest, you are basically telling it that no matter what, it will take no part in any current operations. To me, this seems more like a Theater Commander's authority, not a base or TF Commander. Similary (and I admit this is a bit more of a stretch) the CAP setting can be viewed as doctrine instructions. How many planes should be commited to offense (Escort) as opposed to defense (CAP). This argument would be stronger if you set CAP levels on a base or TF level rather than a squadron level, but I think it is still valid. Basically, these settings affect the availability of assests for Operational plans, and as such it is reasonable that they be placed within the Theater Commander's control. This would be as opposed to making a descision as to the exact composition of a strike (based on the guidelines set), which are fully within the Base or TF Commander's responsability. As usual, just my $0.02

IKerensky -> (5/29/2002 2:50:40 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reiryc [B] If one doesn't like these choices, so be it. But to call them torture, unsettling, etc is just being overly dramatic. Reiryc [/B][/QUOTE] Tantalus torture is a common image about something you can see and nearly apprehend but never actually reach. And unsettling doesnt sound that much strong in my french mind. Remember that not everyone is english/Us speaking ;) Sorry if my english words go farther than my french mind.

Hartmann -> (5/29/2002 3:04:38 AM)
As a supporter of the current system, I concede the following: Indeed there is some inconsistency in that we are allowed to micromanage some things which a theater comander never would dream of, especially the CAP level. I gather, though, that the actual need for extensive CAP micromanagement will be much reduced in the patch. I get the feeling that people do not that much grieve about the orders intervall, but more about not having the opportunity to manually assign strikes to sightings (especially as it works with bases and ground forces). So maybe the patch could, as an option, introduce this feature with respect to naval strikes. I know very well that the problem is that the target is moving and may vanish during the turn. But the effect of a naval strike assignment would just have to give a certain target priority over everything else in case the sighting can still be traced during the execution of the turn. Hartmann

Reiryc -> (5/29/2002 3:06:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KERENSKY [B] Tantalus torture is a common image about something you can see and nearly apprehend but never actually reach. And unsettling doesnt sound that much strong in my french mind. Remember that not everyone is english/Us speaking ;) Sorry if my english words go farther than my french mind. [/B][/QUOTE] I understand kerensky, and in fact I am in support of your concerns with the surface battles... I just don't want someone sitting on the fence, deciding to buy the game being turned off because the game is 'tortuous' or 'unsettling'... In the end, a loss of sales could mean a loss of matrix and yet another gaming company that supports our hobby/love/past-time/whatever go down the drain because of over zealous grogs complaining without concern for what damage their complaints can have in the long run. Reiryc

IKerensky -> (5/29/2002 3:22:16 AM)
Dont feel concerned. Believe me each and every game forum have thoses kind of post of people disappointed or with some things that they dont completly lack in the game. And every good game have many more favorable post, just like U.V. And if I keep from not being cynical or un-informatively negative then I dont see what impact I will have onthe long term ( not that I always was ). But frankly if I have read more post like mine or other about the real feeling of the game play and not the AAR then perhaps, and I really say perhaps I wouldn't have ordered the game before its release. I am not tottally dispointed by my buy, and I dont want to say that U.V. is a bad game, it certainly wasn't. But in its current state it just doesn't suit my taste and I guess it will quickly join other games on my shelf. I guess I will reinstall it after each patch ( like I do with many game ) do see if things are going more like I want them or not. Finally if people want to buy a game they dont come to forum to make decision, digging in to post reeal they are already involved enough to buy it anyway. But finding in a forum different review and comment of the game, as objectives and different as possible isn't a basd thing. I am sure Matrix doesn't want people to buy U.V. then feel disappointed by it not being what they want and thus dont buying any other Matrix product. My final comment is : If you love Gary Grisby games Buy it. If you love South Pacific games buy it. If you love operationnal setting buy it. If you love tactical management of your task force and CAW type of game then ... dont buy it, because it isn't what you will find in U.V. and you will be disappointed. Unless of course you have the bucks and are willing to try a real good game , greatly designed with nice graphics and an operationnal way of mind.

brisd -> curious (5/29/2002 4:09:37 AM)
The game's description on the site was pretty specific that this was an operational game not a tactical one. So I am surprised at the comments concerning lack of tactical control. Anything less than 24 hour turns would be impossible for me to play. It has taken me a week to play about one hundred 24 hr turns. So the very idea is frightning - we need time to sleep and eat and work! :eek:

1089 -> (5/29/2002 6:25:03 AM)
I'm with Kerensky on this. I like the current turn scheme, but the details of CAP management, transferring portions of HQs to various places to keep support levels up, organizing supply convoys, getting aviation support to where the planes are, and such other minutiae should be selectable to be handled by staff (computer). The AI knows how to handle this now, so it should not be hard to implement a toggle for computer control of those things... kp :)

Rob Roberson -> Re: Re: ? (5/29/2002 8:18:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reiryc [B] lol... No, he means when you hit the turn button, should it process 24 hours of time or less... Reiryc [/B][/QUOTE] Now I feel stupid :) too many hours on this game for me! Rob

Didz -> (5/29/2002 4:04:20 PM)
Well it looks like 75% of the players are happy with the current system so things don't look hopeful for my future gameplay. Personally, I just voted for an option to switch down to a 6 hour turn duration for those, like me, who find 22 hex movements too extreme. That should reduce TF movement to around 6 hexes between opportunities for player intervention which should at least enable me to stop my carriers trying to ram Rabaul every turn and ought to make bomabardment missions a bit more exciting. I also agree with the others who consider that at present this game is an odd mix. On the one hand it claims to be a operational strategy game and so will not allow detailed player involvement in tactical decisions but at the same time it expects us, the supreme commander, to check the number of torpedo's on each sub after a turn of combat just in case they've run out and need to head home. Consistency please am I the playing the CinC or the killick.

Didz -> Re: You can't be serious... (5/29/2002 7:11:26 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins [B] Wargamers love detail and control. [/B][/QUOTE] Not sure I agree 100% with this comment. I would agree that most wargamers are control freaks. I regularly moderate historical roleplay's of Napoloenic campaigns and the agony most wargamers go through when they can't see anything and have to send messages by horse can be quite amusing. However, I'm not sure that this obsession with being in control is satisfied by bombarding players with irrelevant detail and mind numbingly mundate book-keeping tasks. Contrary to the propaganda for example Napoleon did not know the names of every soldier in the 28e Ligne and I don't feel the need for that information either. However, if the 28e Ligne were about to be pounced on by enemy cavalry I would at least expect to have the chance to shout 'Form Square' even though I fully accept that it may be a job for the Chef 'd'Battalion. UV seems on the one hand to bombard us with irrelevant detail whilst deny us the chance to intervene in the important events. Right! I'll shut up now and get back to counting how many capacity points I need to shove all these Aussie Soldiers onto AP's. Oh! **** Flght Lt Pebbles just got killed I really was relying on him to win the war.;)

elmo3 -> (5/29/2002 7:15:36 PM)
Didz The biggest drawback I would see, were I programming UV, to 6 or 12 hour turns would be keeping track of all the planes that would now be in the air at the end of a turn. Right now all planes end the turn on the ground. With 75% of us happy with a minimum turn length of 24 hours it is unlikely 2by3 will make that kind of programming effort. I'll bet if they do then someone will want to be able to redirect strikes in the air! Your play must differ from mine significantly. I can't ever recall a TF going 20+ hexes in one day but to be honest I don't play with the hex grid on. Nor have I ever had an Allied TF "ram" Rabaul. It is rare they even come within it's LBA range except when I forget to set the "Do not react" order. There will always be a mix of tactical and operational decisions in any good operational game. Where to draw the line will continue to be a point of debate as long as there are games. I don't agree that the game "expects" you to check sub torpedo loads though. Subs are set to computer control by default. The game "allows" you to check torpedo loads if you want to mess with sub tactics. Since it is optional I view it as a good design choice. elmo3

elmo3 -> (5/29/2002 7:27:57 PM)
Didz Good point about Lt Pebbles. IIRC BoB and BTR had several selectable levels of reporting. That would be a nice feature to have in UV and WitP. elmo3

Preacher -> (5/29/2002 7:58:22 PM)
I really don't understand the argument to lower turn execution to 6 hrs (more or less) in order to be more comfortable with the distances covered per turn. 22 hexes in 24 hours or 6 hexes in 6 hours. What's the difference? I realize that folks point to the fact that with 6-hour turn execution they will be able - hopefully :) - to "override" TF commander discretion (indiscretion?), but can that not be fixed by setting React priorities in the first place? Specifically, the problem seems to be with carriers charging into LBA range. They won't do that when set to Do Not React... I'm not sure how 6-hour execution would solve this (maybe TF commander execution would, however :)). Let's say you are set to React with your carriers and 1 hr into the 6 hr execution the carriers see an enemy CV TF and react. That gives them 5 hrs to move at flank speed to greet them. PLENTY of time to enter the range of enemy LBA and get pummeled before we players get to intervene. Oops, same "problem." What, then, would be the solution to that? 1-hr execution? 30-min? Those time scales just don't work with the map scale (nor does 6- or 12-hour, imo). Again, it is a highly detailed OPERATIONAL game. Anyhoo, this is a good - and CIVIL - discussion. Kudos all around. Ricky

Didz -> (5/29/2002 8:16:51 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3 [B]Didz The biggest drawback I would see, were I programming UV, to 6 or 12 hour turns would be keeping track of all the planes that would now be in the air at the end of a turn. Right now all planes end the turn on the ground. [/B][/QUOTE] Good point! I must admit I hadn't twigged that that was the constraint that prevented a shorter turn option being included. I had been assumming that as the day was divided into several phases anyway it would be relatively simple to break it down into smaller turn cycles. [QUOTE][B] Your play must differ from mine significantly. I can't ever recall a TF going 20+ hexes in one day but to be honest I don't play with the hex grid on. Nor have I ever had an Allied TF "ram" Rabaul. It is rare they even come within it's LBA range except when I forget to set the "Do not react" order. [/B][/QUOTE] Thats the problem really. In order to stop them charging Rabaul you have to switch them to 'Do Not React'. Trouble is that then they don't react even when you want them to. Worse case example I've witnessed so far was a plan to move my CV's to a location 5 hexes south of Gilli Gilli in order to cover a troop convoy. FOW was off so I could see that there was nothing within 25 hexs of my CV's they had the ocean to themselves. Pressed the GO button and next thing I knew not only had my CV's taken a detour to a location North of the Louisaide Archipelgo and into LBA range of Rabaul but the IJN CV force which had begun the turn en-route between Truk and Rabaul at least 50 hexes away from my CV's had charged straight through and was now 5 hexes away. I'd had plenty of sighting reports during the turn but not a hope in hell of changing anything. The result three enemy CV's damaged both mine sunk. End of Game. [QUOTE][B] I don't agree that the game "expects" you to check sub torpedo loads though. Subs are set to computer control by default. The game "allows" you to check torpedo loads if you want to mess with sub tactics. [/B][/QUOTE] Not sure if it 'expects' you to check but it doesn't leave you much choice either. If you switch your subs to 'Human Control' which is the only way to get them to do what you want then the AI washes its hands of them and unless you check every turn to make sure they have fuel and torpedo's they will remain on station with empty fuel tanks and try and sink enemy shipping on the surface with their deck gun (not recommended in daylight). So I carefully note everytime one of my subs fires a torpedo and then check it at the end of the turn and tell it to head for home if its out.

AlvinS -> (5/29/2002 9:20:28 PM)
[QUOTE]Thats the problem really. In order to stop them charging Rabaul you have to switch them to 'Do Not React'.Trouble is that then they don't react even when you want them to. [/QUOTE] Didz By not react do you mean that your aircraft on the TF do not react as well as the TF itself? The reason I am asking is that I set my Air Combat TF to "do not react", but my aircraft still fly missions against the opposing Air Combat TF. When I had my Air Combat TF set to react they would charge off to satisfy a life long urge to see an enemy Air Combat TF up close, usually followed by a tour of the ocean floor.:rolleyes: I have an Air Combat TF a few hexes off of Gili Gili to provide CAP for my AP's that are delivering forces there, until I can get an airfield in. The aircraft are also performing strikes against the opposing Air Combat TF. I keep changing positions off of Gili Gili to keep them guessing.

Didz -> (5/29/2002 10:00:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AlvinS [B] By not react do you mean that your aircraft on the TF do not react as well as the TF itself? The reason I am asking is that I set my Air Combat TF to "do not react", but my aircraft still fly missions against the opposing Air Combat TF. [/B][/QUOTE] I think its more complicated than that and I can't claim to have done the same in depth analysis as other people have on exactly how it works. Certainly leaving 'React to Enemy' switched on tends to lead to a rapid movement into LBA range and an equally rapid trip to Davy Jones Locker for most CV's. But switching it off doesn't seem to completely put the TF into dumb mode either. It will certainly launch planes at targets that come within strike range and I think I'm right in saying that it will make a limited move to close with a nearby enemy TF. My CV's sailing to Gilli Gilli certainly made an unauthorized detour round the north of the Louisades in order to close with the approaching Jap CV's even though they had 'React to Enemy' switched off. So I think its more of a limited reaction rather than none at all. [COLOR=orange]When I said that 'they don't react even when you want them too' I was particularly thinking of situations where the AI throws a completely unexpected event at you but your CV TF just ignores it. Example: You have just ordered you TF to return to port when the major Jap invasion force you have been waiting to ambush steams into view. The TF spots it but just sails off into the sunset. Or perhaps you have been monitoring the build up of a major invasion force around Rabaul and have your CV's massed 200 miles west of the New Hebrides ready to intercept. The coastwatcher confirms they have sailed and you head north predicting a landing on Guadacanal but next morning they are spotted heading for Gilli. Then you just get to sit and watch your CV's continue sailing in the wrong direction for the rest of the day.[/COLOR]

Preacher -> (5/29/2002 10:17:14 PM)
The 'limited reaction' to which you refer is - I think - a direct result of commander ratings. I've not performed extensive tests, but I have experimented a bit - out of necessity - with TF commanders to try and get different (better) results. For instance, I had the opposite problem that you are having when playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Allies. My CV TF was posted near the slot in order to intercept any surface forces or CV forces that came near. After a day or two, the whole Jap carrier fleet appeared! However, my CVs did NOTHING. No attacks for 3 days! So, in my anger :) I set them to 'React to Enemy.' Still nothing. Steamed, I sailed to Lunga (dangerous I know), held a summary court martial, shot the CV TF commander, and brought Spruance on-board. Next turn, set back to "Do Not React...," he began hammering the Japs. Go figure. I've experienced similar results in other situations. The upshot: try fiddling with your TF commanders. Maybe that will make the difference. Preacher

Didz -> TF reaction times (5/29/2002 10:48:15 PM)
In terms of optimum game turn length I was looking at the plot of Takagi's Carrier Strike force from the 3rd to 4th May 1942 and was interested in the extend to which that TF changed its course and the distance it was covering. 2400 4th It was north of Malaita heading SE. by 0930 6th it had circumnavigated San Cristobal done a 180 and was heading NW south of Guadacanal At 0930 6th it did a sudden 90 and began sailing south 12 hours later at 10:30 it did another 180 and began heading North 6 Hours later another 180 and it started heading south again. At 7:36 7th it launch its first strike damaging the Neosho and sinking the Sims followed over the next few hours by a whole series of complicated course changes involving at least two 360 course changes. 12 hours later it was heading WNW. At 10:57 7th it did a complete 180 again followed a few hours later by another change to sail North. 24:00 7th Another course change to WNW. A few hours later a change to sail North again followed by a complete 180. At 0810 8th it was sailing south when it launched its second strike sinking the Lexington. Only to be hit by the US strike 2 hours 47 minutes later whereupon it immediately changed course northwards and headed out of contact. [COLOR=orange] Two things strike me from this rough analysis. 1. Takagi's TF is reacting to enemy movements and sightings well within the 24 hour turn cycle allowed by UV. 2. Takagi's TF was not covering anywhere near the amount of ground/water that UV TF's seem to cover in a day. [/COLOR]

Paul Vebber -> (5/30/2002 12:21:55 AM)
The minute you start worrying about giving helm orders to your task groups you have crossed teh line from operational to tactical. A game at this level of war is simply not going to deal with being a Task force commander manuevering ships on a hour by hour basis. But don;t feel bad, real navy Captains fall into this same trap and EVERY "real" oerational level wargame devolves into bickering about why the O-4 and O-5s did what they did "When I made PERFECTLY CLEAR I wanted to do xyz" or "let me see how you modeled the AN/QXY-3402W you obviously don't know anything about how it REALLY works...it would NEVER have allowed (insert bad die roll result here) to have happened..." What some players want is a "tactical battle resolver add-on" that is just beyond the scope of what teh current game intended - a game for playing MANY MONTHS of teh campaign, not fighting out teh individual battles that result in gory detail. ITs been the same on the ground war side where operational game players always gripe about results and want to fight the battels out using Steel Panthers or the like. SOmeday we may see such a "composite" game, but UV isn't it and was never intended to be or portrayed as such! That said we ARE looking to tweak and enhance the play at the operatioanl level and many excellent suggestions have been made to better focus at that level. So keep up the comments, but just realize that if you want to fight out tactical carrier task force battels this just is not the game to do it.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.046875