(Full Version)

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

Message

Reiryc -> (5/30/2002 1:03:45 AM)
quote: 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. The problem that I see here is that youre expecting the computer to know what purpose it should have when returning to port. Ie: How does the computer know if you want the TF sent to port to stop and kill enemy task forces? Add more to this potential problem, what if you wanted your TF to only hit that transport TF, but also a surface combat TF showed up? Now you want the air combat TF of yours to hit that transport TF, but not the surface combat TF. So how does the computer know exactly what you want to do without being a complete system of micromanagement? Answer as I see it: it can't. I empathize with where youre coming from, its frustrating to have dumb commanders (read AI), but given that this game is an operational level game, I think it unfair to criticize the game for doing what it 'should' do, namely provide operational control. Does being an operational game mean that it can't have some form of tactical control mixed in? No. But just because it does have some, doesn't mean that it should have it in all areas. It only means that for gameplay or fun reasons, some tactical level controls were implemented. I dont however, feel that this means all areas must now have tactical control or that one should expect it in area B because we have it in area A. I am of the opinion that being wishful for something is just fine. I think where I get bothered is when people are disappointed not due to game misrepresentation, but due to their own desires that were not created because of being misrepresented by the game. In other words, why come down on a game system that's doing what it advertised? Wish for something different sure, but not blame the system for doing what it should do according to its advertisements. Anywho, matrix, I think I see another game potential with good sales! A tactical level carrier game similar to carriers at war. Im sure gary could do a great job with it. Side note to Paul Vebber.... Could you get Marshal Ellis to poke his head into the Napoleonic Wars forum and toss us a bone? I'm dying for some info on that. =) Reiryc

Sonny -> (5/30/2002 1:45:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1089 [B]...... 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 :) [/B][/QUOTE] No matter what, unless the AI thinks exactly like you do, you will not be satisfied with it handling almost any of these things. It is real easy now to say you want this but you will toggle this off the first time you end up short of supplies somewhere because the AI didn't know what you intended - those P39s you just transfered to GiliGili won't have support because last turn they were in Port Moresby when the AI has just unloaded the support troops.:)

1089 -> (5/30/2002 3:27:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny [B] No matter what, unless the AI thinks exactly like you do, you will not be satisfied with it handling almost any of these things. It is real easy now to say you want this but you will toggle this off the first time you end up short of supplies somewhere because the AI didn't know what you intended - those P39s you just transfered to GiliGili won't have support because last turn they were in Port Moresby when the AI has just unloaded the support troops.:) [/B][/QUOTE] I don't expect the AI to be perfect, but I want the option of using it for most of the tedious tasks, but with the option of turning it off, so that I can tweak what it is doing should I need to. kp :)

Didz -> (5/30/2002 8:43:35 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber [B] 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. [/B][/QUOTE] We keep coming back to the fact that UV is advertised and designed as an Operational level game. As far as I am concerned that fact is not in dispute. The only issue I have with UV is that for an operational game with strike ranges measured in 100 miles a ground scale of 30 miles per hex is too detailed to produce the degree of detachment I feel is necessary on the part of the player. For instance I don't hear anybody complaining about the abstract land combat resolution in UV because the stike distance for LCU's is short enough that a 30 mile hex incorporates the entire battle area and so the player has no motivation to interfere. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by Takagi's tactical manouvres in my previous post, tactical combat between two carrier forces can cover an area 300 to 400 miles across and at a ground scale of 30 miles per hex it does not encourage a player to have a feeling of detachment or the impression that the combat is abstract. Which comes back to my original submission that regardless of the stated intentions of the designers the ultimate determining factor as to whether a game is Tactical rather than Strategic is the relationship between ground scale, turn duration and weapon strike range. In PACWAR where the ground scale was 100 miles per hex carrier combat was by implication abstract and I never had a problem with it. But at 30 miles per hex I feel far to close to the action and its just too frustrating not to be actively involved.

Nikademus -> (5/31/2002 12:34:49 AM)
I have to agree with the moderator/developers here. A game of the scale of UV or the upcoming WitP cant really be any shorter than one day (which i think is fine in terms of the 'poll') Though i'm as much of a detail freak as the next grognard i quickly came to realize that not being in total control of the carrier TF's (which is where i think this problem originates from) is realistic from the angle that the game presents. One already has incredible control over the tactical units in the game, including the carriers (by being able to assign missions to each squadron on the carrier, transfering them etc etc) One has to admit, it is a hell of a lot better than Pacific War's one week block of turns where one had far less control over events, especially LBA. LBA ops really got hurt there....carriers were'nt so bad though not being able to control TF placement hurt even more badly than overenthusiastic reaction rules Ironically, the smooth and detailed TF creation and movement routines contribute to this "illusion" that UV is a tactical based game of carrier warfare, thats actually a testiment to the game's solid design that it does so. But as many have already pointed out, this is 'not' a tactical carrier warfare game ala "CAW" or "Carrier Strike" Trying to make UV any more detail orinented in terms of game turns would be like trying to make 12:o clock high, "bombing the Reich" into a game where the allied side can continually interupt along with the German player to continually adjust and change his "game plan" long after the bombers and fighters have been assigned their missions in response to the Axis movement and launch schedule of his responses to the day's raid, and those familiar with that game know how big and long 'that' worthy is. Instead of fussing over the turn lengths, i would suggest that CV interaction routines may need a few minor tweaks here or there to prevent the typical, carriers react, close to close range and exchange strikes. Mind you, just a 'minor' tweak. It may seem a bit monotonous at times and even frustrating for would be strategists, but one has to remember how history has often gone in terms of carrier warfare. With the single (and partial) exception of Midway, that was how all the major carrier battles resolved.....Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Philippine Sea. Each side spotted the other usually within hours of each other, exchanged strikes and in most cases withdrew to lick wounds. Midway was a partial exception given some of the extraordinary sequence of events which transpired (though Hiryu was able to strike back) as well as having advanced Intell beforehand P. Sea's results could also be a partial exeption due to the strength disperity, known such that the IJN commander purposely tried to exploit his range advantage to get in a first strike with a minimized fear of immediate retaliation. Thats probably the best spot where a minor "tweak" could be added, esp for the IJN side. A more cautious reaction option to minimize risk by utilizing range as a weapon To prevent abuse, this option should probably come tied with a penalty in the form of an increased chance to miss a target completely or paritally, and/or increased disruption-fatique if it does, the level and scale of which could be tied into the unit experience and leadership ratings. Finally, as has already been suggested, one should experiment with TF placement to try to set up favorable opportunities. I've been doing this by turning off "react to enemy" to prevent the close range carrier strikes and have been able at times to set up long range strikes. Course i dont have to bother now, my IJN carriers outnumber the battered AI 4 to 1. :) just my 02 cents

Didz -> (5/31/2002 6:36:55 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus [B] I have to agree with the moderator/developers here. A game of the scale of UV or the upcoming WitP cant really be any shorter than one day (which i think is fine in terms of the 'poll') [/B][/QUOTE] A strange conclusion considering that this battle has been done at least twice by successful games with turns shorter than one day. [QUOTE][B] One has to admit, it is a hell of a lot better than Pacific War's one week block of turns where one had far less control over events, especially LBA. LBA ops really got hurt there....carriers were'nt so bad though not being able to control TF placement hurt even more badly than overenthusiastic reaction rules [/B][/QUOTE] Personally, I still prefer PACWAR as an Operational level game simply because it has the scale to carry it off. I'm only hoping WiTP faithfully reproduces this without getting bogged down in trivial detail like pilots names. [QUOTE][B] Ironically, the smooth and detailed TF creation and movement routines contribute to this "illusion" that UV is a tactical based game of carrier warfare, thats actually a testiment to the game's solid design that it does so. But as many have already pointed out, this is 'not' a tactical carrier warfare game ala "CAW" or "Carrier Strike" [/B][/QUOTE] The illusion of UV being a tactical game is further reinforced by the fact that the map area covered barely extends beyond the tactical manouvring zone of the TF's involved in the battle itself. [QUOTE][B] Trying to make UV any more detail orinented in terms of game turns would be like trying to make 12:o clock high, "bombing the Reich" into a game where the allied side can continually interupt along with the German player to continually adjust and change his "game plan" long after the bombers and fighters have been assigned their missions in response to the Axis movement and launch schedule of his responses to the day's raid, and those familiar with that game know how big and long 'that' worthy is. [/B][/QUOTE] Interesting, my analogy for UV would be producing a game that barely covers the area of the Gettysburg national park and then calling it a ACW Operational level game by setting a 3 hour game turn and not allowing players to direct any of the Corps involved in battle whilst inisting that that they micro-manage the movement of the ammunition supply wagons ;)

mogami -> Operation Level (5/31/2002 7:31:10 AM)
Hi, Operations are boring to some people, Just as in chess King and Pawn endings are boring to some people, In baseball no hitters are boring to some people, It's a matter of taste. The actual battles only represent/reveal how well the Operations planners have done. In UV you are the God of operations. Not a combatant. Massing an Armada to invade Port Moresby with 3 divisions and then finding there are no stockpiles of supply or fuel to support it. The airgroups are all wore out and demoralized, and the ground combat units ready to fall apart from neglect, are operational matters. Which ships a airstrike attack within a TF are the concerns of the squadron leaders. Making ASW TF of DD's that are not armed with depth charges and then wondering why enemy subs are so effective. Not understanding CAP and Mission commitment levels are the essence of Operations and wanting the computer to make these decisions for you. (The Level of CAP/SEARCH represents the TEMPO of Operations desired. Besides resting pilots it also has an impact on supply use. Aircraft wear and tear (non combat losses) "Interesting, my analogy for UV would be producing a game that barely covers the area of the Gettysburg national park and then calling it a ACW Operational level game by setting a 3 hour game turn and not allowing players to direct any of the Corps involved in battle whilst insisting that that they micromanage the movement of the ammunition supply wagons " Actually that is a rather good comparision. The Corps placement/arrival would be Operational their combat would belong to the Corps/division commanders (which you would select) and general posture (you told them at midnight to defend Little Round Top. ) The supply wagons would represent an operational concern (dividing the arty ammo type and amounts would after all have a major impact on the battle "Gen Longstreet, sir you must go now or I will be unable to support your advance, I am running out of long range ammo" (meanwhile the reserve ammo train is 3 miles away) You could have been the battery commander or the army commander in this case who would have made a difference, One is boring, but also the soul of war. It does not take a genius to win a battle with 3 CV versus 4. The genius is knowing who to place in command of the 3. Where to send them and when. (and having the 3 ready and able where needed when needed.) Has anyone lost a VAdm or RAdm when the SC/PG they were on was sank by a sub? Using a VAdm to do a Lt/LtCmd job is operational (but poor) The pilots names are not really needed but they do add a nice touch without adding any extra work for the players. (They do contribute to people thinking tactically rather then Operationally) However if you actually pay attention to that level of detail things like "This group is composed of really low ranking low experience pilots flying bad aircraft perhaps I should move them to a safe base, rest them and then begin serious training while waiting for their aircraft type to upgrade" Now that is definitely an Operational decision and one that could have an impact on the future course of events. (months later desperate for aircraft you reach into your theater reserve. This group is now rested, trained, and equipped with first line planes. Their transfer to the critical area turns the tide. Operations are the means by which tactics achieve strategic goals. Saying at the outset "My long range strategic goal is the capture of Port Moresby and then fighting repeated nighttime surface battles at Lunga. More invaisons/battles will be lost in UV because supply/fuel ran out then will be lost because commanders make poor reactions but many people wish the computer decided how much and where their logistics went. While they drive aircraft carriers around the Coral Sea at max speed. With 100 percent fighter CAP and 100 percent fighter escort. The scale of the game is exactly what it is meant to be. It has a few frills that seem to confuse people to it's true nature. It is a bean counter game. (the Pacific was a bean counter war) You really don't want the computer counting your beans. (puts you out of your real job) Operations are boring to some people, but they are the most important level in war. The settings reflect what the operatinal commander can direct tactics to his commanders (set aircraft to port attack during operations directed against ports but change to airfields for operations against enemy air assets) This is not micro managing. Your TF leaders have no idea what your operations are meant to achive. Do you want them picking targets?

Dunedain -> (5/31/2002 10:01:19 AM)
Having 24 hour length turns is about as short as you can have it and still be realistic at this scale. Now, if the game were more on a tactical or grand tactical scale, then you could realistically have shorter length turns. Something like Action Stations, for example.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.529297