(Full Version)

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



Message

juliet7bravo -> (6/8/2002 12:54:39 AM)

It's called "Iron Bottom Sound", not "Iron Bottom Lunga Harbor". Actually, can't think of a single significant surface combat that occurred within Lunga or Tulagi harbor (or their immediate environs) during the GC campaign, or in the harbors at any of the subsequent island invasions as they worked their way toward Rabaul during the Solomon Campaign.

Probably the closest would be when TF 58 attacked Truk later on...mass (8?) carrier attack on the harbor, with surface ships ringing the base to cut off fleeing IJN ships. Maybe Empress Augusta Bay?

Most of the naval battles in the immediate GC area actually occured toward the Savo Island/Tassafaronga area (game hexes 37/38, 37/39, 36/39) between IJN SC TF's and (oddly enough) USN picket/screening elements. You see, win/lose/draw, the IJN had to be out of LBA/carrier range by daylight (unless they were successful in flattening the airfield). If they got cut up, or took time out to fight a surface action before even reaching the harbor, any of the subsequent cripples would be dead meat, and if the TF was slowed down enough, they'd never make it back out of range. This happened several times BTW.

Fighting the battles in the harbors...is gamey, for a variety of reasons. It's also very restrictive to gameplay. It can be boiled down to "he who anchors enough firepower into the harbor wins". You don't have to break any ships off for screening or pickets, you don't have to break any off to escort transport TF's, all you have to do is roll them up into a big enough ball and squat in the harbor and you are 100% safe as long as you have mo'ships and mo'firepower.

Didz...that's why I'm pushing a very short 1-3 hex reaction range. Get them in the right general area, let them make the intercepts if the dice rolls right. Used judiciously, 1-3 hexes wouldn't allow them enough slack in their leash to get into to much trouble...hopefully.



Wilhammer -> (6/8/2002 1:02:19 AM)

Back to the core of the argument:

Is it correct that naval searches take place ONLY at end points and NOT during movement?

My answer is NO.

Is it correct that warships can go from Shortland Island to Gilil-Gili, bombard, get home, and remain totally undetected by air from PM (or even a CV TF) and can escape intercpetion despite the fact they were under the air umbrella in transit?

NO.

How does it effect the game?

That is the debate.

I am sitting on the fence at this stage.

However, this game would go from an 8.5 (my rating) to a 10 if this game had mid-transit detection/combat.

Something is just not quite right in its omission from this great game.

The code base seems easier to fix if we had a shorter execution phase, but would be perfected if we had Si-Move ala CM.

The foundation is laid, so I think the latter option is best left for a new design.

It may not be broken, but it squeaks while it moves.

Squeaky parts will eventually heat up and fail...



Didz -> (6/8/2002 1:14:02 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]
Dont follow you. You cannot repair ships at most beaches - they will be port 1 or 0. You can only refuel/rearm if you ship in supplies/fuel. This supply hex can then be attacked by the enemy (air/naval). TF in a hex can still be attacked, even if docked - in fact that is the only time most level bombers (except naval specialists like Betty's) will hit them. Walking 30 miles to attack the next hex will really take the edge off most troops, hence isn't a cake walk either. TF can be intercepted in either hex, since they will start in one, and finish in the other (unless the unload time is very short, in which case they would do better to be well out at sea heading for home at the end of the turn). Finally, the defender can of course, defend the beach in question by shipping supplies, garrisoning and fortifying it. What would be gamey is to force the attacker always to assault frontally in a 30mile hex!

Why is landing next door to the objective 'gamey'? [/B][/QUOTE]

I must admit I found this statement puzzling too for the same reasons but just assumed there was some cunning aspect to it that I hadn't grasped yet.

Anyway wasn't this exactly what the Japanese were doing during Aug to Nov 1942 when they were using 'Tokyo Express' to build up a beachhead on Guadacanal.



Sonny -> (6/8/2002 1:23:22 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
[B]

Unfortunately, as has been documented elsewhere the TF Commanders can't be trusted to make sensible decisions. So, most players are switching 'React to enemy' and 'Retirement Allowed' off. [/B][/QUOTE]

Which is what Paul was saying about any changes negatively affecting the AI. It already has problems. By allowing the local commander to have more freedom the AI will have more problems. Folks complain now that the commander does stupid things (move into LBA range) how many more complaints will there be when your TF commander does even more stupid (or less what you want him to do) when he has more latitude to make decisions.

Let the current AI be improved before handing even more control over to it.:)



Didz -> (6/8/2002 1:26:43 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]Back to the core of the argument:

Is it correct that naval searches take place ONLY at end points and NOT during movement?

My answer is NO.

Is it correct that warships can go from Shortland Island to Gilil-Gili, bombard, get home, and remain totally undetected by air from PM (or even a CV TF) and can escape intercpetion despite the fact they were under the air umbrella in transit?

NO.

[/B][/QUOTE]

At last someone else has accepted that this is an issue.

How does it affect the game?

Well IMO.

[list=1]

  • It allows the use of tactic's which would not be possible in the real campaign. Most notably the assignment of major capital ships to Bombardment Missions against bases with a fully developed cover.

  • It prevents the use of tactic's that were used during the real campaign. Namely, the placement of TF's on interception missions in bottlenecks like the slot.

  • It encourages the development of 'gamey' tactic's like charging CV TF's with surface forces safe in the knowledge that the CV's will not be able to detect you until you arrive in their hex.

    [/list=1]



    • elmo3 -> (6/8/2002 1:32:04 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
    [B]
    ...snip...

    However, this game would go from an 8.5 (my rating) to a 10 if this game had mid-transit detection/combat.

    Something is just not quite right in its omission from this great game.

    ...snip... [/B][/QUOTE]

    Why is this seen as a deficiency in the game if we have one marginal example of it happening in 500+ days of the campaign?



    Didz -> (6/8/2002 2:57:32 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
    [B]

    Why is this seen as a deficiency in the game if we have one marginal example of it happening in 500+ days of the campaign? [/B][/QUOTE]

    I think the issue is dependant upon playing style. Those players who are aggressive with their naval units will probably play this game quite happily and not notice the problem because they quite naturally place their naval units in harms way and therefore trigger and surface action.

    For those like myself who play a more cautious game this issue became a real issue from the very first game and has continued to irritate even since.

    I certainly don't consider it a marginal problem because it denies me the chance to use strageties I wish to use and seek to force me to use those that the designers consider appropriate.



    Paul Vebber -> (6/8/2002 3:26:03 AM)

    This issue seems related to an off-topic discssion on teh battle line forum about why board gamers accepts if not delight in "abstraction" but in computer games the least thing that can shown not to be "phyics based" is a glaring deficiency?

    The current scheme allows the EFFECT of the vast majority of slot battles, by allowing surface TFs to react INTO BASE HEXES to fight before the TF moving in gets to do anything.

    If you want to envision that as "in the harbor" rather 30 miles away just before the enemy starts moving into the new hex since as was pointed out a running battle could well go across several hexes. The battle could be starting 2 hexes away and run down into the port hex.

    The facts are that the game as it is allows an historical number of surface engagements to occur in historically corrct context. You can critique the means, but the effect is basically correct.

    As to the issues:

    [QUOTE]It allows the use of tactic's which would not be possible in the real campaign. Most notably the assignment of major capital ships to Bombardment Missions against bases with a fully developed cover.[/QUOTE]

    Are you talking air cover or a covering surface force. I have seen instances of both...The combat is just "resolved" in the base hex. This is an abstraction because its immaterial given the limitations of the hex map to specifically track where the ships actally move. With the sighting report tme dealys you are really seeing TFs on the map as an hour or more timelate typically. The detection system abstracts this as well.


    [QUOTE]It prevents the use of tactic's that were used during the real campaign. Namely, the placement of TF's on interception missions in bottlenecks like the slot. [/QUOTE]

    You can, but its resolved at the terminus, How many times did the Japanese "feint" down the slot just to try to cause a surface battle? SO the abstraction of resolving it at the base again only prevents ahistorical tactics of flooding the slot with lotsof small TFs to distract the defenders. Something which was not historically a viable tactic and would only work because of expoiting game mechanics.

    [QUOTE]It encourages the development of 'gamey' tactic's like charging CV TF's with surface forces safe in the knowledge that the CV's will not be able to detect you until you arrive in their hex. [/QUOTE]

    Or you can look at it that it takes 30 miles or more of sea room to catch the force. And that CV's caught in such a position may not be able to turn into the wind to launch their planes without closeing the enemy. Any number of things. I have yet to see CV's consistantly taken out in surface combat by charging BB groups. ITs pretty much immaterial exactly where that occurs. From what I have seen and the AAR's indicate usually the Surface group gets whacked. The detection rules make this difficult becasue the TFs are assumed under the Detection rules to not always have the most up to date position of the enemy. So teh specifics of where teh battle is occuring is abstract anyway!

    The bottom line is that the current system produces an appropriate number of surface combats. They circumstances of those combats are tied very strongly to historical context.

    If we simply add another mechanism to trigger surface combat then one would assume more combats would occur and the number of combats would rise to ahistric proportions.

    Naval combat was a very iffy prospect in this era. Just having a TF "milling about smartly" near where you thought the enemy might run in was hardly a high probablility event, as the historic record shows. If an insignificnat number of additional battles are caused, then what's the point?

    As to "acknowleding the AI is broken" becasue it "does dumb things" look at the history and how many commanders did "dumb things". If the AI always made the correct decision would that MORE realistic than one that was imperfect?

    This reminds me of arguments I used to be iinvolved where ASL was taken to task for its "warped space" LOS treament of "blind hexes behind buildings". Yes it was "unrealistic" and violated the fundamental laws of physics. BUt it "worked" because it was playable and calculateing "true lOS for every shot slowed teh game to a crawl, without fundamentally changing the tactics.

    My feeling is that until a glaring example of "gameyness" that gives one side a decided ahistoric advanctage is found, that at least for UV, there is no need to delay WITP by 2 or more months by rewriting a major piece of UV just so a handful more surface combats can be fought??

    IF you are counting on tactics that were not historically viable, (intercepting the enmey in blue water) then is that a deficiency? THe game may operate at a level of abstraction you don;t like, but the types of encounters you list as issues CAN occur, just in a somewhat abstracted form.



    strollen -> (6/8/2002 5:47:53 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    At last someone else has accepted that this is an issue.

    How does it affect the game?

    Well IMO.

    [list=1]

  • It allows the use of tactic's which would not be possible in the real campaign. Most notably the assignment of major capital ships to Bombardment Missions against bases with a fully developed cover.

  • It prevents the use of tactic's that were used during the real campaign. Namely, the placement of TF's on interception missions in bottlenecks like the slot.

  • It encourages the development of 'gamey' tactic's like charging CV TF's with surface forces safe in the knowledge that the CV's will not be able to detect you until you arrive in their hex.

    [/list=1] [/B][/QUOTE]

    I don't really understand the first point. Bombarding bases with level 4+ airbase and sufficient LBA is very risky. The bombarding force ends up 10-12 hexes (often closer because the ship distance is longer than the air distance for bases like Gili Gili or Lunga.) They are subject to one and possibly two airstrikes on the way in. In many cases they will be within the regular range of Allied medium bombers and always within extended range. An airstrike has a good chance of aborting a TF on retirement.
    Even if the TF continues they can be struck once or twice on the way out. If the base has surface TF protecting it the surface battle will produce damage to the bombarding fleet making them even more likely to be sunk the next day.

    The only time this matters is when the Japanese are bombarding a level 2 or 3 allied base. In this situation a fast force can get in and out of regular range of allied naval air. However, destroyers and cruisers are the only ships fast enough to do this and unlikely to cause sufficient damage to matter a lot. More importantly since this is what happened at Guadacanal this seems pretty realistic.

    In my experience the Japanese AI attempts to bombard a built up Lungaville have ended very badly for the Japanese. (Except for the case when the 2 CA 1 CL 3DD force turned out to be the Mutsu... and I soon found out that 5,6, and even 8" shells don't have a big impact on Yamato class BB, and weather canceled the nexts day strikes, however the damaged CL didn't make it back.)

    I agree with your second point.

    I also don't understand how this can happen unless you are charging a base and the CV force elects to remain in a base.



    • Didz -> (6/8/2002 6:28:25 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
    [B]This issue seems related to an off-topic discssion on the battle line forum about why board gamers accepts if not delight in "abstraction" but in computer games the least thing that can shown not to be "phyics based" is a glaring deficiency?

    Actually, I suspect the real distinction is between boardgamers and those of us with a background in tabletop wargaming. Generally speaking tabletop wargamers expect the rules to be based upon actual capabilities and tactics whereas boardgamers are used to more abstract rule systems.
    quote:


    The current scheme allows the EFFECT of the vast majority of slot battles, by allowing surface TFs to react INTO BASE HEXES to fight before the TF moving in gets to do anything.

    Well actually I was hoping for a game that produced a bit more than just the EFFECT of the battles in the slot.
    quote:


    The facts are that the game as it is allows an historical number of surface engagements to occur in historically corrct context. You can critique the means, but the effect is basically correct.

    What a depressing statement. I bought UV becaue I thought it would be an accurate model of the war in the South Pacific not some abstract approximation that would produce something vaguely acceptable as in terms of battles fought and ships sunk.
    quote:


    I have yet to see CV's consistantly taken out in surface combat by charging BB groups.

    Don't worry you will. I've already managed it once against the AI. But ironically it should be easier against a human opponent simply because most of them will have the 'React to enemy' switched off on their CV TF's

    One only need to play a few PEBM Talonsoft games to realise how innovative human players can be when they spot a feature in the game mechanic's that can be exploited.
    quote:


    If we simply add another mechanism to trigger surface combat then one would assume more combats would occur and the number of combats would rise to ahistric proportions.

    I don't understand why the number of surface combats in a game of UV should be tied in anyway to the number of historical combats that occurred in the real campaign.

    Surely, the number of surface combats that took place in the real campaign was a product of the strategies and tactic's being followed by the respective combatants at the time and the number that occur in our games should be the product of the strategies and tactic's we decide to follow.

    If we decide not to follow the same strategies as our historical counterparts then why should we expect the number of surface battles to be in any way similar.

    In fact my issue is not that the game doesn't produce enough surface combats but the game mechanics force me to engage in surface combat by denying me the chance to use an alternative option.
    quote:


    Naval combat was a very iffy prospect in this era. Just having a TF "milling about smartly" near where you thought the enemy might run in was hardly a high probablility event, as the historic record shows. If an insignificnat number of additional battles are caused, then what's the point?

    The point is, as already explained, that it is a valid strategy to place TF's on patrol across the various straits to interdict enemy shipping. By not allowing any chance of an interdiction to occur the game remders this strategy being pointless and limits the options available to the player.
    quote:


    As to "acknowleding the AI is broken" becasue it "does dumb things" look at the history and how many commanders did "dumb things". If the AI always made the correct decision would that MORE realistic than one that was imperfect?

    No! but equally I think you are unreasonable to expect one of your customers to allow the AI to remain in control of his CV's when it has a nasty habit of sacrificing them to no good purpose under the bombs of the enemies LBA.

    The big difference between the AI and a dumb commander from history is that the later would normally end up dead or disgraced but the AI keeps making the same mistake over and over and over again.
    quote:


    IF you are counting on tactics that were not historically viable, (intercepting the enmey in blue water) then is that a deficiency?

    Absolutely! not. What I am objectiing to is that at present the game allows tactic's that are not historically viable whilst denying me some that are.



    Paul Vebber -> (6/8/2002 6:51:19 AM)

    [QUOTE]What I am objectiing to is that at present the game allows tactic's that are not historically viable whilst denying me some that are.[/QUOTE]

    Operational games are about the EFFECTS of tactics. NOT explicitly modeling them.

    What you want is a Tactical naval game blown up to camapign proportions. What proof do you have that it would be any more "correct or incorrect" than what the game now provides.

    What drove the number of surface engagements? The fact that despite appearances, it was hard to bring an enemy task group to battle? or the fact the combatants were too stupid in the real war to figure out how to do it right?

    You hit the problem on the head when you say you want to engage in specific *tactics* and don't see why it should matter if they produce historical results...

    If your focus is on the "underlying physics" - how to implement tactics - then you want a tactical game!

    This ain't it!

    If your focus is on what you as a commander of forces that use an abstract representation of the tactics actually used, then the game is appropriate as is. Operations is about EFFECTS...repeat...


    [QUOTE]What a depressing statement. I bought UV becaue I thought it would be an accurate model of the war in the South Pacific not some abstract approximation that would produce something vaguely acceptable as in terms of battles fought and ships sunk. [/QUOTE]

    No you want an engine to produce tactical naval battles. UV is an "accurate model of the War in the South Pacific" you don't like it becasue you can't change some of the assuptions made in that model relating to tactical control.

    :[QUOTE]Actually, I suspect the real distinction is between boardgamers and those of us with a background in tabletop wargaming. Generally speaking tabletop wargamers expect the rules to be based upon actual capabilities and tactics whereas boardgamers are used to more abstract rule systems. [/QUOTE]

    And those "table top" games are tactical while the abstract boardgames are operational. You have to leave the tactical table top behind! You are dealing at the operational level now!

    It CERTAINLY won't be getting MORE tactical in WITP...:rolleyes:



    elmo3 -> (6/8/2002 7:01:21 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
    [B]

    ...snip...

    It CERTAINLY won't be getting MORE tactical in WITP...:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

    Good.



    Didz -> (6/8/2002 7:04:08 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
    [B]
    I don't really understand the first point. Bombarding bases with level 4+ airbase and sufficient LBA is very risky. The bombarding force ends up 10-12 hexes (often closer because the ship distance is longer than the air distance for bases like Gili Gili or Lunga.) They are subject to one and possibly two airstrikes on the way in. In many cases they will be within the regular range of Allied medium bombers and always within extended range. An airstrike has a good chance of aborting a TF on retirement.
    Even if the TF continues they can be struck once or twice on the way out. If the base has surface TF protecting it the surface battle will produce damage to the bombarding fleet making them even more likely to be sunk the next day.


    I'm puzzled. Are you playing the same game as the rest of us?

    I have watched a bomardment group consisting of two BB's including Yamamoto make repeated bombardments on Gilli Gilli with a level 4+ base and never once be subject to a single airstrike let alone two going in and two going out. 10 hexes is 300 miles which is extreme range for all but the larger level bombers.

    Even if few a B17's could get to them the fact remains that by rights they should begin and end their attack run no more than 6 hexes away from the base not 12.

    quote:


    More importantly since this is what happened at Guadacanal this seems pretty realistic.


    The reason that the IJN got away with this at Guadacanal was that Henderson Field did not have the capacity to provide a full air umbrella over the slot.

    During the day it was under constant air attack from Rabaul and when not fighting off these attacks the fighter-bombers stationed on the island were needed to support the marines defending the perimeter. Therefore the IJN were able to approach within air strike range in daylight without much risk and make their final bombardment runs from well within 100 miles of the island. Even slow moving troop ships managed to slip in under cover of darkness.

    As soon as the pressure on the airfield slackened in November 42 the tables were rapidly turned and the IJN abandoned the 'Tokyo Express'.

    quote:


    I also don't understand how this can happen unless you are charging a base and the CV force elects to remain in a base. [/B][/QUOTE]

    This was a deliberate test to see if I could abuse phasing system to my own ends. It involved the IJN Super CV TF which was supporting landings on Guadacanal at the time and every USN surface vessel I could muster.

    I actually expected the enemy CV TF to react away from the charge but it didn't perhaps because it was focused on it support role at the time.

    The surface TF has to take one airstrike just before the battle begins but even with my relatively weak surface force I more than got my revenge on the enemy.

    As I mentioned elsewhere this tactic would probably work far better against a human opponent as most tend to switch off the 'React to enemy' and 'Retirement allowed' options on their CV TF's.

    So simply by targetting a surface combat group at the hex occupied by your opponents CV's you ought to be able to bring about a surface combat unless by chance your opponent moves it. If your playing IJN with a strong surface fleet and manage to get in amongst your opponents CV's it should make quite a mess.



    Didz -> (6/8/2002 7:13:13 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
    [B]

    It CERTAINLY won't be getting MORE tactical in WITP...:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

    Good! I would prefer to see something more in keeping with the original PACWAR.

    100 miles per hex and no trivia like pilots names and mucking about loading and unloading transports.

    If its going to be an operational wargame then I think you need to avoid the temptation to get involved in too much detail.



    Paul Vebber -> (6/8/2002 7:32:07 AM)

    You aren't going to get "The same old Pacwar" either. :eek:

    Gary has made his design intent quite clear. 60nm hexes, the same basic mechanics as UV. More geared probably to 7 day rather than 1 day turns.

    You are free to dislike it, but the vast majority like the current balance of detail and abstraction. SOme tweaks will be made, so it will be different in many respects form UV, but the changes will be from the same design philosophy.

    The bottom line is if you like UV you will like WITP even more, and if you don't like UV, you will likely like WITP less...

    Can't please everyone and to try pleases no one.



    Dunedain -> (6/8/2002 7:35:55 AM)

    Interesting discussion. :)

    I don't think the issue is players wanting some sort of full
    tactical control over the battles. We would just like to be able
    to order our surface combat TF's to go to an area with orders to
    attempt to engage any enemy TF's that may come along,
    without having to sit them in some base hex. The exact tactics
    used to try to accomplish the interception and engagement
    is up to the commander on the scene, obviously (this is what the
    various checks are for, weather, day or night, commander experience
    level, commander aggressiveness rating, range TF is first
    spotted at, speed the TF's can move at, etc.). All that tactical stuff
    is handled by the officer on the scene, no one is asking for control
    over that.

    But right now the player doesn't even have the option to give
    such an order and have the CO at least try to carry it out.



    Spooky -> (6/8/2002 7:40:34 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
    [B]

    It CERTAINLY won't be getting MORE tactical in WITP...:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

    Great !

    If I want to play a tactical PacWar game then I play CAW or Fighting Steel (enhanced by NWS :) )

    We can always criticize some UV design decisions ... in order to improve the game ;) but as it is now, UV is already a wonderful game :p ...

    Of course many grogs in this forum will find ways to use some flaws in the UV game mechanics. But I think we can be quite sure that Matrix/2by3 will try to correct them as much as possible.

    Spooky



    elmo3 -> (6/8/2002 8:20:45 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dunedain
    [B]Interesting discussion. :)

    I don't think the issue is players wanting some sort of full
    tactical control over the battles. We would just like to be able
    to order our surface combat TF's to go to an area with orders to
    attempt to engage any enemy TF's that may come along,
    without having to sit them in some base hex. The exact tactics
    used to try to accomplish the interception and engagement
    is up to the commander on the scene, obviously (this is what the
    various checks are for, weather, day or night, commander experience
    level, commander aggressiveness rating, range TF is first
    spotted at, speed the TF's can move at, etc.). All that tactical stuff
    is handled by the officer on the scene, no one is asking for control
    over that.

    But right now the player doesn't even have the option to give
    such an order and have the CO at least try to carry it out. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Sure we do. You can set your Surface Combat TF to Patrol and React and it will move to intercept an enemy TF. You don't have to sit in a base hex to accomplish this either.

    Now if you're talking about intercepting a TF on the high seas then please see my post on page 4 of this thread where I ask for real life examples from this campaign of it happening. So far there has been one marginal example, first Savo Island. Nobody else has come forward with another.



    strollen -> (6/8/2002 8:34:59 AM)

    QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    I'm puzzled. Are you playing the same game as the rest of us?

    I have watched a bomardment group consisting of two BB's including Yamamoto make repeated bombardments on Gilli Gilli with a level 4+ base and never once be subject to a single airstrike let alone two going in and two going out. 10 hexes is 300 miles which is extreme range for all but the larger level bombers.

    Even if few a B17's could get to them the fact remains that by rights they should begin and end their attack run no more than 6 hexes away from the base not 12.

    . [/B][/QUOTE]

    First of all once the Yamoto is gets 3 or 4 system damage (and that will happen quickly while bombarding) its speed drops to 9. This is true of all but the fastest IJN battleships.

    But even at range 10, B25, B26, Beaufighters with Torpedos!, and Hudson are all within regular range. Every thing except for SBD is within extended range. At range 9 the SBD which carry a 500 lb bomb are also very useful. Yes you need decent weather and a fair amount planes to make a difference but I've sent plenty of Bombarding TF home with an airstrike.

    I'm primarly playing scenario 15 where the Japanese already have Lunga, PM, and Gili Gili. I've captured Gili early, and just capture PM. Once Gili turned into a level 4+ base with 250+ planes on it has become impervious to bombardment. In fact, the IJN has only sucessfully bombard once in my game and even than I damaged a CA on the way out. I've stop them by using CVs, surface fleets at the base, and primarly land based air.

    As I explained in a early post, given standard IJN procedure of arriving at point 250-300 mile from Guadacanal around 3-4 PM, and arriving at midnight, 6 hexes is way to close, 9-10 is about right. However, I do agree that they bombarding TFs shouldn't be able to move the full way back. Which is why I proposed making Bombarding and Fast transport use 100-200 ops points.

    In my other game as the Allies, the Japanese have bombard Lunga, but I generally have a surface fleet there which while taking losses causes enough damage that the air strikes the next day finish them off.

    What level is Gili in your game and how many planes to you have on it?



    Dunedain -> (6/8/2002 8:47:30 AM)

    I'm talking about in any hex anywhere. If the other TF is just as fast
    and chooses to run, then the intercepting TF will likely not be able to
    force a fight, but if the other TF wants to fight or is a slow transport TF,
    then they should be able to intercept them (assuming they spot
    them, other factors, etc.). Whether or not a destination hex is involved.
    That's not tactical control, it's ordering a surface combat TF to an
    area and ordering them to bring to battle enemy TF's, if possible.

    Just because something didn't commonly happen historically,
    doesn't mean it couldn't have. My opponent may choose to
    send several large surface combat TF's seeking battle with my
    surface combat TF's out in some area of open ocean of regular
    traffic we have been using for our heavy forces to traverse
    over. If we want to battle it out with our capital ships
    on the high seas (both TF's set to react), then that's
    our business. Whether that was often done in the actual war is irrelevant.

    You may think it not a sound strategy, but that is up
    to the players to decide. :)



    juliet7bravo -> (6/8/2002 9:08:51 AM)

    Well, Paul...that pretty much answers that. I apologize for wasting your time.



    HMSWarspite -> (6/8/2002 4:49:09 PM)

    I think the idea of causing bombardments to cost op points would be a good one, and could reduce the issue here, without much change to the engine. The AI might trip over it, but I cannot evaluate this risk. Do surface actions cost OPs? Because this would be another item of contention. Bombardments ought to take from say 15mins to 1.5 hrs maybe, (20 - 120 ops say), maybe biased to commander ratings. Surface actions would be much more random, or generated from the way the battle develops. If no one evades, it would be very short (i.e. the TF isn't deflected from it's course), an evading TF could lose several hrs worth of OPs.

    I am really struggling on the interception debate. Against humans, intercepting carriers is not necessarily easy, because despite having react off set a lot of the time, I move TFs every turn, usually at least 4 hexes. This lessens the risk of sub ambushes, surface TF intercepts etc. You could argue that this is yet more details to attend to, but if I only do one thing in a turn, it's nurse maid the carriers!

    The abstraction that you only get an intercept chance at the end of the turn really doesn't bother me. Carriers have the reach to usually get close enough to surface groups not to matter. OK - you cannot patrol choke points as a barrier patrol, unless that is also the enemy objective. Is this really an issue? You still have a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of getting the correct hex (for an average TF cruise speed). In a heavy LBA environment, I always prefer to keep my TF under my LBA, not out on a limb in the Slot. If I saw a TF on barrier patrol, the first thing I would do is home any subs nearby on to it, so stay there more than a few days, and you'll get your interception all right!

    I appreciate that some pepple want to postion the 'outer picket, inner picket, close defence' explicitly, but as has been said, the game isn't that detailed. Do we get the correct end result - that is the question.
    Now, if there were situations where significant TFs sat in hexes next door to a hex where the enemy swanned in, bombarded, and left, and you couldn't stop them, that would be different, however, I don't think that is what's happening here.

    Maybe I have come up with a style of play that meshes with the game mechanics, so I don't see the full frustration. I must admit, the first few times the AI did the old PM bombardment shuffle, I was a little frustrated. However, subs, mines, and building up the supply and AF state soon sort that out. The computer lost all interest when I damaged 3 BB and sank 1 - it can be countered. You pretty much have to bombard a AF every night to keep it out if action. Miss once, and any cripples get trounced.

    I think we have to accept the game UV is, and not complain about the one it isn't. Now, I have a MUCH bigger worry on the information system (as I keep mentioning). The amount of routine clicking, and work to rotate air units on rest/training, the fiddle to find which subs are out or torps, those are issues that I think need attention, especially for WitP.

    Sorry for going on - look upon it as my 2p worth, but with double bonus extra sale thrown in!:)



    elmo3 -> (6/8/2002 5:16:09 PM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dunedain
    [B]
    ...snip...

    Just because something didn't commonly happen historically,
    doesn't mean it couldn't have.

    ...snip...[/B][/QUOTE]

    -- tongue-in-cheek mode on --

    Ok then, I declare UV to be a complete failure because the phases of the Moon are not programmed into it. The Moon's phases could have had a major impact on night spotting and night combat. I have no empirical or anecdotal data to support that they ever did but it might have so it must be in the game. It is irrelevant if it creates unhistorical results by adding it since it will be cool for my opponent and me to plan all our operations around this one factor. If we want to do that it is our business. All work on WitP must cease until this is included in UV. Of course we'll also need a Moon pulldown menu so we can properly plan our night operations. Please have Gary drop everything for this. Thanks.

    -- removing tongue from cheek --

    Nothing personal. I just find is increasingly humorous that people keep wanting something that was not only uncommon, but that esentially never happened in 500+ days of the camapign regardless of it's unhistorical implications.



    Didz -> (6/8/2002 5:21:16 PM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
    [B]You aren't going to get "The same old Pacwar" either. :eek:

    Gary has made his design intent quite clear. 60nm hexes, the same basic mechanics as UV. More geared probably to 7 day rather than 1 day turns.[/B][/QUOTE]

    I'm really disheartened by this news as I've been waiting for WiTP for what seems like years (and probably is) only to find that it isn't going to be the sort of game I expected it to be.

    As stated in my very first post. I think the issues I have with this game eminate from the fact the ground scale of 30 miles per hex is not balanced by a minimum turn duration of 1 day per turn.

    It creates too many issues over movement and detection and gives the game the look and feel of a tactical game.

    60 miles per hex ought to improve this considerably but not if the minimum turn duration is also going to be increases to one week.

    This only doubles the ground scale whilst increasing the timescale by a massive 700%.

    So instead of jumping 27 hexes a turn as they do in UV those IJN BB units will be able to warp 96 hexes (over 5,000 miles) a turn in WiTP.

    Ouch!



    Didz -> (6/8/2002 5:38:12 PM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
    [B]

    -- tongue-in-cheek mode on --

    Ok then, I declare UV to be a complete failure because the phases of the Moon are not programmed into it. The Moon's phases could have had a major impact on night spotting and night combat. I have no empirical or anecdotal data to support that they ever did but it might have so it must be in the game. It is irrelevant if it creates unhistorical results by adding it since it will be cool for my opponent and me to plan all our operations around this one factor. If we want to do that it is our business. All work on WitP must cease until this is included in UV. Of course we'll also need a Moon pulldown menu so we can properly plan our night operations. Please have Gary drop everything for this. Thanks.

    -- removing tongue from cheek -- [/B][/QUOTE]

    Yes! I think this sums up the difference between Boardgamers and Wargamers beautifully.

    As dunedain points out, Wargamers are primarily concerned with what might have happened had the commanders made different decisions on the day. They therefore expect the systems they use to model the basic physical attributes of the units and environment so that any distraction from the historical script will still produce a believable result.

    However, Boargamers tend to buy games that recreate specific historical events and focus mainly on how well the game reproduces the historical results in an abstract form.

    In boargame terms it doesn't matter if TF's are able to perform actions which would not be possible in the real campaign as long as the overall effect produced is in keeping with their original script. Whereas, wargamer would argue that if a TF couldn't do that in the real battle it shouldn't be allowed to do it in the game.

    We can go round this loop for ever and never agree, its a fundamental difference in approach I have run into again and again.



    Didz -> (6/8/2002 5:42:45 PM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
    [B]
    You are free to dislike it, but the vast majority like the current balance of detail and abstraction.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    Actually, last time I checked the poll

    30% of your customer base said they weren't happy with the current balance of turn duration to ground scale.

    70% satisfaction doesn't satisfy the 80:20 rule and can't be really be described as a 'vast majority'.



    David Heath -> (6/8/2002 10:36:36 PM)

    Well the intel you got is not 100% correct.

    WITP is going to be 60 miles a hex and 1 to 7 days. We are looking into the interception changes but it maybe a little while before they get into the game.

    David



    Mark W Carver -> (6/8/2002 11:11:34 PM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz

    Actually, last time I checked the poll

    30% of your customer base said they weren't happy with the current balance of turn duration to ground scale.

    70% satisfaction doesn't satisfy the 80:20 rule and can't be really be described as a 'vast majority'.[/QUOTE]

    ...where did the 80:20 rule come from? 70:30 sure does seem like a 'vast majority' to me.



    Didz -> (6/8/2002 11:50:51 PM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark W Carver
    [B]
    ...where did the 80:20 rule come from? 70:30 sure does seem like a 'vast majority' to me.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    Not sure where the 80:20 rule originated exactly but it was probably part of one of the popular quality methodologies.

    It has become sort of an industry standard basically it says that if you have acheived 80% of what you hoped to acheive then pumping further resources into the venture in the hope of making up the 20% deficiency is probably going to be a waste of effort based on the law of dimishing returns.

    As for 30% of Matrix customers being an insignificant minority, well I guess thats up to matrix. If 30% of my customers weren't happy I'd be pretty worried.



    Mark W Carver -> (6/9/2002 12:11:43 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz

    As for 30% of Matrix customers being an insignificant minority, well I guess thats up to matrix. If 30% of my customers weren't happy I'd be pretty worried.[/QUOTE]

    But than again, that is 30% of the 72 people who has responded to a poll on Matrix's UV forum website.

    The 70:30 could actually be 80:20 or 90:10 or even 60:40 or 50:50 of ALL actual owners of UV. No way to tell, unless Matrix sends out a mailing to it's owners and receives a reply back from 100% of the owners of UV. A small sampling found on this website is not scientific.



    Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    0.6914063