Task Force Micromanagement Poll

Task Force Micromanagement Poll (Full Version)

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

Message

Capt Cliff -> Task Force Micromanagement Poll (6/22/2002 5:21:03 AM)
I'd like to post a poll and see, and help Matrix see, if there is too much micromanagement for task forces. I say yes! Especially the air combat TF's. Commands for air combat TF's should be; escort invasion TF, defend Lunga (aggresive or passive), raid shortlands, refuel, etc....going into TF201 and setting the Big E's F4F's to LRCAP and select who was something Halsey or Ghormley never did. Let's not get too wordy a simple yes, no or just right may help the Matrix guy's out. They have helped us let's help them! This will impact WitP.

Coleman -> (6/22/2002 11:26:05 AM)
Agreed.

Nikademus -> (6/22/2002 1:49:45 PM)
disagree. As a former Pac-head (Pac-war.....not Pac-man! ;) ), i love the additional level of detail and control that UV presents for carrier air ops. Like all the other myriad of features, it can be daunting and fatiquing at times to track it all......but in the end i'm thankful to have the option at all.

mjk428 -> (6/22/2002 2:03:03 PM)
Disagree as far as UV is concerned. I would like to see continued improvements to the interface but the level of control satisfying.

Didz -> (6/22/2002 3:36:55 PM)
Personally I would like less micro-management of non-combat TF's and more control over combat TF's and aircraft.

Chris21wen -> (6/22/2002 4:04:59 PM)
Disagree. I like to know what my fighters are doing.

von Murrin -> (6/22/2002 4:48:30 PM)
Disagree. The only thing I would like to see is the ability to have more than one CS convoy per base, and to have them more "rigid" (no troop loading and restricted to command area for Routine).

gts2096 -> (6/22/2002 6:21:24 PM)
disagree

Ron Saueracker -> (6/22/2002 8:32:57 PM)
Don't like the troop loading in auto TF's at all. Also would like to see FS split in 2 sub flights on carriers to allow better control of CAP assets.

svhrg -> (6/22/2002 8:38:09 PM)
Disagree, I enjoy having this level of detail built into the game.

Buck Beach -> (6/22/2002 8:59:20 PM)
Disagree. It is the detail that I have been waiting for since Pac-War. Matrix et al has delivered whereas Pac Tide and Victory in the South Pacific (may be wrong title) failed. Thank's Matrix and gang.

dgaad -> Re: Task Force Micromanagement Poll (6/22/2002 9:19:34 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt Cliff [B] I say yes! Especially the air combat TF's. Commands for air combat TF's should be; escort invasion TF, defend Lunga (aggresive or passive), raid shortlands, refuel, etc....going into TF201 and setting the Big E's F4F's to LRCAP and select who was something Halsey or Ghormley never did. Let's not get too wordy a simple yes, no or just right may help the Matrix guy's out. They have helped us let's help them! This will impact WitP. [/B][/QUOTE] As for setting Carrier TFs to LR Cap, sorry but you are wrong there, that was done many times, although not at this stage of the war. Instead, the carriers would simply deposit the air group on an airbase that was near what they needed to protect. The Naval airgroup usually didn't stick around too long, but they got the job done. As for micromanagement, you are dealing with a crowd of micromanagers here, this is what the game is all about [I] to them[/I]. I would like to see an additional behavior control : in addition to "React to enemy" and "Don't React to Enemy", for air combat TFs I would like to see a "React to enemy, stay out of normal enemy bomber range". I almost never use the "React to enemy" command, whether playing against human or AI, simply because the carrier group will react in a way that is totally ignorant of enemy LBA threats, something that NO carrier commander ever did (not even Japanese ones).

Bulldog61 -> (6/22/2002 10:06:25 PM)
Disagree

Capt Cliff -> (6/22/2002 10:40:43 PM)
So far a good response guys! 9 to 3 for micromanagement or if it ain't broke don't fix it!! I assumed dgaad was a disagree. If he read's "The Big E" by Stafford, at book on the Enterprise, he'll see that LRCAP was provided by the offshore air combat TF for the invasion TF's! Ive noticed that the AI does not provide LRCAP to protect it's invasion TF's! Keep responding to the poll.

Caltone -> (6/22/2002 11:58:37 PM)
Disagree

Wilhammer -> (6/23/2002 12:02:53 AM)
Disagree. I want MORE micro-management.

AlvinS -> (6/23/2002 2:07:42 AM)
Disagree I like the micro-management. In addition to telling my TF's where to go I would like to be able to set waypoints. That way if I send a transport TF to Buna from Noumea for example, it does not take the long way around. Another reason I would like to set waypoints is to avoid the obvious submarine hideouts around Noumea. My subchasers can spot them, but I would like to guide my Air Combat TF around them. As it stands I do it manually.

RayM -> (6/23/2002 5:33:04 AM)
Stealing a quip from business...less is more! I would like to see the old PACWAR HQ full human, human operational control, or full computer control choices added. I also liked the SET TARGET function. I liked these features because it allowed me to concentrate on one or more specific AOs while leaving others to the computer (but you ceratinly had to keep an eye on it.) Whoever said that UV was a click-fest was correct! I also wonder if at some point the micro-management "clicking" starts to overshadow the expressed purpose of UV, which is to recreate the air, land, and sea combat contest for the South Pacific. As seen in UV, the micro-management of so many parameters is supposed to set the stage for this to happen, but how do you reconcile the micro-management of almost everything with the fact that the player is in theory, acting in a more detached "role" as the theather commander? It think PACWAR protrayed it somewhat better. In the end, I think it comes down to personal preference, hence the two camps as described in this topic.

dgaad -> (6/23/2002 6:04:56 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt Cliff [B]So far a good response guys! 9 to 3 for micromanagement or if it ain't broke don't fix it!! I assumed dgaad was a disagree. If he read's "The Big E" by Stafford, at book on the Enterprise, he'll see that LRCAP was provided by the offshore air combat TF for the invasion TF's! Ive noticed that the AI does not provide LRCAP to protect it's invasion TF's! Keep responding to the poll. [/B][/QUOTE] My apologies. I thought your original quote said LR CAP was never a tactic used in this theater.

Fred98 -> (6/23/2002 8:58:57 AM)
The grog player will by nature micromanage. The ability to micromanage attracts grogs. For the game to have a wider audience there needs to be automation. More automation attracts the non-grog. We need the occasional players / non-grogs to buy more copies to keep our hobby alive. -

bradfordkay -> (6/23/2002 9:13:35 AM)
My vote is for micromanagement to stay as is... it's near perfect. And yes, the theatre commander could (and probably did) tell the task force commander (who would then say so to the CAG) that his fighters better cover that invasion TF, if he doesn't want to end up counting mittens in Nome, AK.

Capt Cliff -> (6/24/2002 1:10:29 AM)
GOOD POLL!!!! No problem "dgaad", ya got me to put LRCAP over MY TF! Going to DEFCON 1 or is it 4? I think Joe98 has hit the nail on the head! In order for Matrix to prosper they need to broaden the appeal for the game. To put it plainly; "No bucks no Buck Rogers!"!!!! The computer AI does not do a good enough job of manageing it's TF's, especial air combat TF's, ergo either play solitare or PBEM. But....the disagrees have it, but let's suggest an appeal to a broader market! One final thing; I don't think Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing, drives rivets on the assembly line or tells them where or how to do it. Isn't this why Hitler lost the war, he micromanaged his armies, especially in '42 and at Kursk??? Now I got to go order toliet paper for the 1st Marine Division at Lunga or I'll be up the creek!

Spooky -> (6/24/2002 1:28:15 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]The grog player will by nature micromanage. The ability to micromanage attracts grogs. For the game to have a wider audience there needs to be automation. More automation attracts the non-grog. We need the occasional players / non-grogs to buy more copies to keep our hobby alive. - [/B][/QUOTE] The point is that the experienced human player is quite often a better "micro-manager" than the AI so we need to keep at least the micro-management as it is ... or even increase it ! However, Matrix/2by3 should provide more automation options (such as the sub automation) for the non-grogs - even if it is not as efficient as the human player micromanagement. The usual suspects for such automation : * Convoy operations * shakedown cruises (ie : ships are left in shakedown cruises until they reach an day (or night) experience of 45) * Squadrons Training (ie : training until squad experience = 70) ... Spooky

Sabre21 -> (6/24/2002 3:21:11 AM)
I also disagree. I actually want more control on things:) Andy

mjk428 -> Broader Appeal (6/24/2002 3:45:14 AM)
It's a worthy goal that frequently leads ultimately to fewer customers. It has to be managed carefully so as not to alienate the faithful.

juliet7bravo -> (6/24/2002 4:41:47 AM)
Micro-management strictly for the sake of micro-management is usually referred to as being "anal-retentive". A good bit of it in UV is redundant or a waste of resources (time) each and every turn. Being able to micro-manage when it's desirable/needed is fine...having it forced upon you is...anal. I think of UV as "the game where every officer above the rank of 2nd LT was abducted by Space Aliens". A layered command/HQ system where you can issue operational level "command guidance", or micro-manage as needed would suit me just fine.

Erik Rutins -> Thoughts.... (6/24/2002 4:46:20 AM)
J7B, I have to say I've played far more micro-management intensive wargames than UV. For its scale and scope, in my experience it's really not bad as far as management. I take 10 - 15 minutes to do a turn in the largest scenarios and that's with looking around and making sure I'm not missing anything. Regards, - Erik

Fred98 -> (6/24/2002 5:05:30 AM)
I was trying to say to keep the micrmanagement to satisfy the grogs but the option to automate ought to be there for the non-grogs. So far I have only attempted the smallest scenarios and it takes me an hour to play one turn. Thats simply too long. Should be a half hour max. Not sure that I will bother with the larger scenarios and War In The Pacific will be huge.

Raverdave -> MORE!!!!!!! (6/24/2002 5:06:36 AM)
If anything there is not enough! I would love to be able to set the waypoints, control the individual ships within a TF ( such as setting some to AAW and others to ASW as in Harpoon as well as being able to set the TF formation itself....which ship screens what and etc).

LyleGorch -> (6/24/2002 5:15:59 AM)
As an unshaven, bloodshot-eyed, three card-table-to-fit-all-the- maps-together (pre-computer), UV addicted Grognard, I must disagree. More Micromanagement!! It's what it's all about. Much return for the time invested.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.46875