naval strikes & real;ity settings

naval strikes & real;ity settings (Full Version)

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

Message

tobamore -> naval strikes & real;ity settings (6/26/2002 3:00:58 PM)
Hello all, As a new member and UV player, I would like to start by saying that UV is a good game, but one which could be even better with a few tweaks/ improvements. 1) I realise that it would be a little less realistic but, those of us that would like to directly select targets for our naval strikes could be pleased by the introduction of a toggle in preferences for direct/computer control of said strikes - thereby pleasing both sides of the gameplaying equation - the 'realists', and those of us wishing to sacrifice a little reality for hands on fun?;) This may be 'fairly' easy to do in a patch perhaps? 2) interface tweaks, eg when perusing my units it would be nice to have a clickable button to go straight to that unit on the map, yes I know that you can flick back through windows to find a unit location, but why not simplify it? The game would certainly be more user friendly? Another example would be when wishing to 'rest' aircraft, why do we have to put them on training and reduce the setting to zero, when a simple rest button would do the trick? 3) when being bombed a line is drawn from the airfield that instigated the attack to the target, on my copy at least, in many cases I can see that a line is there but I can't scroll the map during the attack to see from which airport they came - yes I know that this wouldn't be 'real' either, but since the line is already drawn... Okay, these are just some of my thoughts and as I said I'm new to this game, so please don't flame me, I just believe that with a few tweaks like those suggested could take the game from being 'good' to the next level. Thoughts anyone? MTIA Toby.

von Murrin -> Re: naval strikes & real;ity settings (6/26/2002 3:51:53 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tobamore [B]Hello all, As a new member and UV player, I would like to start by saying that UV is a good game, but one which could be even better with a few tweaks/ improvements. 1) I realise that it would be a little less realistic but, those of us that would like to directly select targets for our naval strikes could be pleased by the introduction of a toggle in preferences for direct/computer control of said strikes - thereby pleasing both sides of the gameplaying equation - the 'realists', and those of us wishing to sacrifice a little reality for hands on fun?;) This may be 'fairly' easy to do in a patch perhaps?[/B][/QUOTE] Less realistic is correct. You would become admiral instead of Spruance or Yamaguchi. The purpose of the game is [I]operational[/I] control, and as such, I don't see this changing soon. :) [QUOTE]2) interface tweaks, eg when perusing my units it would be nice to have a clickable button to go straight to that unit on the map, yes I know that you can flick back through windows to find a unit location, but why not simplify it? The game would certainly be more user friendly? Another example would be when wishing to 'rest' aircraft, why do we have to put them on training and reduce the setting to zero, when a simple rest button would do the trick?[/QUOTE] Ahh, many solutions have been proposed, none have been confirmed. We shall see what the Matrix gods decide. Good ideas though. :) [QUOTE]3) when being bombed a line is drawn from the airfield that instigated the attack to the target, on my copy at least, in many cases I can see that a line is there but I can't scroll the map during the attack to see from which airport they came - yes I know that this wouldn't be 'real' either, but since the line is already drawn...[/QUOTE] Good idea. [QUOTE]Okay, these are just some of my thoughts and as I said I'm new to this game, so please don't flame me, I just believe that with a few tweaks like those suggested could take the game from being 'good' to the next level.[/QUOTE] Don't worry. We may hang out in New Guinea, but we aren't in the habit of eating the newcomers. :D [QUOTE]Thoughts anyone?[/QUOTE] Yes, I have them occasionally, you bloody fool! (Sorry, couldn't resist!) ;) :p

tobamore -> (6/26/2002 4:08:19 PM)
Thanks for your good natured reply.;) On point one though, it may detract from the authenticity of the game, but for those of us that want just a little more fun - why not spoils us with the option?:) You of course could opt for (the default) commander controlled (read computer) attacks and I could continue to be a maladjusted megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur!:D Seriously though, I really don't understand why this isn't an option, as I can plan airfield/port attacks myself but can't plan TF attacks.:( Perhaps the keyword there was plan... Still, it would be nice and I for one could live with that little bit less realism, after all in this game it is perfectly possible for Japan to win the war!;) So will the demigods of Matrix games please appease an upstart like me? I'm sure there are many others too you know.:D MTIA-A Toby.

von Murrin -> (6/26/2002 4:32:09 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tobamore [B]Thanks for your good natured reply.;) On point one though, it may detract from the authenticity of the game, but for those of us that want just a little more fun - why not spoils us with the option?:) You of course could opt for (the default) commander controlled (read computer) attacks and I could continue to be a maladjusted megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur!:D Seriously though, I really don't understand why this isn't an option, as I can plan airfield/port attacks myself but can't plan TF attacks.:( [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry, I misstated a point. You are the theater commander. To be able to select your targets would make you Spruance or Yamaguchi. To be more direct, I think the gents at 2by3 have given the appropriate level of control to fit their design goals. I don't believe it will change. Yes, I know. There are times when I would like nothing better than to control the strikes, but you'll have to trust me on the point that it can be far more fun as it is. :)

Michael Walker -> (6/27/2002 1:27:40 AM)
I've got some questions here about this thread I'd like to add. I understand the rational of operational control. But why then are you able to micro manage the CAP level, Naval Search level and non-naval targeting. How is selecting the number and type of aircraft that bomb a port any more operational than the number or type that bomb a TF? I can certainly understand that its necessary to have a concept to give the game coherence, and a reluctance to allow the sort of god-like control that separates games and sims, but as I see it that is already being given, only it is being denied in the one way gamers most want it. Lets face it, among the big disappointments in Pacwar was watching your carrier task for bomb a Merchant ship while ignoring some CV TF. I am just barely into my first tinkering with this game so perhaps I'll be thrilled by the skill of the computer -- but I really doubt it. I do agree that selecting indivdual ships as targets is not what is called for. But for example, if I have a very small number of attack aircraft at PM, I don't want to send them on a suicide mission against the Sho and Zui when there are small TFs of troops that I can deal with. I dont' that that beyond operational control, and even if it is, I still think that players should be able to do it. Thanks for listening. MCW

tobamore -> (6/27/2002 1:33:22 AM)
Here here, we just about agree on this, anyone else? Toby

mogami -> AC control (6/27/2002 2:04:50 AM)
Howdy welcome aboard. I might add that what you are asking for is not becoming Spruance but the pilot. The computer detirmines approach of strikes and what ships these aircraft see (they then choose a target from what they see) one pilot might have taken damage from cap on way in and decide to attack outer ship rather then trying for well protected/high AA ship. Setting CAP level is operational. In this context it would be telling each pilot on CAP what enemy AC to engage and once again this is related to where he is when enemy strike arrives. It would require quite a bit of changes for you to command airstrikes (decide what direction you came from and decide not to attack some ships but instead search for others. ALso please remember when a aircraft attacks a ship other then CV or high value ship the pilot might believe he is actually attacking a carrier or other ship. We could also install in surface or sub actions target selection but what whould decide what they see. (I get upset when my subs fire at CL when CV in hex) or run across CV TF with surface TF and never shoot at CV (it runs and the escorts stay behind) I understand your request it would become almost an arcade game rather then the very real mixup that war is. Options of course are options and I am no programmer. It could be as simple as just putting the aircraft in a pool over targets and you assigning them 4 at a time to targets.

Michael Walker -> (6/27/2002 2:29:27 AM)
Hi Mogami, First as for what I am asking for, it is simply to treat naval strikes as land strikes and not differently. To some extent, it is irrelevant whether it is or isn't operational, since I am simply in favor of treating all attacks the same, ie, allowing the player to choose the targets. I am not asking to fly the planes, choose the line of attack, pick which ships get attacked etc. I simply think that if I can see 3 TFs, which I could in the turn I was just playing when I posted -- I should be able to direct my aircraft towards the ones I prefer. This is exactly what I can do each and every turn with land bases. Why should targets in the water be different from targets on terra firma? In my game my units attacked some small transport TFs when they knew that CV TFs were in the area. I think that even as operational commander, I should be able to tell my CV TF not to reveal their position, or abandon the possibility of a counter strike if the target discovered does not merit a strike. Likewise, I don't want 10 A-24s from PM flying out the Sho and Zui all by themselves. Finally, if we are going to be strict about operational control, I should simply be telling Fletcher to stop the invasion and not be able to set the CAP etc. That is not what Nimitz or Yamammoto were doing. Looking forward to your response, MCW

mogami -> I see (6/27/2002 2:39:55 AM)
Howdy, It is clear to me I misunderstood your request. You want during your phase to simply select naval attack and then go to spotted enemy TF and make it target. ALong with this I would like to be able to tell TF's to follow/chase spotted enemy TF's/subs. I would not mind if the mission was cancelled because the TF disappeared but since it was selected i would like my search planes to search the area in could have moved to in the time between contacts. And if spotted in daylight have the recon plane shadow it as long as possible. As a conjuction I would like course and speed given in contact report. I think these requests would fall within theater operational control. (If commitment of assets is not operational then the term confuses me) My bad, good points.

Michael Walker -> (6/27/2002 2:51:40 AM)
I think we are basically in agreement. I am still so new to this I may well not understand the nav search rules, but I agree that contact info is minimal, shadowing should be possible if not automatic, and I would add that I'd like to have more control and understanding of my searches. Perhaps there is a formula I have yet to come across, but I am unsure how my search aircraft are used, how many are necessary to cover an area, if they search in 360 degrees, 120, or some other amount etc. As a pitch to Matrix, for most players, it is the cat and mouse of carrier warfare that makes the game. The operational and strategic aspects are a big plus, but mainly because it allows the players to enhance their ability to get to the real point, getting the other guy's CVs. MCW

mjk428 -> (6/27/2002 3:21:43 AM)
I watched the movie "Midway" last night and there was a scene in it that shows how operational command can mean many things. When a PBY from Midway spotted the invasion force it called in a report of "Main Body". Henry Fonda, err... Nimitz came to the conclusion this was not the main body and sent a message to the carriers to not attack until they found the CV's. This shows how it's at least plausible for a commander to influence tactical decisions in real time. It's clear that this game isn't trying to strictly model operational command anyway. As another example: What single person would determine the altitudes of each plane? There are also many things an operational commander could do that we can't, such as replace commanders of air groups that aren't capable. To me it should come down to: 1) Would it improve the game? 2) Can it be made an option? 3) Is the cost justified? 4) Will it hold back the release of WitP? #4 being the most important:)

Spooky -> (6/27/2002 5:17:07 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428 [B] It's clear that this game isn't trying to strictly model operational command anyway. As another example: What single person would determine the altitudes of each plane? [/B][/QUOTE] Well, to set altitude is really critical only for level bombing ... and it is a strategic decision to balance high flak-induced losses vs hypothetical damages to ennemy ships. Spooky

mjk428 -> (6/27/2002 6:39:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Well, to set altitude is really critical only for level bombing ... and it is a strategic decision to balance high flak-induced losses vs hypothetical damages to ennemy ships. Spooky[/QUOTE] I certainly don't mind having the opportunity to set the altitude. My point there was that I don't believe a theater commander would be directly involved in that determination. He might get involved if a particular unit had high losses or never hit anything. OTOH, If I was trying to get the feature of altitude setting added to the game, I'm sure I could come up with plausible reasons why it should be considered an operational decision. My main point was that there's not always clear lines between tactical/operational/strategic decisions. The features of the game should be the ones that provide the best gaming experience and ideas shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because they may be too tactical or strategic. There are enough constraints without imposing artificial ones.

Point Luck -> My thoughts (6/27/2002 8:54:18 AM)
I have to chime in on this one. I wholeheartedly agree that some level of selective operational control would be an improvement. Again I would like to emphasize the word some. I would prefer to select suspected targets or the direction of flight for my A/C's. The capability of shadowing a TF would be another option that would add some more dimension to the game. All other AI controls would remain the same. Even operational commanders back in 1942 couldn�t help to micro manage their air wings. Even if they didn�t do it to the extent that some players may choose, I feel this kind of option would have positive effect of the design intent of the game. Take into consideration that if a player chooses to take on more control tasks the likelihood increases that some of these command decisions could result in a detrimental effect.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.546875