Target Priorities (Full Version)

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



Message

Ron Saueracker -> Target Priorities (6/30/2002 12:33:03 PM)

As some have said, it can be very frustrating to watch your air group CO target non important assets such as a routine convoy when the Yamato is a few hours away from blasting them and their base into the stoneage. What is needed is a priority list for naval attack settings, allowing the player to stipulate which targets are more important when numerous targets are in range.



dgaad -> (6/30/2002 1:59:41 PM)

I'm sure there is already a priority list hardcoded in all airgroup attack assignments. You are asking for this request as though there isn't already one. You, however, not taking account of the confusion of war. Any tactical / operational situation is bound to be confusing and mistakes and bad decisions will get made. 7-8 times out of 10, airgroups go after good targets. This is about right, historically speaking. We should ask for a simulation where mistakes can get made, we got one with UV. Since the model already takes into account random factors representing confusion, mis-communication, and bad decisions on the part of local commanders, I'm not convinced that having a settable priority target list would change anything at all.



cpt_Venomous -> (6/30/2002 3:04:34 PM)

exactly, taskforce covering in rain squal, a die roll option should be implemented.



HARD_SARGE -> (6/30/2002 9:55:59 PM)

Hi Ron
well, guess it all depends on what your point of view is, as to which is the more importent target, for me, as the Allied commander, the transports, tankers are the more importent target (funny, the CV/BB have all the points, but it is the AP that will win or lose the war for you)

of course, that BB TF comeing in may kill you today, it is tomorrow that you have to worry about, but it is fustrateing, when you see CV's in the area and it is Transports that are being attacked, but if they are carrying troops, you got to remember that the BB and CV fleets are there to support the transports, not the other way around

plus in the Coral Sea battle, the AO and DD were attacked and sunk, the Air Groups thought they were going after a CV, once they got there, they were disappointed, but sank them anyways

HARD_Sarge



Sabre21 -> (6/30/2002 10:20:35 PM)

There still needs to be an ability to direct your airgroups to a specific target. It can be a toggle on setup that allows this. Whether its historical or not is immaterial, it's the playability of a game that I desire. I had flown in a brigade to Buna and the Japs landed a bunch of secondary garrison troops...so I wasn't concerned about the land troops as I was about knocking out them ap's...but my darn pilots kept going after another task force up near Lae that I wasn't concerned with.

Andy



dgaad -> (6/30/2002 10:26:31 PM)

Sabre : I agree that there are times you would like to prioritize a particular task force, and even particularize a certain kind of ship, over the default targetting priorities. Such would be the case if you have an enemy transport group approaching one of your positions and you would much rather hit this group than a surface group.

What matrix will say, and I'm not sure I agree, is that you will be then "tacticalizing" an "operational" level game. Lets see what they do in fact say, if they are so inclined.



HARD_SARGE -> (7/1/2002 12:19:38 AM)

Hi Sabre
I know what you mean, but it is also somewhat hindsight,say you could tell the bombers which Fleet to attack, your recon shows a CV and BB just off your coast, and another fleet next to it with 10 AP, which is the main target, think most people here would lock on to the CV, and be totally bummed, when it turned out to be to AG's

so far in my games, I have seen cases were I would of liked to of done the attack different, but for the most part, I like the way it does it (lol a while back seen the Allies send out over 120 bombers to hit a AG fleet, and miss, and was thinking, hey guys, would of rather of hit the grounds troops, but if I had been given the choice of targets, I would of went for the AG's too)

(as a side note, as I said in my game, I got 3 CV's sitting in Munda, acting as bait, the AI will not go after it, it is eating my poor SC and MSW's I sent into Shortlands to gain exp, but luck or design, the AI has been picking targets all around my "trap" with out hitting the trap itself, so have to think, that there is some thought to the attack plans the program is useing when it sends out the raids

HARD_Sarge



Ron Saueracker -> Fog of war, confusion, whatever. (7/1/2002 1:30:15 AM)

Going after targets of lesser or least priority happens all the time. Confusion occurs, but should it reign in every HQ, manned by the military's best? I was just thinking that perhaps something was missed, as Bombardment TFs seem ignored at times.

Speaking of dumb AI. Routine and CS convoys are starting to annoy me so much that I never use them. Half the time they load troops you don't want and the other half, they take off to go supply some base low on supplies but are none of their concern (CS convoys specifically). Not only that, but they plot their course as the bird flies!!! Useless for the most part unless you can get in the habit of cycling through all your TF's just in case.

But, hey, I just spent my entire weekend either playing or researching for UV. Definitely one of the best PC games I've ever laid my hands on. I only stopped for the World Cup matches.:D

Oh, one more thing. Anyone see Richmond K. Turner in UV? He was the Amphib Boss during much of the war and could use his ratings.



HARD_SARGE -> Re: Fog of war, confusion, whatever. (7/1/2002 2:06:44 AM)

Hi Ron
Strange, I have never seen a CS TF pick up any troops ?, have had a lot of Fast Transports, not leave the base and drop the troops back to where they had started from (maybe i mirco manage more then you do, so don't see it)

for Bombardment groups, by design, if they are set up right, they should not get attacked by planes, they should get in and get out before the planes can get to them, fast transports too

(LOL had a IJN CA crippled, broke off from his fleet and tried to make it to Shortlands, 3 turns, rain closed down the base, as it limped home, so started moveing subs into it's path, 4 days subs fired at it and missed each day, the last day, 1 hex away from the harbor, a sub with no fuel, returning to base, seen it and put a trop into it and down she went, all that luck and work to get home, and just when you can see the pier, cruel)

yes Turner is in the game, forget which HQ he is set up with, but I seen him (didn't see any of the Stats for him)

speaking of real Commanders, Had 2 BB, 5 CA/CL's and 4 DD in a combat group and ran into a CL and 5 DD's, was smileing, but it turned out to be a heck of a good fight, then seen that Raizo Tanaka was in charge of the IJN ships, was sorry to see him go down with his ship, but didn't want to fight him again

(lol wonder about damage, had one IJN DD take 4 16 in shells in a row, and then keep shooting for the next 5 minutes, another take 3 16 in and make it to the next battle, another take 3 16 in and 5 or 6 8 in and also make it to the next battle, but..., but sank as soon as the next battle started, so the program may of just been slow)

(ROFLMAO, seen a AG take 3 16 in's, then 4 CA's opened up on it, then a DD put a Trop into it, to be honest, hope the CO of that boat made it)

HARD_Sarge



tanjman -> Anyone see Richmond K. Turner in UV? (7/1/2002 2:46:43 AM)

Ron,



:) He's assigned as commander of III Amphibious Corps. I know he was the amphibious commander (afloat) but since this HQ can't be used like in PacWar (embarked but not landed), shouldn't they be using the senior USMC officer? Can't remember if it was H.M. Smith or Geiger.



HARD_SARGE -> (7/1/2002 2:53:22 AM)

Hi Tanjman

shouldn't that be Vandergriff ?, Geiger was the Marine Air Commander (spent 4 years on Camp Geiger)



HARD_SARGE -> (7/1/2002 2:53:43 AM)

Hi Tanjman

shouldn't that be Vandergrift ?, Geiger was the Marine Air Commander (spent 4 years on Camp Geiger)

HARD_Sarge

all in all, think Turner should be the III amp Commander, Vandergrift was in charge once on the ground, but was the 1st Marine Div commander, once the 1st Marines were pulled out, Vandergrift was also, but Turner was still in charge



TheProfessional -> Priority targeting still a mystery (7/1/2002 2:57:45 AM)

Has anyone found a response from the Matrix team regarding targeting? I've already read the manual concerning targeting logic and sometimes, it just doesn't pan out in the game. If there is a randomness factor built into the game, it'd be nice to let us know (i.e. what's the algorithm so we know to minimize it?)

To tell you the truth, I think the term 'Fog of War' is an easy copout if there is a questionable design decision or a bug in the program itself.

Case in point:
I built up Dobadura to Airfield size 5 (whoever posted this tip, thank you!). I based about 150 LBs there with Naval Attack orders to come in at 1000 ft. I had 50000 supply there.
An IJN air combat TF with 2 CVs left Truk and entered the Rabaul area. I tracked it all the way from Rabaul all the way toward Buna, around the cup of Gili Gili and towards Port Moresby. My bomber TF never attacked it, instead it went after 2 APs by Rabaul, a CL/DD combo and numberous MSWs and APs in Rabaul harbor (over and over again).
Now, that's frustrating as hell!



johnmac -> (7/1/2002 3:32:25 AM)

I have a theory about this. You say you have 150 LB - got any fighters to escort them? I think there is game logic that greatly reduces the probability of unescorted level bombers attacking a fully-fledged carrier task force, and if you think about it, this is historically accurate.

I'm not sure of my facts here, but I have repeatedly seen my LBs get off their arses as soon as I give them some fighter support.

Let us know how you get on...



TheProfessional -> Great theory.. i'll test (7/1/2002 4:17:15 AM)

JohnMac,

Great theory, I will test to see if this is the reason.

One thing though:
I can get all the entire bomber force to attack Rabaul consistently (as you know, it has a sizable CAP contingent). So, logically, shouldn't attacking a weaker CV CAP force make more sense than attacking Rabaul?

Hmmm..makes you think. But I'll let you know after the test.



Sabre21 -> (7/1/2002 7:43:04 AM)

You know in all honesty, even though I would love to have the ability to target specific TF's, I don't really mind the way it is. It affects both sides equally as it seems. I have seen more than one of the other sides air groups hit a pretty worthless target while my ap's or cv's got thru unscathed.

Ans as for the weather model..I like it the way it is too...the pure randomness of how the weather reacts makes me get pretty uptight at times and laugh pretty hard at others...like when I ended up 1 hex from the Jap fleet and he didn't launch due to bad weather and I got a full coordinated strike off...twice...ohhh...the pleasure of chasing the remnants of a CV TF back to Truk with no threat of counterstrike:)

Andy



tanjman -> III Amphib Corps (7/1/2002 8:44:51 AM)

HARD_SARGE,

:o Mea culpa about Geiger. I didn't have my refrences handy and tried to pull off a WAG.

:confused: Concerning Turner and III Amphib Corps. I agree he should be CO but what use is he as an LCU (HQ) CO when it would be better if he were the 3rd Fleet Amphib Forces commander. I guess (WAG again) because you only have small task forces (task groups really) that are not subordinate to other TFs this was the only way they could model him in UV.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125