TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

dereck -> TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 2:21:00 PM)

I am tired of having my task forces terminate their patrols simply because they have 5 SYS points of damage and because someone decided (for ME) that they can't 1. repair their damage at sea (which US - and any Navy could and DID) and 2. they have to return to port.

Is there any way I can keep the ships at sea until I decide they need to be repaired or is this just some more unrealistic stuff I have to deal with?



Who Cares -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 2:45:00 PM)

Just unrealistic stuff you have to deal with. Even more annoying is the TF will put itself into port thus prohibiting you from at least replacing the "damaged" ships with others to resume its patrol. So then you get the pleasure that Nimitz and Yamamoto both had of trying to figure out what sub or ASW patrol isn't on station. I mean it would be silly for a subordinate to do that when the supreme has nothing better to do than deal with these exciting details.



Don Bowen -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 3:20:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

I am tired of having my task forces terminate their patrols simply because they have 5 SYS points of damage and because someone decided (for ME) that they can't 1. repair their damage at sea (which US - and any Navy could and DID) and 2. they have to return to port.

Is there any way I can keep the ships at sea until I decide they need to be repaired or is this just some more unrealistic stuff I have to deal with?


The way you wish it was is the way it originally was. It was changed because players complained about having to monitor their patrol TFs.

We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option.

PO1 US Navy (1962-1969)
US Naval Weapons Depot, Yorktown VA (1962)
US Naval Missile Facility, Dam Neck VA (1963)
Coast Guard Barracks, Baltimore Shipyards (1963-1964)
USS Norton Sound AVM-1 (1964-1966)
US Naval Weapons Depot, Concord CA (1966-1967)
USS Richmond K Turner DLG-20 (1967-1969)



Mynok -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 3:20:52 PM)


If they didn't go back, people would be bitching about TFs with heavily damaged ships still on patrol. [8|]



dereck -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 3:28:34 PM)

If it would be set up where ships repaired their own damage (which ANYBODY who served on a sjip knows they could and did) any damage other than major damage could be repaired at sea and there would be no need for this unrealistic hypocracy.

This game is so detailed in some repects and then things like this which is in efect not realistic.

I should have stuck with the old WITP.



castor troy -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 3:47:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


If they didn't go back, people would be bitching about TFs with heavily damaged ships still on patrol. [8|]



guess thatīs the time when there will be a request for a toggle "terminate patrol when reaching x sys, y flt, z eng damage". [:D] We canīt have everything but I would like it.



castor troy -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 3:48:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

If it would be set up where ships repaired their own damage (which ANYBODY who served on a sjip knows they could and did) any damage other than major damage could be repaired at sea and there would be no need for this unrealistic hypocracy.

This game is so detailed in some repects and then things like this which is in efect not realistic.

I should have stuck with the old WITP.



is this single "feature" enough to really stick with WITP? With the recent "events" I guess still noone would call me a fanboy of WITP over AE, even though Iīve got my problems in some aspects with AE. Still, in total I wouldnīt change AE for WITP.



Who Cares -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 3:49:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option.



Actually it already IS an option and has been long before you came along. It's called "auto sub ops". People that find it too difficult to click the "show all ships" icon at the top and then sort this by damage shouldn't be the ones that make YOUR policy for you or rather they shouldn't be the ones YOU try to please.



castor troy -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 3:51:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option.



Actually it already IS an option and has been long before you came along. It's called "auto sub ops". People that find it too difficult to click the "show all ships" icon at the top and then sort this by damage shouldn't be the ones that make YOUR policy for you or rather they shouldn't be the ones YOU try to please.



Guess Dereck wasnīt just talking about subs, was he?

And I would rather check every single sub each day than to use auto sub ops. NEVER ever have the AI doing something for you like handling your subs.



Who Cares -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 4:12:35 PM)

I agree. Anything under computer control is evil. Especially the computer deciding to take ships off their patrol and put them in port. I have had annoying things happen when subs were heading home to refuel (going to a "closer" port - one that had no fuel - and staying there), damaged ships breaking off from their assigned port/target to go to where it "feels" it should go ect.

Which is exactly my point. I don't WANT the computer doing these things "for me".



Dili -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 4:20:33 PM)

I think the 5 SYS should be changed to 8 or so. A no there are things not fixable at sea.



Buck Beach -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 5:08:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

If it would be set up where ships repaired their own damage (which ANYBODY who served on a sjip knows they could and did) any damage other than major damage could be repaired at sea and there would be no need for this unrealistic hypocracy.

This game is so detailed in some repects and then things like this which is in efect not realistic.

I should have stuck with the old WITP.


No disrespect intended, but, what is keeping you from firing up the old game and setting AE aside. If it makes you happier, why not do it.



Nomad -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 5:12:11 PM)

If I am not mistaken these actions are listed in the ops report.



John Lansford -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 5:14:44 PM)

If you like your subs sitting in enemy held ports getting bombed/depthcharged, then by all means turn on "Computer control" for your subs.  Every time I tried that in WitP, the subs headed right for a port and sat there.  Don't know if that was fixed in AE and haven't tried it to find out.



Don Bowen -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 5:28:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

...

I should have stuck with the old WITP.


Agreed



Don Bowen -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 5:29:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option.



Actually it already IS an option and has been long before you came along. It's called "auto sub ops". People that find it too difficult to click the "show all ships" icon at the top and then sort this by damage shouldn't be the ones that make YOUR policy for you or rather they shouldn't be the ones YOU try to please.



I've read this several times and I'm still not sure what you are trying to say.



Don Bowen -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 5:30:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If you like your subs sitting in enemy held ports getting bombed/depthcharged, then by all means turn on "Computer control" for your subs.  Every time I tried that in WitP, the subs headed right for a port and sat there.  Don't know if that was fixed in AE and haven't tried it to find out.


I suppose, if all else fails, that you could try AE before you comment on it.



castor troy -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 6:20:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If you like your subs sitting in enemy held ports getting bombed/depthcharged, then by all means turn on "Computer control" for your subs.  Every time I tried that in WitP, the subs headed right for a port and sat there.  Don't know if that was fixed in AE and haven't tried it to find out.


I suppose, if all else fails, that you could try AE before you comment on it.



Guess John meant while heīs playing AE he hasnīt tried to use his subs on auto ops. I havenīt tried subs on auto ops either and I wonīt as IMO a human being will always be better in handling the subs than an AI routine, no matter how much improved it has been. Please donīt take this as an offense Don.



ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 6:33:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option.



Actually it already IS an option and has been long before you came along. It's called "auto sub ops". People that find it too difficult to click the "show all ships" icon at the top and then sort this by damage shouldn't be the ones that make YOUR policy for you or rather they shouldn't be the ones YOU try to please.


I'm trying to figure out when "long before you came along" was with respect to Don Bowen.

If you don't want the computer to make these decisions for you, just do them manually. Use waypoints or direct them each turn or whatever. That was the only option in WITP and that option is still available in AE. Then you can continue your patrols no matter how much damage or how little fuel until your ships sink, if that is what you really want.





tanksone -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 6:37:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

I am tired of having my task forces terminate their patrols simply because they have 5 SYS points of damage and because someone decided (for ME) that they can't 1. repair their damage at sea (which US - and any Navy could and DID) and 2. they have to return to port.

Is there any way I can keep the ships at sea until I decide they need to be repaired or is this just some more unrealistic stuff I have to deal with?



Hi, can't say I've seen this happening with sub or surface TF's that are using way points to patrol. Either way Don, you and the devs did a heck of a great job.[&o]


[sm=00000436.gif]



Don Bowen -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 7:10:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If you like your subs sitting in enemy held ports getting bombed/depthcharged, then by all means turn on "Computer control" for your subs.  Every time I tried that in WitP, the subs headed right for a port and sat there.  Don't know if that was fixed in AE and haven't tried it to find out.


I suppose, if all else fails, that you could try AE before you comment on it.



Guess John meant while heīs playing AE he hasnīt tried to use his subs on auto ops. I havenīt tried subs on auto ops either and I wonīt as IMO a human being will always be better in handling the subs than an AI routine, no matter how much improved it has been. Please donīt take this as an offense Don.


You are right, I should have said " you could try it in AE"



Mynok -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 7:11:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea


I'm trying to figure out when "long before you came along" was with respect to Don Bowen.



No kidding. [sm=fighting0056.gif]




treespider -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 8:00:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

If it would be set up where ships repaired their own damage (which ANYBODY who served on a sjip knows they could and did) any damage other than major damage could be repaired at sea and there would be no need for this unrealistic hypocracy.




IIRC Ships do repair stuff at sea....so perhaps just maybe ...all your at-sea repair stores have been used up in continuous repairs that you don't see since they occur during the turn, trying to keep your Sys below 5.

So by the time you reach an end of turn where your Sys remains a 5, the Capt. decides it time to return home to refit.

Or of course I guess that requires people to use their imagination too much.[8|]



mjk428 -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 8:57:05 PM)

Seems like a potentially good feature but 5 sys is too low to trigger an automatic response. I rarely operate ships over 5 but sometimes it's necessary. 10 would be a better number to justify a TF disregarding orders from above.



Don Bowen -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 9:19:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Seems like a potentially good feature but 5 sys is too low to trigger an automatic response. I rarely operate ships over 5 but sometimes it's necessary. 10 would be a better number to justify a TF disregarding orders from above.



It actually is 10. The TF is probably returning due to float damage.



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 9:21:23 PM)

Zomg ze game iz br0ken !!!!!!!



Who Cares -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 11:09:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option.



Actually it already IS an option and has been long before you came along. It's called "auto sub ops". People that find it too difficult to click the "show all ships" icon at the top and then sort this by damage shouldn't be the ones that make YOUR policy for you or rather they shouldn't be the ones YOU try to please.


I'm trying to figure out when "long before you came along" was with respect to Don Bowen.

If you don't want the computer to make these decisions for you, just do them manually. Use waypoints or direct them each turn or whatever. That was the only option in WITP and that option is still available in AE. Then you can continue your patrols no matter how much damage or how little fuel until your ships sink, if that is what you really want.



Allow me to clarify: "long before you came along" refers to Don as a programmer on this project, meaning the original game by 2x3. Things that were there before he started changing the code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option.



Actually it already IS an option and has been long before you came along. It's called "auto sub ops". People that find it too difficult to click the "show all ships" icon at the top and then sort this by damage shouldn't be the ones that make YOUR policy for you or rather they shouldn't be the ones YOU try to please.



I've read this several times and I'm still not sure what you are trying to say.


Allow me to clarify then. You said "We just can't please everyone nor can we make everything an option." in reference to this:

quote:

The way you wish it was is the way it originally was. It was changed because players complained about having to monitor their patrol TFs.


To which I responded:

quote:



People that find it too difficult to click the "show all ships" icon at the top and then sort this by damage shouldn't be the ones that make YOUR policy for you or rather they shouldn't be the ones YOU try to please.


Now what this means is simply you added a lot of code to "decide" when TFs should break off and go home, when a TF should go into port, where a TF should go after it breaks off simply because (to use your words), "players complained about having to monitor their patrol TFs". Now frankly if a person doesn't have the ability to do something as simple as clicking the "show ships" icon and then click the "sys" heading at the top to sort the ships by damage (2 total clicks per game turn) I fail to see why you felt the need to bow before these people and put in a lot of code just to please them. And frankly, I have NEVER seen anyone say this was a good thing and am curious as to who "these players" are.

Further I submit it is actually harder to monitor ones patrol TFs under this system.



John Lansford -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 11:18:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If you like your subs sitting in enemy held ports getting bombed/depthcharged, then by all means turn on "Computer control" for your subs.  Every time I tried that in WitP, the subs headed right for a port and sat there.  Don't know if that was fixed in AE and haven't tried it to find out.


I suppose, if all else fails, that you could try AE before you comment on it.


Right, Don; I've only been playing AE since December so obviously I know nothing at all about it. I did have some subs on Computer Control early on; they headed for Hong Kong and Khota Bharu just like they did in WitP. Now maybe one of the patches fixed that, but I'm not really interested in finding out and like Castor, feel I can position my subs better than the computer can anyway.



Mynok -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/30/2010 11:28:41 PM)


These weren't computer control ships. They were ships on patrol.



pompack -> RE: TF Terminating Patrol for Repairs (3/31/2010 2:05:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Seems like a potentially good feature but 5 sys is too low to trigger an automatic response. I rarely operate ships over 5 but sometimes it's necessary. 10 would be a better number to justify a TF disregarding orders from above.



It actually is 10. The TF is probably returning due to float damage.



Well, I just checked and found many patroling TFs with SYS between 5 and 9. And one happily patroling along with SYS damage of 17 and ENG damage of 2! [X(]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5771484