Alternate Targets?

Alternate Targets? (Full Version)

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

Message

mike scholl 1 -> Alternate Targets? (9/27/2010 7:36:22 PM)
Among the most frustrating things in AE is the number of times your airstrikes DON'T fly due to weather. This becomes exceptionally annoying when as the Allies you begin to launch "strategic" air attacks on Japan. Historically all these strikes had at least an "alternate" target, sometimes two. Nagasaki was the most famous to owe it's demise to bad weather elsewhere. Would it be possible to change the programming so that an "alternate target" could be designated in the game? At least for raids within "normal range"? I know it's possible to just set "commander's choice" to avoid this problem---but when I did so in my game with "Sonny", my idiot commanders immediately chose to burn down occupied CHINESE cities rather than tackle tougher targets in Japan. Probably did my relations with Chaing no end of good..., not to mention being worthless to me. Anybody else think this would be worthwhile?

Knavey -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/27/2010 8:31:30 PM)
"You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name the system!" - Grand Moff Tarkin

Chickenboy -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/27/2010 9:04:43 PM)
(gulps...mutters in sotte vocce) Kyushu...they're on Kyushu...

Amoral -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/27/2010 9:41:36 PM)
Just leave it up to the commander where to drop the Bomb. No pressure. Target: Commander's Discretion

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/27/2010 10:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy (gulps...mutters in sotte vocce) Kyushu...they're on Kyushu... No.., I was on Kyushu. Invaded in November, 1944. Nice to see everyone having some fun..., but are there any serious comments/opinions?

stuman -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 1:46:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knavey "You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name the system!" - Grand Moff Tarkin You know, I am surprised that I have never seen this used as a screen name before. Or as a name of a rock band [:)]

USSAmerica -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 4:19:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knavey "You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name the system!" - Grand Moff Tarkin [&o]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 5:32:34 PM)
Lots of silliness yesterday, which I attribute to it being a Monday and everyone being hung over. But it's Tuesday now, and everyone should be sober again. So are there any serious responses on this topic? Yes? No? Maybe? Anything?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 5:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Lots of silliness yesterday, which I attribute to it being a Monday and everyone being hung over. But it's Tuesday now, and everyone should be sober again. So are there any serious responses on this topic? Yes? No? Maybe? Anything? I would not be in favor of more clicking. Really, does the game weather model vary enough within the fuel rnage to make an alernate less socked-in?

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 5:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Lots of silliness yesterday, which I attribute to it being a Monday and everyone being hung over. But it's Tuesday now, and everyone should be sober again. So are there any serious responses on this topic? Yes? No? Maybe? Anything? I would not be in favor of more clicking. Really, does the game weather model vary enough within the fuel range to make an alternate less socked-in? Actually, it seems to. And it wouldn't be a requirement..., just an option for strategic bombing. And honestly "Bull", in a clickfest like AE, what's another 50 or a hundred added to the 3,500,000 that you're already making? I once counted making 165 just putting ships into drydock in one harbor on one turn.

USSAmerica -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 6:03:57 PM)
Really?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 6:24:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Actually, it seems to. I'd be in Show Me mode on that one. And it wouldn't be a requirement..., just an option for strategic bombing. And there'd be an immediate hue and cry for adding it for airfield and port bombing too. Why just Strat? Was weather forecasting really good enough to decide launching from Tinian if there was an alternate a good call? I know they FLEW with alternate targets, but was the launch decision made if the primary was known to to be 80% (or whatever) socked in)? And honestly "Bull", in a clickfest like AE, what's another 50 or a hundred added to the 3,500,000 that you're already making? I once counted making 165 just putting ships into drydock in one harbor on one turn. If it was optional I wouldn't care on that basis. But, for me, if the devs were going to add one more feature instead of just bug repair, I'd vote for sub crew fatigue. It would fix a huge, gaping hole in realism for one leg of the strategic air-sea-land triad.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 6:27:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Really? Yes.., really! San Francisco in early 1944. One click to pick the ship, another to set it to repair mode, two more to get through pierside and repair ship to shipyard, another to confirm, and a final one to get back to the ship list and start the process over again. Adds up fast.

Rainer79 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 6:39:24 PM)
Mike, you could have saved yourself a lot of work by opening up the port and select the "manage ships under repair" option. Works a lot better.

USSAmerica -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 6:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Really? Yes.., really! San Francisco in early 1944. One click to pick the ship, another to set it to repair mode, two more to get through pierside and repair ship to shipyard, another to confirm, and a final one to get back to the ship list and start the process over again. Adds up fast. Sorry, what I meant was, "You really spent your time counting the number of clicks you made instead of just playing and enjoying the game?" That just blows me away. I need to find some rum punch. [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 6:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Actually, it seems to. I'd be in Show Me mode on that one. And it wouldn't be a requirement..., just an option for strategic bombing. And there'd be an immediate hue and cry for adding it for airfield and port bombing too. Why just Strat? Was weather forecasting really good enough to decide launching from Tinian if there was an alternate a good call? I know they FLEW with alternate targets, but was the launch decision made if the primary was known to to be 80% (or whatever) socked in)? Airfields and ports are tactical targets, if you are trying to knock one out it doesn't do you much good to hit another. Weather forcasting, no. But weather planes could and regularly did fly ahead of missions to report on local conditions. And even when they arrived over targets, strategic bombers generally had enough fuel to divert to a secondary target if visibility was too bad to hit the primary. It happened regularly during the war because the long flight times to and from the targets made it tough to predict the weather in advance. Adding a secondary target doesn't guarantee it won't be "socked in" as well.., but it does at least increase the chances of a successful mission. And given the generally limited amount of time available for strategic bombing, and the truly atrocious weather around Japan, it would help. I have no quarrel with submarine crew fatigue. Would make sense for the boys to need some R & R rather than just re-loading torpedoes and fuel and sailing straight out again. I think it would be a good addition to the game (and add minimal clicks).

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 6:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Sorry, what I meant was, "You really spent your time counting the number of clicks you made instead of just playing and enjoying the game?" That just blows me away. Yeah, I really did. Mostly because my right index finger was starting to hurt and I still had the USA maintanence to go. I was curious so I started counting at my busiest port. I'm sure other turns were even "clickier" there, but that was the only time I counted. Too depressing...

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 7:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Airfields and ports are tactical targets, if you are trying to knock one out it doesn't do you much good to hit another. I have to disagree. In dense areas like the DEI or Solomons, I'd rather hit another airfield and try to kill airplanes, than to have my planes sit on the ground.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 7:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Airfields and ports are tactical targets, if you are trying to knock one out it doesn't do you much good to hit another. I have to disagree. In dense areas like the DEI or Solomons, I'd rather hit another airfield and try to kill airplanes, than to have my planes sit on the ground. Well, I have to disagree with your disagreement..., but I'm getting the feeling I'm having my chain pulled because we generally see eye-to-eye on most things. Is the "Bull" a bit bored today? [:D] Gotta run..., leaving town until Friday.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/28/2010 8:21:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 Well, I have to disagree with your disagreement..., but I'm getting the feeling I'm having my chain pulled because we generally see eye-to-eye on most things. Is the "Bull" a bit bored today? [:D] Yeah, a bit. Also, you seem to have your grumpypants on in this thread, so I was pulling a little.[:)] Cure for boredom--go to gym!!! Buh bye!!

TheElf -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/29/2010 6:29:04 AM)
this thread is pleasing to me...[:D]

Knavey -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/29/2010 7:51:49 AM)
"pleasing to me, this thread is..."

YankeeAirRat -> RE: Alternate Targets? (9/29/2010 8:21:01 AM)
So what? We add the option for level bombers to strike Airfields and if not that then Ports, or Ground, or City targets? I thought it already did that when we assigned a primary mission and a secondary mission on the squadron assignment page. If we push for an additional button to click on the squadron page, then will we code it the same way for the DB's and TB's in a carrier force? What have a toggle that say instead of the target being commander's discretion, that I want them to strike warships first and then merchants? Or instead of striking the 144th on Tulagi to go after the South Seas HQ over at Lunga? Sounds like way too much complication to be added and a chance that more would be broken or fubar'd in an attempt add a feature. Or would it be easier to assign code behind the GM's screen that says X amount of targets that meet the primary mission, out of X targets then weather report shows Y% of cloud cover, If Y% equal to/greater then Z the strike package goes to next target, repeat step until target selection is less then Z strike package goes. This to me seems to say as well that things can become complex just as well. How would we decide what the weather was over the targets? Recon? Specific weather reporting? If we make it more accurate then it was in the 1940's (remember modern weather reporting is still a crap shoot statistically just a little better on guessimateing storms with the satellites) how soon till someone complains the fake weather guessers were too correct?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625