Sub priorities (Full Version)

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



Message

CMDCM Hudson -> Sub priorities (9/21/2002 10:48:42 PM)

New to the forum ...so I'll start with "outstanding game". I believe this is due to the exceptional input of the fans and game players and MATRIX's wilingness to include fan input input into the initial product and follow on patchs!! Now on with the thread. I've been extremly frustrated watching my precious subs wasted engaging targets like MSW and patrol craft. I'd love to see a function that would allow players to specify targets. Such as "attack major combatants only" or "attack transports only"



Oleg Mastruko -> (9/22/2002 2:09:38 AM)

With all due respect to your opinion, I would never call torpedoing MSW a "waste of torpedos". Take a look at the epic thread in AAR forum titled "You will love this game", and note that IIRC both players (currently in the last two days of the long campaign scenario!) lost all of their MSWs long time ago, and are having lots of problems with mines, being unable to sweep them. So MSWs are not at all trivial vessels in the long run.

Personally I enjoy seeing my US and Jap subs torpedoing everything and anything, except, maybe, Allied SCs (when I play as IJN). Those **** SCs are plentiful indeed, and killing even a dozen of them makes little or no difference. All the other ship classes are valid targets IMO (and realistically so). (I always play with Jap sub doctrine OFF.)

O.



Yamamoto -> (9/22/2002 2:37:46 AM)

If I could customize a target priority list, MSW would be #2 right after CVs for the very reasons mentioned above.

I like to sit my subs insied of minefields just so they can take shots at MSWs.

Yamamoto



pasternakski -> (9/22/2002 2:52:59 AM)

An additional thought from the peanut section over here -

that kind of tactical control of individual ship actions would seem to me to run counter to the task the game presents you as the theater commander (yas, it's beneath my dignity, dahling). Leave such orders to your subordinate rears and vices, say I, and take your chances on how well they carry out your general directives.

Wasn't that kind of the idea behind this game in the first place?



CMDCM Hudson -> (9/22/2002 4:25:43 AM)

Many thanks for the feedback. As far as considering the MSW's low on the priority list...well I hadn't got far enough into the scenario for y'alls point to surface. I must concede to your logic though. I would hate seeing a seasoned LCU head to bottom simple because I didn't consider the mine warfare issue. As far as the level of control...I could easily see were an area commander would want to give priorities to targets.



pasternakski -> (9/22/2002 4:58:06 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CMDCM Hudson
[B]Many thanks for the feedback. As far as considering the MSW's low on the priority list...well I hadn't got far enough into the scenario for y'alls point to surface. I must concede to your logic though. I would hate seeing a seasoned LCU head to bottom simple because I didn't consider the mine warfare issue. As far as the level of control...I could easily see were an area commander would want to give priorities to targets. [/B][/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree that it is the theater commander's job to assign priorities - all I'm saying is that there's no guarantee that your nasty subordinates will always (or even often) follow your dictates in the heat of the moment. Besides, I remember reading somewhere else in this forum on a sub-related thread that a certain amount of prioritizing of sub targets is built into the game (I forget which moderator made that comment - pardon me while I hide behind my middle-age short-term memory loss problem).

I'd just hate to see a Chet Nimitz down at dockside micromanaging the crap out of his sub commanders - who were a pretty independent lot historically and got results often because of their cantankerous unconventionality. If you straitjacket your sub commanders with narrow target dictates (as the Japanese did historically), you lose a lot of their character and effectiveness, IMHO (which, with a buck and a half will get you a small plain coffee at Starbucks).



denisonh -> Tactical Situations (9/22/2002 12:58:45 PM)

Another thing to consider is that every engagement is different, and that certain decisions on targeting are driven by tactical considerations. Although they are outside the scope of the game, the results are not.

Since most US subs engaged targets on the surface at night, subs could be detected very close to the escorts and may require the skipper to loose some torpedoes in a effort to save his a$$.

That would also explain why some subs recieve shell hits during night attacks.



jules -> (9/23/2002 4:05:45 AM)

A sub commander (without japnanese doctrine) should attack everything (situations depending on his aggresivness) in this stage of the war. But when he is commanded to ooperate in shallow waters, all he will find are patrol crafts, msw and other "little" vessels. Command them to the major sea lanes in gaps from asw patrols ...



Crocky -> (9/23/2002 6:20:29 AM)

The boys are dead right about minesweepers do not throw them away look after them like gold .....with 2 days to go against Kid and no MSWs for either of us .....every turn starts of with 1/2 a dozen vessels hitting mines its very annoying :)



pasternakski -> (9/25/2002 2:34:08 AM)

My general operational order to my submarine commanders is the same as the USMC motto: "semper fidelis," the Latin phrase that loosely translates into English as "if you can't eat it or f*** it, shoot it."



LargeSlowTarget -> If you can't drink it, smoke it or f**k it, you don't need it, but... (9/26/2002 9:15:39 PM)

... nevertheless we could use some kind of 'soft' specification of priority targets, i.e. not 'attack transports only' but rather 'if possible, prefer transports'. Of course, the different tactical situations of sub combat are outside the scope of UV, but what a about a higher probability that priority targets are engaged if a TF includes priority and non-priority targets? Just my $0.02.



Matt Erickson -> (9/30/2002 1:52:37 AM)

having ships hit mines is worse than annoying:o I was doing a tokyo express run of supplies and I thought I had widened a big enough path but knooowwww two jap destroyers hit mines
now one is DEAD:mad: and the other on life support whether he pulls through is iffy at best on a happy side note I just sunk two of his mine sweepers in gili gili and a third is heading down!



Matt Erickson -> (9/30/2002 1:54:42 AM)

oh I wanted to ask this question are mine effectivness the same or are american mines better(cause more damage) the japanese?.



Oleg Mastruko -> (9/30/2002 2:54:40 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matt Erickson
[B]oh I wanted to ask this question are mine effectivness the same or are american mines better(cause more damage) the japanese?. [/B][/QUOTE]

I love mines (even though sometimes I hit my own). They bring so much to the game.

Not all mines are the same. Data file someone compiled (it can be found on Spookys site) has following values for explosive charges (dug out from the game database):

US:
- Mk 12 - 1250 lbs (usually means certain death for a ship up to a DD size) - IIRC these mines may be laid only by Argonaut sub
- Mk 10 - 500 lbs (used by subs other than Argonaut)
- Mk 16 - 600 lbs (used by Gamble class minelayers)

Jap:
- Type 88 - 400 lbs (used by subs)
- Type 93 - 220 lbs (used by MLs)

There is one small (110 lbs) Jap airborne mine in the game, but aircraft are not given the capability to use them.

O.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625