Air Combat Task Force Reaction (Full Version)

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



Message

Patbgaming -> Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/24/2011 12:30:47 AM)

Let me just start by saying I love this game.[:)]

Now let me just say the game mechanic that causes a Carrier Task force facing 2 to 1 odds ( in June 42 ) to react away from the base that has 125 Fighters providing CAP for the battle we know is going to happen the next day to be STUPID.

The thought process of a Commander that would do such a thing because he is "agressive" would lead me to ask, why he did not ram the enemy ships and board them with his Marines.

Obviously I must just be STUPID for not having taken my Commanders "Death Wish" into account with my Operational Planning for the day's battle.

On the Brite side, the Island didn't sink so I still have 125 Fighters providing CAP. <flame off>




USS Henrico -> RE: Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/24/2011 2:38:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Patbgaming

Let me just start by saying I love this game.[:)]

Now let me just say the game mechanic that causes a Carrier Task force facing 2 to 1 odds ( in June 42 ) to react away from the base that has 125 Fighters providing CAP for the battle we know is going to happen the next day to be STUPID.

The thought process of a Commander that would do such a thing because he is "agressive" would lead me to ask, why he did not ram the enemy ships and board them with his Marines.

Obviously I must just be STUPID for not having taken my Commanders "Death Wish" into account with my Operational Planning for the day's battle.

On the Brite side, the Island didn't sink so I still have 125 Fighters providing CAP. <flame off>



Halsey, right?



Patbgaming -> RE: Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/24/2011 2:59:44 AM)

Actually I had left Cpt Ramsey from Saratoga as the Commander. I thought his stats were pretty good.



paulkenny -> RE: Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/24/2011 4:03:07 AM)

He is only telling part of the story, I was deep in his backfield on a sneaky raid, he encountered me (apparently by surprise) the day before with a surface task force engaging my Carrier TF (1 CL 2 DD against 4 CV,1 BB 1 CA and 10 DD). Apparently he moved his Carrier TF adjacent to an island (Pago Pago) to stay under his umbrella, I moved forward not knowing his Carriers were in the area, was hoping to nail an amphib TF and the small Surface TF as Ifgured I had em trapped, just lucked into the carrier engagement.



Crackaces -> RE: Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/24/2011 4:33:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Patbgaming

Let me just start by saying I love this game.[:)]

Now let me just say the game mechanic that causes a Carrier Task force facing 2 to 1 odds ( in June 42 ) to react away from the base that has 125 Fighters providing CAP for the battle we know is going to happen the next day to be STUPID.

The thought process of a Commander that would do such a thing because he is "agressive" would lead me to ask, why he did not ram the enemy ships and board them with his Marines.

Obviously I must just be STUPID for not having taken my Commanders "Death Wish" into account with my Operational Planning for the day's battle.

On the Brite side, the Island didn't sink so I still have 125 Fighters providing CAP. <flame off>





In reading AAR's and previous postings by developers there are a lot of advantages to the IJ player early. For example, there is a thread where the KB launched a strike where as the USN Carriers failed thier strike die roll because of weather ....Result USN CVTF sunk no KB ships damaged ....As a newbie and a student of AI it can be very very frustrating...

I am at FEB 18, 1942 in a game and I find that it requires constant attention to details from turn to turn. In this case, simply patrolling no-retirement might have been the best move with the LBA on LCAP.. then the next turn react 6 might be the best move. Each turn requires detailed analysis of risks rewards and consumes ones life :)

The good news is if you keep up with it in 1944 you get sooooo much stuff that you can make lots of mistakes and the IJ player cannot do a damn thing about it ..:) That is my driving motavation right now ;)



Patbgaming -> RE: Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/24/2011 7:55:09 PM)

Ok here is a little more detail.

Paul's sneaky raid had been spotted 3 days before our actual engagement. I had a 2CV TF covering multiple supply and troop reinforcements going into Pago Pago and Vavua. Once the raid was spotted southwest of Suva, I started scattering the convoys that couldn't get unloaded before our neighbors showed up. When the enemy force neared Vavua I had the escorts of one force ( still unloading ) run out to engage. I mainly wanted to know what he had in the raid and maybe slow him a little. With that surface engagement I knew exactly what I was facing ( 4CV's plus escorts ). I was thinking my 2 CV's could not handle that, but 2 CV's assisted by 125 fighters and 13DB's from Pago could possible give them a decent fight. The final manuevers were done with this in mind.

My CV TF was on Patrol with ( Remain on Station ) and 0 reaction radius.

So all my maneuvering and planning were voided not because of bad coordination or weather, but because my Air Combat TF Commander........................................ I don't know, was insane ?

I believe the game mechanic ( I call it Murphy Mechanic ) that allows an Air Combat TF to react to another Air Combat TF, when they are set to NOT react, is a flaw in this Great game. If it wasn't a flaw then SCTF should be allowed to react to other SCTF in the same way when set to not react, but they don't. So this one little mechanic makes your single most important asset within the game to be vunerable because you really don't know just what they are going to do.

Using Halsey as an example of why this is a good mechanic is also flawed. Halsey didn't endanger his carriers. Without this mechanic if someone had his carriers set to react ( more likely to happen based on agression ) when they should be covering a troop convoy you could get the same result of what Halsey did.

I am curious how many times this flaw is what has caused someone to quit playing a game. I may not agree but I could understand someone loosing interest in a game if half or more of his most important assets were destroyed when they dodged instead of ducked when Murphy struck.




Crackaces -> RE: Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/24/2011 9:21:17 PM)

I wonder how many pointing devices or things have gone through windows do to this little software behavior?

I do not think it is confined to just reaction .. I read about / see changes where the IJ gets an early advantage and software behaviors that penalize the Allies. Submarines is one area ... the IJ computer controlled submarines are especially deadly to shipping in 1942. Not being able to move fuel by rail in the land of Oz makes the software behaviors particually interesting. I just lost a Tanker being escorted by 8 Brit (read ASW:6) DD's Enemy sub was detected by Patrols ...no response TF commander Leadership 69 Agressiveness 70 .... Go figure .. not quite up to your CVTF debacle but frustrating none the less ...

So it is my conspiratorial hypothesis after reading AAR's and some threads where the developers have responded little algorithums that have these behaviors to give the IJ an early advantage. certainly after reading AAR's I am very very hesitant to try a "Midway" or "Coral Sea". Just too many ways for the strike to fail die rolls and for the KB to kick butt and first strike ... Rather I am sailing where the KB is not and getting experince ..

I just bear with it knowing that in 1944 I will have more than enough to kick butt ... I do not see an instant victory possible .. so my game is going to 1946 :)



crsutton -> RE: Air Combat Task Force Reaction (8/25/2011 1:56:55 AM)

Sorry for your frustrating loss. It is not a new feature and has been around since UV was introduced. To make matter worse, it can happen with a very un-aggressive commander as well. Your only consolation is that it can and will happen just as frequently to the Japanese player.

No since getting all "aggro" over it. Many have vented before you in this form over the years. It is what it is and I don't think there is any plan to change it. Anyhow, good luck recovering from it. The Allies have a lot of room for that.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125