Upset over Control of Naval Strikes

Upset over Control of Naval Strikes (Full Version)

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

Message

denisonh -> Upset over Control of Naval Strikes (1/7/2003 12:24:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Something that in the end the designers are going to need to face up to is that at least 50% of the people who bought UNCOMMON VALOR are upset to some extant over the control (or lack of it) they have over naval air strikes. In a market as small as "Historical Wargamers", that's a big section of your market for any additional games using this system to be telling to "kiss off". Whatever the designers feelings on the matter, if they want to SELL games, then customers have to want to buy and play them. Real success is in being able to use the same basic "engine" to drive several games on the general subject. That eliminates a large portion of the design budget which can hopelully show up as profits. UNCOMMON VALOR is without a doubt the most uncommonly ellegant system yet for dealing with the kind of "Air-Land-Sea" Campaigns that made up a significant portion of the Second World War. It cries out for additional titles, both in the Pacific and the Med. But if half of the purchassers are totally frustraited by the "naval strike" results (or lack thereof), then the designers need to address those concerns (whether they agree with them or not) or face the very real possibility that they have reduced the market for any future titles by HALF. Frustration people can get in daily life---they don't need to go out and buy it. [snip] [/QUOTE] Looking for the 50% that Mike Scholl recently referenced in a post to the "Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves." thread. I personally do not think more control is necessary, only that possibly a targeting priority could be used.

Piiska -> (1/7/2003 12:41:42 AM)
I don't need to set up individual targets, but I do want to be able to implement my strategic thinking and operational plans. While UV is 85% the war game of my dreams (Which is a lot to say), still at the moment the results of the campaigns and individual battles have too much element of luck in regards where and what my forces strike at, rather than result of my strategic and operational thinking. Most of the time they are one and the same, but too frenquently my plans are ruined because the TF or base commanders have no idea what is the strategic and operational situation at given time. Ie they attack in completely wrong AREA. Not good at all. For land bases I think Apollo 11's suggestion would do the trick marvelously. TF would be another kettle of fish.... I want to be more than just a distributor of war material...

Grumbling Grogn -> ? Confused ? (1/7/2003 1:21:26 AM)
I am really not trying to be obstinate (I know it is hard to tell :) ), but I find it hard to tell the difference between choice 1 and choice 3. As I have stated in the other thread the changes I have posted do not add any more control for the player. It just gives the player the same level of control already exercised over other missions to the very (!!) important "Naval Strike" mission type. So, where does that leave me with this poll (#1? #3?). :confused:

denisonh -> (1/7/2003 1:37:43 AM)
My memory fails me and I am too lazy to search:D What kind of changes? I would suggest that #1 refers to designating TFs, whereas #3 designates a targeting priority. I think that designating the enemy TF is not realistic, as the tactical picture changes overnight and the decisions about where to strike are made based on same day sighting reports. But priorities are guidance from the commander that affect the TF commanders targeting decisions. The major concern for me is there are times when I am loooking to strike transports, and other times surface TFs (hitting enemy carriers is always a priority:D). That is only thing I would like to impact. And if any change were to be made, I would expect targeting decisions to still not be perfect, for that would be unrealistic as well (The much used Neosho at Coral Sea example).

Grumbling Grogn -> (1/7/2003 1:47:25 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]My memory fails me and I am too lazy to search:D What kind of changes? I would suggest that #1 refers to designating TFs, whereas #3 designates a targeting priority. I think that designating the enemy TF is not realistic, as the tactical picture changes overnight and the decisions about where to strike are made based on same day sighting reports. But priorities are guidance from the commander that affect the TF commanders targeting decisions. The major concern for me is there are times when I am loooking to strike transports, and other times surface TFs (hitting enemy carriers is always a priority:D). That is only thing I would like to impact. And if any change were to be made, I would expect targeting decisions to still not be perfect, for that would be unrealistic as well (The much used Neosho at Coral Sea example). [/B][/QUOTE] Ah, then I fall in the middle of those two...or both. When I say I want to be able to target a TF for naval strikes I don't mean it is an all or nothing deal. All I want is for my local CO to take that as a priority over anything else. If he cant find that BB/CA TF I targeted I expect him to look for other similar TFs in his area and strike at them first, failing that... . Then on top of that I want the ability to say "Ships at Sea" or "Ships in Port" or "All Shipping". These would be much stronger than simple priorities IMO. SNAFUs can still occur of course but if I give orders to strike "Ships at Sea ONLY" and the pinhead sends two flights to Rabual and they get plastered his arse is mine! :mad:

OG_Gleep -> (1/7/2003 3:23:14 AM)
I would like to be able to attack ships while they are anchored/docked. The argument that "acting on reliable intel" etc etc, is believable...to me. I accept the fact that it was a design decision. I guarantee, that if they would have given the control to the player, there would be people bitching about historical accuracy. But, to me, not being able to attack a convoy unloading troops to a beach 2 hexes away from my base is kinda silly. Or not being able to attack a TF that you had badly damaged that pulled into port. I don't pretend to be a naval history buff, but everyone knows about Pearl Harbor, their intent, and what actually happened. Due to bad intel they attacked, expecting to nail some CV's. They weren't there, but they didn't turn around and go home. You get my point here. This is one of two gripes about the system. Gripe number two is that there should be more messages informing the player about what exactly went on, why orders weren't followed etc. That is a whole nother topic altogether.

MikeMark -> (1/7/2003 6:40:20 AM)
I agrre that more control is needed, there is nothing more frutrating than seeing a invasion force approaching, setting everything you've got to naval attack, then having your bombers head off to some other port instead of the invasion fleet. I think you should be able to head them in the right direction. This and not being able to recon ships in ports are the two biggest let-downs for this newbie. I hope Matrix respects our wants, there are a lot of seriouse war-gamers here who know a lot and have been looking for more and more reality in their reality based games; and frankly recon, and then reaction to it, are the biggest part of any military game, and those are the only areas that UV seems to lack a little.

Admiral DadMan -> (1/7/2003 7:16:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by OG_Gleep [B] I would like to be able to attack ships while they are anchored... [/B][/QUOTE] Ships disbanded/anchored are attacked during Port Attacks. [QUOTE]Originally posted by OG_Gleep [B] .../docked.[/B][/QUOTE]Ships in a TF can also be attacked whether docked or at sea...

Drex -> (1/7/2003 7:27:26 AM)
I agree with Denisohn that UV is an operational game which should allow local commanders to make tactical decisions but i would like to be his commanding officer that gives him the rules of engagement and/or priorities of targets, ie, SC TFs vs transport TFs.

OG_Gleep -> (1/7/2003 7:41:02 AM)
Yes, they CAN be attacked while docked. Normally its my B17's dodging CAP at Rabul. 1. Enemy docked ships - Loading/Unloading, Pulling in for repairs etc etc. 2. They have been spotted by Air Search 3. They are in range If these are met, why can't I attack them? I know they are there, they are going to be there for a while. I am talking about stopping landings 3 hexes away from PM, instead of my B17's and ONLY my B17's going and attacking a AP at Rabul. As for Port Attacks...I have never seen a ship get hit, I should be able to tell my Flights to attack the ships there, not the repair yard and docks.

LargeSlowTarget -> (1/7/2003 5:44:30 PM)
I don't see my preferred solution in the poll. IMO there is no need for player-directed targeting of individual TFs. That's the job of the local leaders. But those leaders should make more intelligent decisions, i.e. going for the bigger, more immediate threats nearby rather than low threats far away (e.g. transports off GG rather than CV off Rabaul). I don't think that assigning target priorites (by ship type or TF type) will solve this problem, since the AI probably would go for the priority target that happens to be in Rabaul harbor. If this AI behavior can't be remedied, then some player input is necessary. I think it would be sufficient to default the 'Naval Attack' to ships at sea only, and have a new secondary mission 'Attack ships in port' with the option to designate the target port. This would also serve OG_Gleep's wish to target ships in port instead of repair yards and docks. The classic 'Port Attack' would use bombs (with the occasional bomb that misses the yard and hits a ship instead), while the 'Attack ships in port' option would allow for the use of torpedoes, too (and the occasional bomb that misses the ship and hits port facilites).

mapr -> (1/7/2003 6:32:54 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget [B]I don't see my preferred solution in the poll. IMO there is no need for player-directed targeting of individual TFs. That's the job of the local leaders. But those leaders should make more intelligent decisions, i.e. going for the bigger, more immediate threats nearby rather than low threats far away (e.g. transports off GG rather than CV off Rabaul). I don't think that assigning target priorites (by ship type or TF type) will solve this problem, since the AI probably would go for the priority target that happens to be in Rabaul harbor. If this AI behavior can't be remedied, then some player input is necessary. I think it would be sufficient to default the 'Naval Attack' to ships at sea only, and have a new secondary mission 'Attack ships in port' with the option to designate the target port. This would also serve OG_Gleep's wish to target ships in port instead of repair yards and docks. The classic 'Port Attack' would use bombs (with the occasional bomb that misses the yard and hits a ship instead), while the 'Attack ships in port' option would allow for the use of torpedoes, too (and the occasional bomb that misses the ship and hits port facilites). [/B][/QUOTE] How would you like if option 3 would include possiblity to set target area priorities also? Not necessarily even base by base... Could be general settings... Player just would somehow 'paint/define' hot spot area where planes would most likely attack and where more naval search wuold be concentrated? or something like this... It would be nice to have more control about what kind of targets and where planes do attack. Piiska also said it qute well. Wouldn't mind having those suggested attack types... Etc. And more parameters and priority settings to work with... Priorities by location, ship types and target area would propably be enough...

LargeSlowTarget -> (1/7/2003 7:50:35 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mapr [B]How would you like if option 3 would include possiblity to set target area priorities also? Not necessarily even base by base... Could be general settings... Player just would somehow 'paint/define' hot spot area where planes would most likely attack and where more naval search wuold be concentrated? or something like this... [/B][/QUOTE] Well, that would be awesome, but I believe it will require quite a bit of programming and therefore I doubt that it is a realistic proposal. :(

Sonny -> (1/7/2003 9:06:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B........................ And if any change were to be made, I would expect targeting decisions to still not be perfect, for that would be unrealistic as well (The much used Neosho at Coral Sea example). [/B][/QUOTE] But the Neosho is an example of perfect targeting. It was thought to be a carrier and that is what was being targeted. Perhaps the search reoutines need to be a little more innacurate along with a priority setting so that this example could happen in the game.:)

denisonh -> (1/8/2003 12:27:07 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny [B]But the Neosho is an example of perfect targeting. It was thought to be a carrier and that is what was being targeted. Perhaps the search reoutines need to be a little more innacurate along with a priority setting so that this example could happen in the game.:) [/B][/QUOTE] That is exactly what I mean. The RESULTS would be less than perfect. And let us be thruthful, in that is what the major complaint is. Given perfect information, perfect target selection can occur. The abstraction of a 12 hour day impulse with a morning phase and afternoon phase includes erroneous spots and timing of reports. That is one of the reasons why there are numerous votes for not changing it. Because it models less than perfect information feeding local decisions leading to less than perfect choices for targeting. I would still like to see some small changes in giving guidance to correct some of the above listed issues (like the common complaint of unescorted bombers flying into a port to get wacked by a large CAP, which I think is a problem with the coding), but understand and agree with the basic way it is handled. And let us be realistic, if it involves signific coding, we won't see it anyway.

Sonny -> (1/8/2003 3:06:30 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]................................ I would still like to see some small changes in giving guidance to correct some of the above listed issues (like the common complaint of unescorted bombers flying into a port to get wacked by a large CAP, ..................... [/B][/QUOTE] So you gonna let me edit the game to give me back all those Bettys?:D

denisonh -> (1/8/2003 3:18:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny [B]So you gonna let me edit the game to give me back all those Bettys?:D [/B][/QUOTE] Sure, just surrender unconditionally and we start over:D

Cyrille -> This is important for me. (1/8/2003 3:53:37 AM)
Well, I don't post a lot but this is an important point for me. I understand the scale of the game but I seen many times a result that I can't understand : I don't want my CV sunk just because my planes prefers attack an alone cargo or an enemy base without real interest at this time. This same when my admiral know enemy CV is here because the battle start the turn before. Please allow me to set priority to the targets we wish to attack wit our naval strikes. (Btw, I have great fun with the game mates and I am happy with the patchs)

Veer -> (1/8/2003 5:55:10 PM)
All in all i'm quite happy with the way naval strikes are handled in the game. I do NOT want more micromanagement.... there is too much already. What i would like however is an option too toggle between port and naval attacks. Units on naval attack would only attack any TF (commanders discretion, i think they do this well enough) at sea, while units on port attack will only attack ships (docked or undocked) in any port hex - allow specifiable. So I vote for simply adding another mission button � port attack, and change the naval attack mission to attacking ships at sea only.

Sonny -> (1/8/2003 10:42:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Sure, just surrender unconditionally and we start over:D [/B][/QUOTE] I tried that when 2.0 came out and you didn't want to.:p

denisonh -> (1/9/2003 3:54:34 AM)
Isn't that about when you sank my carriers? I told you it was getting interesting. My thinking was you could still beat me on victory points. If you think it is futile, I will accept the surrender and we can restart. And maybe neither of us will make the same bonehead mistakes again!

Sonny -> (1/9/2003 8:29:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Isn't that about when you sank my carriers? I told you it was getting interesting. My thinking was you could still beat me on victory points. If you think it is futile, I will accept the surrender and we can restart. And maybe neither of us will make the same bonehead mistakes again! [/B][/QUOTE] Thats o.k. we can keep going for a while. You can get the enjoyment of pounding me some more. You have outplayed me and earned that right.:)

denisonh -> (1/9/2003 8:41:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny [B]Thats o.k. we can keep going for a while. You can get the enjoyment of pounding me some more. You have outplayed me and earned that right.:) [/B][/QUOTE] Yea, but it will be slow and deliberate. The minor detail of having 0 (zero, nil, nada, none, nichts) operational carriers in theater makes things a bit difficult. But I will go on the offensive;)

Drex -> (1/9/2003 9:39:58 AM)
Its good to see that a Gentleman's War has not died out.

Sonny -> (1/9/2003 9:10:18 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Yea, but it will be slow and deliberate. The minor detail of having 0 (zero, nil, nada, none, nichts) operational carriers in theater makes things a bit difficult. But I will go on the offensive;) [/B][/QUOTE] Then you shouldn't have sent your carriers to Hawaii.:p What you should really do is withdraw all of your medium bombers back to the states for some much needed R&R.:D

ftwarrior -> (1/10/2003 11:08:52 AM)
Ohhhhh Maaaaatrixxxxx...... What say ye on this thread?

brisd -> (1/17/2003 1:08:59 AM)
I think the operational control of your forces is correct for the scale of this OPERATIONAL not tactical game. The micromanagement is fine as it is.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.421875