Tiny request regarding PT boats

Tiny request regarding PT boats (Full Version)

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

Message

Grumbling Grogn -> Tiny request regarding PT boats (1/24/2003 9:29:11 AM)
Should there be another patch. Would it be possible to have the PT's home base default to the port in which they are created? Seems kinda odd to go to the trouble and create them in Gili Gili and then look next turn and see them almost out of fuel steaming for Neumea and in need of rescue. :rolleyes:

pasternakski -> (1/24/2003 10:00:01 AM)
All you gotta do is click on the new PT boat TF you created and change the home port before you go on to the next turn...

Grumbling Grogn -> (1/24/2003 10:27:40 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]All you gotta do is click on the new PT boat TF you created and change the home port before you go on to the next turn... [/B][/QUOTE] Why? :p The PT's home base should default to the base in which they are created. And why can I not shoot the officer that is so stupid as to lead his PTs on a journey for which they have only enough fuel to make it about 1/10th of the distance. (btw that would be the officer aboard PT109 in my case :o ) And it is micro-management like this that really makes me wonder if I am willing to shell out the above market price for WitP when it comes out because mirco-managment like this will very quickly kill a game of the scope of WitP. :(

pasternakski -> (1/24/2003 11:12:18 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn [B]Why? :p The PT's home base should default to the base in which they are created. And why can I not shoot the officer that is so stupid as to lead his PTs on a journey for which they have only enough fuel to make it about 1/10th of the distance. (btw that would be the officer aboard PT109 in my case :o ) And it is micro-management like this that really makes me wonder if I am willing to shell out the above market price for WitP when it comes out because mirco-managment like this will very quickly kill a game of the scope of WitP. :( [/B][/QUOTE] Why? Because we LIKE you... The PTs are not actually created in the hex where you order the TF to drop 'em off (and this can be a non-base hex that cannot be a base for them). They were created at the origin base (and represented as supply points while on board the AK or AP), so that's where they want to return. The game expects you to designate their new home base after your transports drop 'em into the water. It's not micromanagement, it's "attention to detail." Maybe you don't want this much detail, but I do. Remember, my friend, you and I have argued most vociferously on another thread for more "control" of air group naval attack assignments. WITP is in no danger of dying. I suspect that the plastic dollar bills in your pocket are just as anxious to jump out and buy that game as mine are.

Grumbling Grogn -> (1/24/2003 11:41:04 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]It's not micromanagement, it's "attention to detail."[/quote] :) LOL! Thanks, I needed a good laugh (and I really did too!). :) [QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]Maybe you don't want this much detail, but I do. Remember, my friend, you and I have argued most vociferously on another thread for more "control" of air group naval attack assignments.[/quote] So, exactly where does anybody lose any control over anything by having the PT's default to having their base where they are created (as opposed to a base several thousand miles away :rolleyes: ). A default is a default and nothing more. And it is things like this that are the definition of micromanagement in wargames. [QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]I suspect that the plastic dollar bills in your pocket are just as anxious to jump out and buy that game as mine are. [/B][/QUOTE] Don't be so sure. If it came out today, I would not touch it with a ten foot pole until it had reached at least a v2.0 patch status. Toss in the hefty price tag, and frankly I am not an easy sale at all. Maybe if I was a hardcore naval buff, but I am not. Land combat has always been my preference. But, I like truly strategic games too, so I gave UV a try and had every intention of trying WitP. Not to sure about that anymore though. :(

denisonh -> (1/24/2003 1:30:37 PM)
I have created PT Boats while the TF carrying the supplies is at sea. (more often than not, considering the places I want my PT boats are places merchantmen fear to go......) So what is their home port? I would guess the coding is geared to account for PT Boats being created at sea from a TF, hence the home base set to Noumea. Of course, they should have caught this, and programmed in a series of checks to determine where it the TF is located that is creating the PT Boats and set the home port (I think more time spent on the AI, automated logisitcs and the handling of airstrikes would be my opinion on where they needed to spend more time, not worrying about PT boat home ports) It is not like the programmers for this fine program really thought that this was an issue, or had all the time in the world to fix this issue while other major issues needed to be addressed. Considering the issues that people bring up on this forum about major game play issues that need to be addressed in the coding of the program, to wring our hands about this small issue that is not really a game play issue but a player convinience issue.

Sonny -> (1/25/2003 2:12:09 AM)
Seems to me if you split a TF they both have the same home port. So PTs would be just like splitting a TF - you gotta change the home port if you want it different from the home port of the transport TF.:)

The Gnome -> (1/25/2003 2:23:59 AM)
I have to go with GG on this one, some of the micromanagement chores in UV (like this one) could be back breakers in WitP.

mjk428 -> (1/25/2003 3:45:28 AM)
A PT boat's objective/home port defaulting to their current location would be a nice convenience. If it could be accomplished without much difficulty I'm all for it - especially for WitP.

danielr_g -> (1/25/2003 5:05:40 AM)
Have to agree with GG. The player is supposed to be the operational commander, NOT the PT boat captain of every PT boat. Interface design should reflect this. This is also a matter of poor documentation.

bradfordkay -> (1/25/2003 11:47:59 AM)
Little details like this are why so far I am only playing the AI, playing one day turns and am saving every turn. I'll accept bad results from my mistakes(they make the game interesting and challenging), but I won't accept major losses because I forgot to do something like reset the home port when creating a PT suadron (or turn off "Follow TF#" when bringing multiple CV TFs into battle - the BIGGIE). In UV I should be able to remember to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, but I somethimes forget. There are so many undocumented quirks to the game interface. I love this game, so these quirks don't drive me from it. However, in WITP it will be that many more tiny details to remember with its much greater scope, they could prove overwhelming. Any help in removing the little oddities while greatly improve the WITP experience. I don't have a problem with micromanagement, but I want the system to be logical. It makes sense that I would want the location where I create a PT squadron to be its homebase, so the design should default to that location being the homebase.

pasternakski -> (1/25/2003 2:32:30 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay [B]Little details like this are why so far I am only playing the AI, playing one day turns and am saving every turn. I'll accept bad results from my mistakes(they make the game interesting and challenging), but I won't accept major losses because I forgot to do something like reset the home port when creating a PT suadron (or turn off "Follow TF#" when bringing multiple CV TFs into battle - the BIGGIE). In UV I should be able to remember to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, but I somethimes forget. There are so many undocumented quirks to the game interface. I love this game, so these quirks don't drive me from it. However, in WITP it will be that many more tiny details to remember with its much greater scope, they could prove overwhelming. Any help in removing the little oddities while greatly improve the WITP experience. I don't have a problem with micromanagement, but I want the system to be logical. It makes sense that I would want the location where I create a PT squadron to be its homebase, so the design should default to that location being the homebase. [/B][/QUOTE] One of the most sensible, intelligent posts I have ever read out here. Thank you, sir. When you combine these comments with the "CVTF one-hex reaction" problem and the "my LBA naval attack air groups did something really stupid" glitch, the future direction of improvement becomes obvious.

Leahi -> (1/25/2003 7:31:00 PM)
Amen, Bradfordkay and Pasternaski. While I think the PT home-base issue is kind of minor, it is symptomatic of the many inconsistencies in the strategtic/operational/tactical nature of UV. I'm also wondering why, as Allies playing Japanese AI, I'm getting messages telling me that a Japanese TF #xx "Must Unload" at a Japanese-held port. Or telling me the names and ranks of all the Japanese pilots getting their second or higher kills. Or the "exact" number of enemy soldiers my bombers killed in a ground attack -- not a rough-estimate kind of number, but numbers like 9, 53, 36, 28 "soldiers killed." Messages telling me which Japanese airbases (even Rabaul -- did we have coast watchers there?) cannot conduct air operations due to bad weather. Telling me when enemy destroyers successfully clear paths through minefields -- even up at Truk. Messages telling me what Japanese planes thought they were spotting, even down to their inaccurate reports. (Was our code-breaking that good and that quick? Could we know right away how accurately enemy scout planes described our ships?) These messages on the screen not only significantly slow down game-play but just don't seem logical -- unless one of you can justify them historically for me. Nevertheless, knowing that Lt. Mikumo got his fourth kill seems less important to me than being able to direct my operations as I see fit. I've been experiencing not only the "gone to Rabaul" effect, but also gone to Kavieng with Mitchells from Moresby when an enemy TF was identified right outside Buna. Oh well, we've been there, haven't we. But I do wonder why I was unable to target my bombers (even B-17's)for Shortland -- told it was out of range -- yet the computer can send them to Rabaul and Kavieng? I do have a couple of specific questions that you vets may be able to clear up. I started to search early forum posts for the answers, but there are just too many of them. First: I put five Wildcats and seven SBD's on a CVE with a 16-plane capacity to ship them from Brisbane to Noumea. The CVE arrived with no planes. I reloaded a save and found that the planes had disappeared mid-ocean. Do you know why? (I did check all other airfields and they weren't there.) Also, what is the effect of changing difficulty level from "historical" to "hard"? Is the AI smarter, or are combat results calculated more favorably for the AI opponent? And by the way, if I disband or withdraw squadrons that are down to just a few planes, what is the effect? I couldn't find mention of it in the manual. Is it possible to combine remnants of squadrons without returning them to the pool and going through that long process? Finally, frequently I find transport TF's have arrived at their destination base but are not unloading. I have to click on "unload" to change their status from "idle." Why is that? I've eliminated port-capacity and number of TF's unloading at the same time as factors. So this sure seems to require us to get way down-and-dirty in particulars, rather than sit behind our Theatre Commander desks and direct grand strategy, since we have to make sure TF's are unloading -- also that they're properly fueled before departing (have you experienced newly-formed TF's drawn from disbanded ones leaving port without refueling? Is the theatre commander supposed to have to tell them to do that?) -- as well as reminding them when to refuel at sea. As another contributor to the forum said, this game is so close to great that it's a shame to have to deal with inconsistencies such as these. Good gaming to all.... Thanks for any answers you vets may have.

mogami -> Yikes (1/25/2003 9:29:29 PM)
Hi, I can only answer the transports not unloading. If you mean the turn a transport TF arrives at a base it does not unload. A. It is still at sea (it will dock and begin unloading next movement phase. B. It is set to "Do not retire" This setting requires an extra phase to begin unloading. Is usefull for when you only want to refuel a TF not unload it. If the TF's you are referring to are spending more then 2 phases to begin unloading you have a game problem. I don't think the 1 hex reaction is a mistake. I've posted why many times. (Sometimes it does not make much sense but the majority of the time there is an excellent reason your TF's react 1 hex. They are already under attack, they are trying to respond. CV should not however react out of a port react away from friendly CV TF's (all go, or none go) The PT thing makes me laugh. "Oh my arm will fall off if I have to make an extra mouse click" Barges do the same thing for the same reason. (As explained by someone else, these ships have a home port already,because they can be created at non base hexes (where you need a default homeport) (The program requires all TF's have a homport. My guess is the designers/Programmers thought everyone would set this and destination the turn they created the PT/barges. How were they to know people might place a unit and not look at it?)

bradfordkay -> (1/26/2003 10:11:51 AM)
I entirely agree with the 1 hex reaction when CVs are trying to close range. It is a reasonable method of portraying an historical action by the units involved. However, I often run into the little catch involving task forces set to "follow" another task force. Since it is well known that the AI likes to combine all his carriers into a "super task force", you as the player have to combine all your task forces in order to have anything close to enough CAP. If you have more than (I believe that the number is...) 12 ships in a TF, the AAA rating starts to suffer. To counter this you create multiple TFs, each with 8-12 ships including only one carrier. You then keep all those TFs travelling together in the same hex so that their CAP is combined into one huge CAP. A side benefit is that a single enemy strike will then only take out one carrier - the strike is against one TF, not all the TFs in the hex. I like to set the TF with the best commander as the lead TF, with all the others set to follow that one. This makes movement a much easier task. BUT, since reaction movement is not performed by TFs set to follow other TFs, this sends your lead TF out all alone. Thus you have to remember to start issuing the same movement orders to all your CV TFs when enemy CVs are lurking, rather than using the simpler method of having them follow the lead of the designated group commander. This is one of the quirks of the interface that I am talking about. It is undocumented and since we are all subject to "senior moments", it would be nice if some of them could be cleaned up for WITP. When you hit "End Orders Phase" and then find out that you forgot to flip that one little switch, it bugs you. And the wait before you can reload will be that much longer in WITP (since the game will still have to process the whole day's turn before it can be halted). So, if it's not too difficult, why not set the PT TF homebase as the one where it was created? When you create any TF, you normally leave its location of origin as its homebase, unless you have specific other plans for it. Thus you get into a habit of not paying attention to a new TFs homebase UNLESS you're doing something unusual. Another opportunity for a senior moment. If it is too difficult to add this convinience I'll still buy and enjoy WITP, but too many of these little quirks in that game might drive me bonkers! If 2by3 can smooth out these little details then we can hope that WITP sales will be so good that they'll have to give us the Mediterranean Theatre game that they teased us with...

pasternakski -> (1/26/2003 10:43:43 AM)
"If 2by3 can smooth out these little details then we can hope that WITP sales will be so good that they'll have to give us the Mediterranean Theatre game that they teased us with..." As the Beatles used to sing, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." "I don't think the 1 hex reaction is a mistake. I've posted why many times. (Sometimes it does not make much sense but the majority of the time there is an excellent reason your TF's react 1 hex. They are already under attack, they are trying to respond. CV should not however react out of a port react away from friendly CV TF's (all go, or none go)" You always make sense, Mog. And you merely say here what the rest of us have been saying, too. The "one hex react" thing is fine when the consequences are not disaster. At Midway in real life, for example, the American carriers were not assigned to cover other, vulnerable ships, and so, were free to react in such a way as to maximize the chances of victory in the carrier battle, which was why the carriers were there in the first place. At Leyte Gulf, the enemy threat was mistakenly perceived to have been eliminated with the Japanese turning away after the sinking of Musashi. Halsey thought he was free to pursue the Japanese carriers (again a primary target) because he believed that the transports were in no danger. He was wrong, but his actions made sense in the context of his analysis. In UV, however, there is no logic to carrier group reactions based on what the commander has been ordered to do or on his analysis of the tactical situation. It just happens as a consequence of hidebound coding, and that, I think, is the root cause of everybody's complaint. It just doesn't make any sense for your subordinates to act the way they do. I agree with you on the PT boats home port issue to an extent. Yes, it is easy to click on the new PT boat TF and reset its home port. It is not a big problem in UV. With the massive amount of detail that WITP will present to players, however, and the myriad numbers of such "clicks and checks" that will be necessary, such detail work (I will not call it "micromanaging," because I'm an English major, dang it) may well render the game more tedious than engaging. The whole idea of "home port," and default returning to it, is a leftover from the old Pacific War design and, as far as I am concerned, ought to be left behind. If you leave your TFs floating around in the middle of the ocean without an assigned destination, you deserve to suffer the consequences. If, however, your TFs have a frequent tendency to wander off in directions you don't want them to due to an instinct more relevant to breeding salmon or nesting birds, the game system has invented a problem for you, not presented you with a game mechanic that helps you play.

mogami -> Homeports (1/26/2003 11:08:22 AM)
Hi, Homeport is a very usefull thing. I consider it "Port to move to after you finish mission or where you go if you are damaged." I move most of my TF's by using the "change homeport" and then clicking the "return" button. (I make the destination and homeport the same for transit missions where ships are moving from Truk south) (For aircombat or bombardment missions where I am using a sea hex to move to I make the closest size 3 port "homeport" The problem from the programs point of view in regard to PT boats and barges is they can be (and I do) introduced to the map in hexes that are not friendly bases. (I often create PT boats a few hexes from enemy bases since they do not have great range. These new boats help protect my transports that then move to the enemy hex to unload. Noumea/Truk is simply the default setting (every setting in computer land needs a default) Its a case where the exception has to be the norm (since if you created a TF at sea and forgot to set a home port the computer would explode) So in order to utilize the (I consider) brillant method of getting PT Boats and barges into the game we have to remember to set the homeport. But really during the life of most TF's the homeport changes quite often. (I admire those of you who can have TF's that just run back and forth between ports without your doing anything after setting them up.) To get a damaged ship from Lunga to Truk. I make a TF and set homeport to Vila or Shortlands (depending on damage, enemy sub/air activity) and click return to homeport. If the ship gets near Vila without problem I change homeport To Shortlands. Once there and refuel floation damaged removed I do the return to Truk button (I get healthy ships to Lunga in reverse order) (I never use a less then size 3 port as homeport) So don't think of Homeport being Homeport in the sense most sailors do (where the ship goes when it is not deployed-(where the families live) But think of it as actually being "go here if in trouble, running from enemy, or out of ammo/fuel(subs) or when you complete current mission (FT/Bombard/transport/Sub Minelaying" Don't you ever start at one base assign a target hex and change homeport before setting out? (To have TF move to new base after completing mission) One way around the need for a default setting would be to place barges/PT Boats into the TF that created them. (but then you'd have to go through and make new TF's (If you divided an existing PT TF it assumes the parent homeport. Only during the act of introducing them to map does the default setting arise (because you might create in a non port hex)

pasternakski -> (1/26/2003 12:17:25 PM)
Again, Mogami, I think we agree. I am merely advocating player responsibility for assigning a home port for a TF rather than there being one arbitrarily assigned by the game. When you create a PT boat TF in the middle of the ocean, for example, it should be your responsibility to assign its "home port." If you forget, it should just sit there, not try to wander off to a place 1,500 miles away just because that was where the transport TF that created it came from. I have no quarrel with the current system for other TF types, which assigns as home port the place where the TF was created. PT boat and barge TFs present a small problem in UV that is easily manageable by paying attention to detail, but the situation in WITP may become unmanageable due to the large numbers of such TFs that may come into existence. I just want to be a theater commander, not a barge and patrol boat harbor master.

mogami -> WITP (1/26/2003 12:24:43 PM)
Hi, Due to NDA all I can say is "Don't worry"

pasternakski -> Re: WITP (1/26/2003 1:39:45 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, Due to NDA all I can say is "Don't worry" [/B][/QUOTE] Good enough for me! Thanks.

Leahi -> (1/26/2003 2:56:44 PM)
Thanks, Mogami. That may well be it -- although it is allowing me to change the status from "idle" to "unloading," which it shouldn't do if it's still at sea. If anyone can answer any of the other questions I posted I'd appreciate it.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.234131