My Task Force Has Gone Crazy! (Full Version)

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



Message

Veldor -> My Task Force Has Gone Crazy! (1/24/2003 12:32:53 PM)

Scenario 17, Americans, just had my Surface Combat TF steam 12 hexes to intercept/protect a friendly base under bombardment attack. By letter of the law in the game, I guess I should have expected this, as the TF was set to 'REACT TO ENEMY'. However, the TF it chose to engage was at least twice its strength if not more.. and..uhmm.. oh yeah there were 1 2 3 4.. FOUR enemy CV's a few hexes away as well.

So, in essence, the computer sent a complete TF to its absolute total annihilation based upon an order I really never gave. In a board game I would have had input on this "phase" of the game.

Now it seems, because of this, I should never set a TF to 'REACT TO ENEMY'. Yet then Surface Combat TF's are just about worthless.. They won't for instance try to engage a couple ML's trying to lay mines nearby, or a mostly unescorted bunch of AP's, or anyone of a number of other viable, GOOD, targets...

It seems TF's set to either or both 'REACT TO ENEMY' and 'RETIREMENT ALLOWED' almost never do what you want them too. Doesn't this represent an absolute MAJOR flaw in this game. That the most important element in the game, our TF's, we do not have enough control over?

I'm all for the added detail and depth a computer game can give us over a board game, but let the micro-management be where it needs to be. Any board game I'd have had better control over major assets than this..

It's pretty well agreed Air Units in UV have gone crazy.. I'm thinking the TF system isn't much better...

Feel free to tell me how wrong I am and why historically my TF would have sailed as it did to known spotted and guaranteed annihilation...

While were at it tell me why all my ships on their long journey from pearl all arrive with 0 system damage, yet Im lucky if I can sail a ship past the end of the Isle Noumea is on without getting a point of system damage. (Playability I suppose, but hard to see how that pleases the historical over-accuracy buffs that seem to flock to games like these)

Thanks Guys (and Gals)!



denisonh -> (1/24/2003 1:11:06 PM)

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But mine was in a PBEM game, and I had a TF of 6 DDs react 11 hexes to a force with a BB, 3 CAs, 2 CLs and 5 DDs! To say the least, they were all deep sixed.

But that was one case, and even with all the turns I have played, I have only seen that one instance that was bad.

I have found that units won't really eact to TFs that "pop up out of nowhere", so you generally see the TFs that your guys can react to. After my little fiasco, I now look at potential enemies they react to and adjust the react setting accordingly.

If you tell your subordinate commander to react, he will do so, particulaly if he is aggressive. A careful one might not do so. It has been critical to have my surface TFs react at times, and have prevented some disasters by doing so, so it is a valuable tool.

So the react setting is not a bad one, just be careful when you use it.



Fred98 -> (1/24/2003 1:20:55 PM)

Mostly, I agree with this.

A transport TF, if enemy warships are nearby, should always turn and run for cover. But if they are attacked by aircraft they should run the gauntlet.

A surface combat TF, should always attack another surface TF, so long as there is a good chance of a victory. Again, if the enemy TF is considered superior then it should steer clear of the enemy. If it is attacked from the air it too should run the gauntlet.

The solution is not micromanagement, the solution is a point I have advocated before. The solution is a series of “IF – THEN-ELSE” orders.

You would give the order before the TF sails or before the ground unit begins its march.

This more closely models what actually happens. Higher commanders tell their subordinates “Do this” but the subordinates know that according to their training if “such and such” happens then the standard response is to “follow chapter 6 of the manual”.

But “IF-THEN-ELSE” also means that the player is not dependant upon a friendly AI that is too stupid to know what to do. It means the unit reacted as the player wanted but the player does not need to administer micromanagement.

Thank you for reminding me of this. I first brought it up in the Combat Leader forum in early 2001 when that projected started.



Drex -> (1/24/2003 1:26:57 PM)

Now you are in reaction: to the stupid move by your subordinate commander. "Varus! Give me back my Legion!" that is the helplessness the game is supposed to impart to an operational command. WE all must learn to work with it.



marc420 -> (1/24/2003 1:44:17 PM)

Yeah, but as an Operational Commander, I wouldn't be limited to only saying "React to Enemy" or "Don't React to Enemy". In this case, the game seems to be simulating the case where as Operational Commmander I speak a completely different language than my units, thus I'm reduced to giving my orders in pidgin english. And then praying they know what I mean. :)

There could be a lot of improvement here. I really like the idea of pulling up an expanded box where I could give "If-then-else" orders.

Or maybe a simple system of more options

React to all enemy TF
React only to enemy of equal or lesser strength
React only to enemy of lesser strength
Do not react to enemy

Then the TF commander looks at the scouting reports he's getting and decides what to do.

Or the old Pac-War system let me set a "Max Range" to react to the enemy. So then I could at least set it so a TF in Noumea would react to something in its neighborhood, but wouldn't go charging up to Guadacanal where I knew there would be a IJN BB TF.

And on a related topic, is there a reason I have to be located in a base to have a Surface TF react? My instinct in playing the game is to go ahead an sortie my TF, put them in the area where I expect them to meet the enemy, then have them engage the enemy. But it seems in this system they can be cruising along, spot an enemy TF with their float planes, then just ignore it.

I know its another ocean, but it doesn't seem like you could do anything like a "Hunt for the Bismarck" situation with this setup.



Veldor -> (1/24/2003 2:18:39 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by marc420
[B]

Or the old Pac-War system let me set a "Max Range" to react to the enemy. So then I could at least set it so a TF in Noumea would react to something in its neighborhood, but wouldn't go charging up to Guadacanal where I knew there would be a IJN BB TF.
[/B][/QUOTE]

This is exactly my point.. My local Surface TF "patrolling" the Luganville-Noumea area against whatever minor threats could otherwise come along should not be steaming 12 hexes up to Irau to engage a large group of BB's and CA's.

I really have to take a stand on this one. I see ZERO reason why I shouldn't be able to give an order like that, historical accuracy included, subordinate incompetant commanders included.. I should be able to tell a TF to patrol a local vacinity and engage local or "reasonable" opposing enemy task forces.

The statement that I would see the enemy TF's coming and therefore be able to "toggle" off that setting on my surface force is NOT a solution. Thats simply working around what doesn't work in the game.

So, just because I spot an enemy task force way up at Guadalcanal, my local TF's suddenly have to halt all response to anything... There is no reality in that...



Drex -> (1/24/2003 9:27:48 PM)

Perhaps in the options setup for the game a "rules of engagement" could be checked off and even updated throughout the game.



Mr.Frag -> (1/24/2003 10:26:14 PM)

[QUOTE]I really have to take a stand on this one. I see ZERO reason why I shouldn't be able to give an order like that, historical accuracy included, subordinate incompetant commanders included.. I should be able to tell a TF to patrol a local vacinity and engage local or "reasonable" opposing enemy task forces.[/QUOTE]

Historically (and very accurately), knowing what exactly one faces and deciding to commit to battle was more luck then skill.

Assuming that the local commander has the full picture is questionable at best. Radar was not great, communications were not reliable, spotters were not accurate, commander's skills were not all the same, etc ...

Who's to say that the DD commander didn't think he could use his radar advantage, sneak in at night and launch a torpedo attack on some heavy cruisers or battleships and escape before getting his little task force creamed?

If you go down the reasonable path, all US forces would sit in port for the duration, as they were well aware that Japan's night fighting skill far surpassed their own.

You have skilled commanders at your disposal who are either aggressive or defensive. Put the correct man in change and your results should be as expected, but again, combat is NEVER a sure thing, with even the best making serious mistakes...



bilbow -> (1/25/2003 12:25:54 AM)

This game, unlike board games, forces the player to act on incomplete and occasionally outright wrong information. That is part if its brilliance. The goal is to issue your orders, pick your commanders and set your deployment in order to give you the best chance to succeed. The player can't do any more than that, and that is how it should be.

A board game would have movement and interception happening in sequence- you get to see what I moved into the target hex, then you decide whether or not to react. In UV your commander made the decision to react when my force was still many hexes away. The moves of both forces were simultaneous.

Veldor, I was as surprised as you were when the surface group group turned up in the middle of my bombardment groups. What could have been more effective would be holding off for a day or two until the bombardment TFs were low on ammo, then show up. Maybe my carrier groups would be too fatigued to strike back effectively.



Yamamoto -> (1/25/2003 12:31:54 AM)

I'd like to see surface combat task forces which have 'react' orders try to react to ANY threat, not just threats at bases. SUre, they might not spot an enemy group or the spotting report might not be relayed to them in time for them to react, but I'd like to see a chance.

Yamamoto



Knavey -> (1/25/2003 12:54:51 AM)

This might be one you want to send to matrix if you still have the turn and the turn before it.



Veldor -> (1/25/2003 2:52:57 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bilbow
[B]

Veldor, I was as surprised as you were when the surface group group turned up in the middle of my bombardment groups. What could have been more effective would be holding off for a day or two until the bombardment TFs were low on ammo, then show up. Maybe my carrier groups would be too fatigued to strike back effectively. [/B][/QUOTE]

I guess my point is I did spot your bombardment and carrier groups. I did know what was coming. I did NOT want my Surface TF to go up and engage.

That being said, the only thing you can tell me I did wrong was leaving my Surface Task Force set to "React To Enemy". That is the part that I think is so highly flawed. Like someone mentioned about the Pacific War game, there should be someway I can patrol and protect my local bases without automatically including far off ones that just happen to be maximum range from the current hex. But instead I have to in essense "stop" something totally unrelated, just to prevent something entirely else from happening.

I fully understand why what happened happened. According to the rules of the game exactly what should have happened did happen. I'm simply saying the rules don't allow enough flexibility in issuing orders as they should.. Especially given how important TF's are to a game like this, additional detail and mission parameters should at the very least be able to be set globally if not individually per TF.

And plenty of others have pointed out there are plenty of elements in UV that would be left up to individual sub-ordinates, yet you still have control over them. Exact Cap-levels, Supply shipment and movement and so on... If I can do that surely I can issue more detailed orders to my TF's.



bilbow -> (1/25/2003 3:16:02 AM)

There are ways within the present game to control responses like this. You can, for example, place an MSW in the TF. It has a much lower max speed/distance factor, therby narrowing down the distance the TF will react. Or to defend its specfic location, maybe what you had in mind, you can set it to Patrol/do not react and right click the hax involved. In this case it will patrol that hyex and defend it quite adequately.

It would be nice to be able to explicitly set max reaction distances, but there are ways to accomplish the same thing.

I understsand your frustration, but stuff like this gets learned the hard way. That's the way I learned it!



Erik Rutins -> Question... (1/25/2003 3:19:07 AM)

Veldor,

What was the aggressiveness of the TF commander?

Regards,

- Erik



mjk428 -> (1/25/2003 3:40:26 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bilbow
[B]There are ways within the present game to control responses like this. You can, for example, place an MSW in the TF. It has a much lower max speed/distance factor, therby narrowing down the distance the TF will react. Or to defend its specfic location, maybe what you had in mind, you can set it to Patrol/do not react and right click the hax involved. In this case it will patrol that hyex and defend it quite adequately.
[/B][/QUOTE]

This is a good tip/workaround. To clarify though, MSW's will not join Surface Combat TF's (At least not for me) and DM's are too fast for this purpose. A patrol boat would do the trick. So would an APD but I find them too valuable to risk for such a task.



Veldor -> (1/25/2003 3:43:41 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bilbow
[B]There are ways within the present game to control responses like this. You can, for example, place an MSW in the TF. It has a much lower max speed/distance factor, therby narrowing down the distance the TF will react. .
[/B][/QUOTE]

Nothing personal but I get a good laugh from stuff like this. That experienced players find things like that, aren't bothered by it or don't fully realize what it means. What your suggesting can mean only one of two things:

1. What Im looking for is a valid request and your workaround is the only way to accomplish it by manipulating the game against itself as the game itself is not flexible enough to give you adequate options and control to do it otherwise. Thus verifying a game flaw exists.

2. What Im looking for is not a valid request, in which case your work around is basically an "exploit" to manipulate the game against itself to achieve something that shouldn't be able to be achieved. In which case a game flaw also exists.

Im sure you've read other threads that discuss all the other things you can accomplish by throwing in slower ships.. Most of them should not have to be done that way. It is pretty funny if you think about it. Just because there is an ahistorical-workaround doesn't mean there isn't an issue.

Surely its not historically accurate that Surface Combat TF's dragged along a Minesweeper just so the commander didn't get any bright ideas to go on a hopeless crusade against a pile of BB's...

Yet none of the historical buffs will ever argue over it, because they learn a way around it in the game, and are somehow happy.. Yet they will debate an AA value of 340 vs 345 for a particular vessel..

I'm probably in the minority here, but this is where I think computer games fail us. Too often we are working around the system (learned through experience) to accomplish something the interface should just have provided us in the first place.

Why accept that? I say demand more and better!



Veldor -> Re: Question... (1/25/2003 4:04:08 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Veldor,

What was the aggressiveness of the TF commander?

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

N. Scott, RADM, Leadership 53, Inspiration 56. Competant and Aggressive but not "Very Aggressive".

It was an auto-picked commander, and a bit odd as plenty of better ones were available at the time in Noumea.. But it wasn't terribly important to me given what I wanted it to do with the TF.

Leadership aside, I'd like slightly more detail in the mission parameters that I can assign. I don't debate that in this case the game did exactly what it was suppose too. I simply debate having the option to assign a slightly more detailed mission that would have prevented that sort of thing from occurring in some situations.



Admiral Scott -> (1/25/2003 4:08:03 AM)

I often will set a surface TF to react to enemy, even when I know it will be going up against a stronger enemy TF.

Why? Because I want to try and prevent it from bombarding my base, and hopefully do enough damage to slow it down when it retires. Since the enemy ships will be reduced in speed, my land based aircraft will finish them off, and I will come out ahead in victory points.



bilbow -> (1/25/2003 4:10:09 AM)

Why accept that? I say demand more and better! [/B][/QUOTE]


Agreed. But in the mean time we work with what we've got, the alternative being we don't play at all. It is a game, after all.

Actually, including a minesweeper in a surface TF or at least going along with it is not ahistorical, given the frequency of encountering minefields.



Veldor -> (1/25/2003 5:42:32 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bilbow
[B]
Agreed. But in the mean time we work with what we've got, the alternative being we don't play at all. It is a game, after all.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes. And I'd hate for this to turn into another WITP debate, but some of these things that are reasonable work arounds in UV, I just don't think are going to work, at least for me, for WITP.

It's reasonable that in this case, I should have spent the extra time to count hexes, realize I was just within range, and modify my TF's setting accordingly, even if just temporarily.

It's also reasonable in this case, that I have a plethora of available minesweepers at the base the TF sailed from, in order to include for "slowing down" purposes, even if just for lack of an additional interface option.

But I don't think either is a given in the added scope and scale of WITP.

I still click one by one on every TF icon on the screen, just to make sure everybody is heading the right place, and so on. I can never tell which TF icons are my main TF or which are just renmants heading back to port. How come they cant be colored by strength or something just like ports,airfields, and land units are?

I can live with all of this for UV, think its the best game out thus far too, but my own personal opinion is if this is what WITP is going to be, then I am going to hold off and wait for others because I'm thinking the interface isn't sufficient as it is for a game that scale...

Some have yet to even finish a game of UV... So if WITP is simply going to make your turn take 5 times as long for lack of any better interface controls... We might need some sort of "inheritance" forum so younger players can pick up the games of those who have passed on before finishing their games..

That said it must be really scary for Matrix. WITP, in my mind, can only end up being one of two things... Highly successful and the crowning achievement of any computer wargaming developer thus far, or an over-ambitious needlessly long and complicated poorly interfaced dog of a game thats totally unmangeable and hence unplayable..

I would love for it to become the former, and it would seem to me that the more we demand from UV, the better WITP will be. WITP is after all the game I've always wanted. I never wanted UV, I just bought it because it's all we've got right now...



Erik Rutins -> Comments... (1/26/2003 10:52:33 PM)

Veldor,

I agree that it would be great to have a reaction range. We've looked at this, but no decision has been made yet.

In the meantime, a non-aggressive (i.e. careful or cautious) commander would likely never have made that reaction move. Only an aggressive or very agressive (very few of those) commander would do it, in my experience. Even then, it's a bit of a fluke. On the flipside, I've had TFs fail to react in time to intercept an enemy bombarding a base in the adjacent hex.

For the time being, the best way to restrict TF reaction range is to assign the commander yourself.

Regards,

- Erik



Krec -> (1/31/2003 6:29:08 AM)

i have stopped playing due to this and a few other issues that the game does. i think the game needs some fine tuning. i know its a operation game , but the fact of the matter the game does alot of things that would never happen on a regular basis. and it does them time and time again. i dont want to learn all these little game tricks to off set my opp taking advantage of the system. the game is close to being great, but with all these willy nilly affects taking place it cheapins the game. the game has enough rules and stuff without learning the tricks not posted because of the limits of the engine. thats the way i see it.
:(



Veldor -> (1/31/2003 6:49:41 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Krec
[B]i have stopped playing due to this and a few other issues that the game does. i think the game needs some fine tuning. i know its a operation game , but the fact of the matter the game does alot of things that would never happen on a regular basis. and it does them time and time again. i dont want to learn all these little game tricks to off set my opp taking advantage of the system. the game is close to being great, but with all these willy nilly affects taking place it cheapins the game. the game has enough rules and stuff without learning the tricks not posted because of the limits of the engine. thats the way i see it.
:( [/B][/QUOTE]

And I'll probably be the only one that applauds you for doing so, even though I personally have chosen to stick with it anyway. If computer wargaming is to advance, you shouldn't have to practice "gamey" tactics to control what should be able to be done through an appropriate interface and bug-free engine.

At the same time I realize the alternative to games like this is nothing at all, save going back to board games. So I will continue to buy them anyway... Even though the lesson will never be learned. Its a fundamental problem with most computer wargames. If Matrix or someone else solves it, then they will quickly monopolize the computer wargame industry....

I'm not specifically refering to UV here. I frankly find most wargames all VERY sub-par in this category. UV has by far the best interface in my opinion yet, but still a long way from what I'd like ultimately. Thus why I will continue to support Matrix.



Veldor -> Re: Comments... (1/31/2003 7:02:50 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Veldor,

I agree that it would be great to have a reaction range. We've looked at this, but no decision has been made yet.

In the meantime, a non-aggressive (i.e. careful or cautious) commander would likely never have made that reaction move. Only an aggressive or very agressive (very few of those) commander would do it, in my experience. Even then, it's a bit of a fluke. On the flipside, I've had TFs fail to react in time to intercept an enemy bombarding a base in the adjacent hex.

For the time being, the best way to restrict TF reaction range is to assign the commander yourself.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for your response, but perhaps it was my thought that I wanted an "aggressive" commander so that I would guarantee engagement with any TF that came into the local vacinity..

Games of UV are quite long. It is quite frustrating to have been playing one so long and suddenly loose and entire Surface Combat Fleet (5 Sunken CA's included) due to an issue such as this. I can stomach all sorts of losses otherwise, cuz hey, its just my bad strategy..But I really think more finetuning of missions and orders should be allowed on such critical game assests..

I don't want to yell at the computer for mistakes, I want to yell at myself.

If the "commander" chosen is going to be the way to do that, then I think it needs to be spelled out clearer exactly what type of commander will do what... So if I want to engage anything within normal range I pick this type, and so on...



Krec -> (1/31/2003 9:06:32 AM)

yes, i concer

dont get me wrong , i like the game. i just dont care for these situations that pop up . heck why plan at all when a little trick like getting your forces to jump and then get creamed when what you ordered was to stay put. the loading thing is a bit wierd too.
heck half the time i dont know if the troops are loaded or why they are heading back when i told them to high tail it . a bit to vague for me i am affraid. i am basically a tactical guy (spwaw)
but thought id give this game a try. against the ai was not bad , its really against a human that the engine really gets tested . poeple being what they are are going to try every nasty little trick. thats were you see just whats in the pudding. at this point the pudding needs a little more stirring thats all.:cool:



tri71669 -> (2/1/2003 2:29:12 PM)

I think the past might be a good example to follow.
I'm thinking of the naval war sim Harpoon and its offspring where you could define ROE and a specific kind of patrol zone... asw/asuw/aaw etc etc... If we could design a TF, assign the commander and then assign a patrol zone (like we pretty much already can in UV) then the last trick would be to prioritize, and that's the key word... prioritize what the mission and ROE should be.
THEN the commanders aggresiveness and leadership qualities shold be implemented INTO those ROE.... not in spite of them.
This makes sense histroically and in a military manner.
Just because a commander was gutsy and wanted to attack the whole Japanese fleet with his minelayer didn't mean he deliberately went out and disobeyed ROE or left his assigned mission location.
So,
why not be able to assign ROE, prioritze the threats, the mission and then let commanders execute those orders with thier game ranked qualities... I think that would work well.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875