Planning and automation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Paul Vebber -> Planning and automation (2/3/2003 4:37:28 AM)

Another area that has been dicussed behind the scenes is the amount of "planning and automation" support the game requires. So far the consensus seems to be that the basic UV game is sufficient and not enough players would use planning and automation enhancements to make the expenditure of programming resources worthwhile.

Most players will play on daily turns and have no problem with giving orders individually to squadrons and TFs, just like in UV.

It appears a minority position that the game would require tools to do things like group squadrons and TF's into groupings based on the "operation" they are involved in and determine the supplies needed for an "operation" as a whoile rather than just worrying baout hte individual bases providing support, regardless of how diverse its involvement.

It is also the general feeling that the game is predominantly played in 1 day turns and there is no need for the ability to set "cycle periods" for the repitition of missions, the alternation between missions, or the period to "stand down" over a multi-day period.

So here is you chance speak up on this subject too.



CapAndGown -> (2/3/2003 5:17:23 AM)

I think one thing that would help me move through my air units faster, and require minimal coding, would be to list the mission the air unit is flying, along with fatigue on the "list all" screen. Then I could rapidly find those units that I had set to airfield attack the previous turn and have them stand down.

I would also like to see a CAP only mission, and perhaps some level of effort setting or max fatigue setting, so that planes would not fly themselves into the ground. (I.E. I just lost 4 planes due to operational losses when they were on a sweep mission. If, instead of running two sweeps that day, they had only run 1 sweep, I would have lost only one plane.)



mjk428 -> (2/3/2003 8:54:33 AM)

Just to add to what Cap&Gown said; along with fatigue I'd like to see morale and experience on a "list all" screen for air groups as well.

I chose the second option in the poll based on the understanding that there would be an improved routine convoy system for supply. If not, then I'd have chosen the third option as I believe supplying all bases with the UV system would be a nightmare because of the much larger scope (and the apparent limit of only one "CS: Convoy" per destination working reliably).

You have chosen some excellent playtesters and I'm confident they've already brought up virtually all of my concerns.

Thanks Again



eMonticello -> (2/3/2003 10:10:54 AM)

I'd like to group air squadrons and be able to see that grouping in a list ... even if it's just cosmetic. This helps me manage the rotation better.



bhdhtx -> TArgets (2/3/2003 11:50:28 AM)

I would love to be able to target a hex or task force besides letting the computer decide. Let me ready the particular aircraft I want going to each task force. I hate it when the computer decides and it spoils the game for me. Plus let us target a hex hoping that there is a task force there. As we all know the US did in Midway. We cannot accurately reproduce Midway with the current UV engine. The US guessed where the Jap carriers might be and were lucky to find them loading on deck, so it would be very nice to control whre the aircraft go.

Thanks



Raverdave -> (2/3/2003 6:47:33 PM)

Cap_and_gown hit the nail on the head. Ditto.



caine -> (2/3/2003 7:30:11 PM)

I think that day turns are ok, but in some special situations, I would like to take more control.Specially in carrier operations.It is very frustrating to see how your carrier planes attack in groups of 2 or 3 planes another carrier or carriers! And worst of all if you do not know exactly why.I imagine that other targets are being attacked, but... If nothing is done, at least you should give more information to understand the reasons of what happened.For example, a timing log of sightings and launching of planes.



CapAndGown -> (2/3/2003 9:57:55 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by caine
[B]I think that day turns are ok, but in some special situations, I would like to take more control.Specially in carrier operations.It is very frustrating to see how your carrier planes attack in groups of 2 or 3 planes another carrier or carriers! And worst of all if you do not know exactly why.I imagine that other targets are being attacked, but... If nothing is done, at least you should give more information to understand the reasons of what happened.For example, a timing log of sightings and launching of planes. [/B][/QUOTE]

Here the question presented is whether the current system is sufficient to handle multi-day turns, yet two posters have already asked for taskforce targeting, a feature that could only be implemented if the game turns were 15-30 minutes long. And this for a game dealing with a four year war!

Don't you guys get it: You can't target a taskforce tonight that you will only be able to attack tommorrow. Just how was Spruance supposed to target Nagumo's force at Midway the night before that action when nobody had actually spotted Nagumo yet? A task force can move up to 300 miles during the night. Don't you think their just might be a small problem of even FINDING that task force the next day?!!!

If you are all worried about targeting individual task forces, then go play Carriers at War which has a much shorter turn cycle. But unless you believe in ESP, there is no way anybody in the Pacific, whether at Nimitz's level or Spruance's, or Sherman's was able to pick their targets a day ahead of time. Please stop making the idiotic comparisons between port and airfield attacks, objects that DO NOT MOVE, with task forces!



Zeta16 -> (2/3/2003 10:14:46 PM)

Cap said it great remember this is a four year game. Quit overcommanding. It would be great to target task forces, but in a game this scope that is not possibe.

Maybe we need to have function that would let your task force focus on the task force that you targeted, ie looking for that one first, while still scearching for others. If you have info from the day before commanders usually had some idea where to search, thus giving you a chance to hit that target.



bhdhtx -> Targeting (2/3/2003 11:04:56 PM)

OK, I agree with you all BUT make the **** AI think like a freakin admiral and not an ensign on his first day! Who in the heck lets injured carriers get away? The AI would rather go after a CA and CL and even DD's letting a SPOTTED, injured CV go on his way home. How idiotic is that? Why send a squad of 4 SBD’s strike against a CV force with full CAP? Come on! You guys say let the computer handle it, well OK I would love that but once again make it smarter, not so **** stupid that I have to worry about trying to get LUCKY in sending my US carriers against an out ranged Jap CV that I almost send them to their death every time I take them in for an airstrike. I have been playing war games for 25 yrs now and just because it’s a nuisance to some how to program the CV targeting capability, it can make this game a flop because we have to worry where our Admirals will send an airstrike, the Soryu or a DD!!!!! Appreciate the feedback and how someone can be so **** rude!


B



Nikademus -> (2/4/2003 2:37:18 AM)

Cap has covered the bases here quite well, particularily in re-mentioning the CAP only addition request.



iceboy -> (2/4/2003 3:21:58 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zeta16
[B]Cap said it great remember this is a four year game. Quit overcommanding. It would be great to target task forces, but in a game this scope that is not possibe.

Maybe we need to have function that would let your task force focus on the task force that you targeted, ie looking for that one first, while still scearching for others. If you have info from the day before commanders usually had some idea where to search, thus giving you a chance to hit that target. [/B][/QUOTE]

Anyone here ever play PTO II by Koei? This was a complete entire war 4 year game that did let you target task forces of your choosing among many other things. Quite an awesome game for its time and that was in the early nineties. 10 years later I would think this would be even more possible. It really sucks that you have to live and die by bad AI decisions, which by the way, it is almost impossible to create an AI that makes good decisions. So all this talk about improving AI decisions isnt really going to improve this aspect much. You either change it completely or it will be what it is. And from what they are saying it sounds like that it will remain this way. So why any further discussion? I think this quote from Joel Billings sums it up entirely. The issue is closed.

"Did I ever say that the naval attack questions was one that was done that way primarily due to point of view? If I did then I'm sorry for simplifying the situation. The fact that we don't let you pick a TF as a target is given the system scale and our desire not to interrupt the execution phase for input. The fact that we haven't added a layer of priorities for the player to give to his forces for their naval attacks is because it wasn't part of Gary's original design, and adding such a system now would entail a major design, programming and test effort to come up with a system that:
1) Did something that players would be happy with
2) Worked correctly given the code base we are dealing with

I can't argue that such a system isn't desirable in the ideal world, but given the difficulties in achieving 1 and 2 above and the effort it would take (vs. the reward and the lost time on other projects), I've consistently said it is not something we can do in the near future. It would be great if you had an understanding of the code so you could propose a detailed plan that would fit within the system and likely be workable. If you did that we'd find a way to implement it if the risk of unintended consequences was low, but unfortunately the code is complex enough that it isn't possible to get you (or anyone else) involved that way (including me). Believe me, I wish this wasn't the case." -Joel Billings



Nikademus -> Re: Targeting (2/4/2003 3:55:32 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bhdhtx
[B]OK, I agree with you all BUT make the **** AI think like a freakin admiral and not an ensign on his first day! Who in the heck lets injured carriers get away? The AI would rather go after a CA and CL and even DD's letting a SPOTTED, injured CV go on his way home. How idiotic is that? Why send a squad of 4 SBD’s strike against a CV force with full CAP? Come on! You guys say let the computer handle it, well OK I would love that but once again make it smarter, not so **** stupid that I have to worry about trying to get LUCKY in sending my US carriers against an out ranged Jap CV that I almost send them to their death every time I take them in for an airstrike. I have been playing war games for 25 yrs now and just because it’s a nuisance to some how to program the CV targeting capability, it can make this game a flop because we have to worry where our Admirals will send an airstrike, the Soryu or a DD!!!!! Appreciate the feedback and how someone can be so **** rude!


B [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi B

Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds alot like you play (as most of us do) with your carrier TF's set to "no reaction"/no retire. If thats the case, i feel it should be pointed out that while such a setting does give players minute control of their TF's movement and positioning, it can also set yourself up for a long range strike if an enemy TF is spotted. For the Japanese player this is not a major issue as theirs is the longer ranged airpower. (Not always though....the AI tried a long range IJN strike on me and it got disjointed and i slaughtered an unescorted Val strike in my current SC19 game)

However for the USN player it can mean the difference between an escorted and an unescorted strike, with a greater chance of dispersion of the flight elements in the process. I've seen the AI take alot of flak about "unescorted" or "broken" raids against heavily defended targets. However in this situation at least we must remember that the AI is only trying to fight the battle under the contraints that WE the players have placed on it prior to that battle.

I rarely see broken or unescorted strikes when carrier TF's are set to "react" because they close the range sufficiently to minimize such disruptions. However as all players know....you take your chances with react on......as it almost assures a mutual set of strikes that may or may not go your way.

Hardly an AI problem in this case.

Also, one thing that puzzles me in all this type of complaining (strikes hitting well defended CAP targets), is how is a real life commander to know just how well defended a target is before getting there? In all the carrier battles i've researched of late, i've never seen a reference made to CAP strength of enemy target. They find the target, a decision is made whether to launch a strike or not and if so, they go. Escort levels are more influenced by the commander's desire to keep fighter assets back to protect their own home base than in anticipation of enemy resistance.

Lastly, frustrating as it might be, the simple fact of the matter is that during the real live war, misidenitifcations, flight disruption and dispersion and a slew of other mishaps did happen. We have to deal with it, because it really happened. (This should not be confused with the seperate issue of LBA based craft attacking powerful ports at extreme range protected by CAP which i feel can be resolved by a "range" button for LBA bases.....carrier aircraft dont need it because their range is far shorter)



HMSWarspite -> (2/4/2003 4:57:16 AM)

I see the UV control of targets thread is back. Guys, I think the question was about the interface, not whether you want to be able to attack specific targets. If you don't believe me, look at the UV thread.

To my mind, better operational control is needed. I don't want to tell my sqds to attack every 2 days, 3,4 or whatever. I want something for each base like:
Stance: defence/attack
role: recce/interdiction/suport attack/naval interdiction/supply base/main base (which would set the 'type' of missions predominating - supply bases concentrate on defending themselves, and supplying others. interdiction try to close down enemy (airfields, etc), support attack goes for airfield and troops etc)
level of effort :min, med, max etc. for how hard to fly

I haven't really thought this though in terms of the specific menus but this is the level of base control/management I would like.

Being able to allocate bases/groups of bases, sqds etc to 'operations' with the same target would be cool.



Nikademus -> (2/4/2003 5:28:32 AM)

Point well made :)

Personally i like the interface as it is, except for a few additions as suggested above by Cap and others.

While the scale of WitP seems daunting, It will be unlikely for much of the game that more than one or two major campaigns will be going on that require such a daily level of attention warented by a quickly changing dynamics that occur on a daily basis. (Supply issues and asset availability should ensure this)

For example i dont see the china theatre requiring a daily shifting and/or adjusting of CAP/Escort levels to account for enemy activity on a daily basis (as it was mostly a quiet theater), nor would i expect the central Pacific bases would require much in the way of daily tweaking (until the USN is ready to start the steamroller of course)

Much of the game's daily attention and level of effort will probably focus a theater or two where things get "hot", producing a game situation much like UV, only possible in differerent location settings.

As the war goes on and resource allocation expands....then it will get more challenging but i'm looking forward to that. I'll take UV's level of detail anyday over the more generalized version in PacWar. A move towards more generalized order settings would be a wrong one in my opinion, despite the attraction of less mouse clicks



pad152 -> (2/4/2003 6:08:25 AM)

Command Tools:

Troop rotation and replacements
One thing that is sadly needed in UV is a better way to handle troop rotation and a way to find the parent unit of all of those sub-units (land units) you get. I can't imagine trying to do this through out the whole pacific theater.

Replacement TF
Replacement TF type where the ships will load the new sub-units and automatically deliver them to the parent unit. No more hunting trying to find all of those land units.

Rotation TF
Select a land unit for rotation and a replacement land unit, and a TF will deliver the new land unit and pick-up the old one.

Aircraft Rotation.
If two or more aircraft groups of the same type are on the same base, have the ability to select rotation and one unit will conduct the requested mission and the other one will rest.



showboat1 -> (2/4/2003 6:08:31 AM)

What would really help me is to change the way air missions are assigned. The current method is OK but makes massive changes cumbersome. Couldn't there be a simple list screen that could, for example, list ALL of you active fighter squadrons and there assigned mission and altitude. You could then mass edit or click individually without having to constantly change bases? Or have I missed something? Or am I too picky?



CapAndGown -> (2/4/2003 8:22:14 AM)

One thing that would definitely [I]help[/I] do multi-day turns, (but which I doubt would be a cure-all) would be the introduction of way points. Surprised no-one has mentioned this as it is critical for multi-day control of task forces.



Chijohnaok2 -> (2/4/2003 8:31:41 AM)

[QUOTE]Command Tools:[/QUOTE]

Troop rotation and replacements
One thing that is sadly needed in UV is a better way to handle troop rotation and a way to find the parent unit of all of those sub-units (land units) you get. I can't imagine trying to do this through out the whole pacific theater.

Replacement TF
Replacement TF type where the ships will load the new sub-units and automatically deliver them to the parent unit. No more hunting trying to find all of those land units.

Rotation TF
Select a land unit for rotation and a replacement land unit, and a TF will deliver the new land unit and pick-up the old one.

Aircraft Rotation.
If two or more aircraft groups of the same type are on the same base, have the ability to select rotation and one unit will conduct the requested mission and the other one will rest.

Pad152

I like your suggestions. They seem a logical way to manage what could turn into an asset management nightmare.

John



Veldor -> (2/4/2003 12:28:11 PM)

1) When you look at a group of aircraft at a base, the summary list of aircraft does not indicate the Mission assigned, whereas a Task Force Listing does. Adding the Mission (even if just a one or two letter code to fit) would greatly help a quick once-over look. Granted you wouldnt know exact cap & search levels without going further but it would still be helpful in a lot of situations just as the TF summary has the mission type but not the destination hex etc... still usefull.

2) More info on the main game screen... Like color coding Task Forces Size so individual ships returning back to port dont clutter up the map (they would be light, large TF's would be dark, medium would be regular).. Mines should be color coded for density in this manner as well.

3) Base Level Air Mission assignments.. Possibly with varying percentages... I havent thought of any specific examples save one... which is whatever you want to call "reset to game default"... so that after I mess with all the aircraft's cap level, asw, etc etc for some specific purpose..one click puts them back to standard cap levels and missions etc... Maybe make those settings adjustable in preferences...



Philwd -> (2/4/2003 3:07:11 PM)

Since I personally could not play WiTP with daily turns multiple day turns are a must.

I agree we need waypoints. If just to make it harder for subs to hang out in known shipping lanes.

Damaged ships head to nearest lvl 3 port not home base.

I like Pad152's suggestions on rotations. One other possible enhancement would be to steal a page from Harpoon and let the player set the size of a rotating CAP. This may help manage carrier ops over several days.

let subs attack mid move not just end points.

finally ground combat needs revising to better simulate the long drawn out battles that happened historically rather than the 7 days(max) and out battles in UV. Not making units attack repeatedly over a several day period when they've suffered a major defeat. Not losing 15000 troops in a single day when attacked by 30000.

Phil



Grotius -> (2/5/2003 7:38:43 AM)

Cap & Gown stated most of my wish-list.

I'd add one thing: more keyboard shortcuts for assigning air squadron (and TF) missions. E.g., number keys 0-9 for 0-90% CAP/Nav Search; arrow keys to scroll through lists; maybe next-TF hotkeys; even keyboard keys to move the map (a la Pacific War's JIKM system); anything to cut down on all the painful clicking. Repetitive stress is an issue for me, and I suspect others; keyboard shortcuts help. Without shortcuts, I suspect WiTP will involve even more clicking than UV.



loader6 -> (2/6/2003 2:42:47 AM)

My request involves the little blue quick jump boxes at the bottom of the screen for each base that shows air groups and TFs and Land units. I'd like to be able to organize the air group buttons that are at the bottom of the screen and have them stay that way. For example, at Port Moresby, there can be a P-39, then to it's right is the box of a B-24, then a PBY, then another P-39, etc. I'd like it so all my fighters are together and all my bomber are together and all P-39s are next to each other, and all B-24s are next to each other, etc. Because the next air group button works in the order shown at the bottom of the screen in the blue boxes. Sometimes I want to just look at all my F-4F's and not have to rotate through all my squadrons to be sure I got them all.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but it does in my head if that's any help. :) :confused:



loader6 -> (2/6/2003 2:47:21 AM)

Oh yes, WAYPOINTS, they are a must in my book. I'm tired of having the choice of either a) checking my TFs every turn and rerouting them just right so they don't go in a hex with known subs or b) being stuck with morons for TF commanders who ignore my orders to divert around sub infested hexes (this is especially true for transport TFs who go through the same area over and over like idiots, even though they don't have a need to rush to their objective and I'd rather they take a long route to stay away from subs). whew, I feel better now.



mogami -> WITP (2/6/2003 6:22:07 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by loader6
[B]Oh yes, WAYPOINTS, they are a must in my book. I'm tired of having the choice of either a) checking my TFs every turn and rerouting them just right so they don't go in a hex with known subs or b) being stuck with morons for TF commanders who ignore my orders to divert around sub infested hexes (this is especially true for transport TFs who go through the same area over and over like idiots, even though they don't have a need to rush to their objective and I'd rather they take a long route to stay away from subs). whew, I feel better now. [/B][/QUOTE]


Hi, Well in WITP (and maybe backfit into UV) Waypoints for the purpose of avoiding subs will not be an issue. Submarines will be able to intercept TF's as they pass through the hex. So there will not be any need for subs to gather on hexes TF's end movement on. Sub will therefore tend to sit in choke points. (where you must pass through with out being able to avoid the hex)

Submarines in open ocean will deploy in a line to try to catch TF's
Instead of having to place the subs right on enemy ports you will deploy them in a ring around the base.



Bax -> (2/6/2003 11:04:40 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by loader6
[B]My request involves the little blue quick jump boxes at the bottom of the screen for each base that shows air groups and TFs and Land units. I'd like to be able to organize the air group buttons that are at the bottom of the screen and have them stay that way. For example, at Port Moresby, there can be a P-39, then to it's right is the box of a B-24, then a PBY, then another P-39, etc. I'd like it so all my fighters are together and all my bomber are together and all P-39s are next to each other, and all B-24s are next to each other, etc. Because the next air group button works in the order shown at the bottom of the screen in the blue boxes. Sometimes I want to just look at all my F-4F's and not have to rotate through all my squadrons to be sure I got them all.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but it does in my head if that's any help. :) :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes! I'm glad I'm not the only one who wants this! :)



bradfordkay -> (2/7/2003 6:57:43 AM)

Mog, I think that waypoints will still be handy because we may want to route the convoys the long way around to avoid that choke point. I know that I use human control on a lot of my convoys in and out of Noumea because of the frequency of Japanese subs in "Torpedo Juntion" (the triangle of Noumea, Luganville, and Lunga). I often send them NE and then north of Luganville just to avoid those subs. Having waypoints wouls allow me to set up the route from the beginning and then let it run as a CS type convoy (occaisionally adjusting the waypoints as the enemy adjust his sub patrol areas).



mogami -> Way points (2/8/2003 12:49:33 AM)

Hi, Because subs can intercept as TF's move through hexes. It will become hard to avoid them if they are employed correctly.
Rather then place subs on bases (where ASW can find and destroy them) You will be able to cordon bases (place a ring of subs around it, out far enough where detection is harder (water deeper and not restricted by coasts)
So areas (like Japanese Tk moving to Balikapapan will be hard to avoid. There is no "long" way around. Convoys will have to move through straits. But by the same token you should then build bases expressly for conducting ASW ops to watch these choke points.
I'm not saying waypoints will not be a usefull tool if added to program, only they will not solve the transport versus sub problem.
They will be very handy for things like having TF's from differant bases meet in open sea before proceeding with mission. (something that currently you must assign hex and then once both TF's are there issue new orders.
They would be more usefull for avoiding LBA then subs.



bradfordkay -> waypoints (2/8/2003 3:45:05 AM)

I already use my subs in that manner. I'm sure that it isn't as effective as sending them into the actual port (I played with that once), but I didn't like the the way it made the game feel. I keep my ships out in the deep water approaches to enemy bases, as well as in or near chokepoints. My rationale is that my submariners would be safer in deep water (realizing that the game may not model this, it is my house rule for additional realism). I have had pretty good luck catching transports with this system (especially damaged ones limping back for repair), occaisionally having to adjust the sub's position to where I think the TF will be next turn.

The AI does not send his subs into ports, either, but it does seem to imitate real life in sending its subs towards an enemy base, thereupon cruising towards another base. In doing so, it practically guarantees that the sub will cross a shipping lane. Since I usually play allies, I have noticed that the AI replicates "Torpedo Junction" quite well, and so I route my ships around that area as much as possible. Since this is the ocean, there is always a long way around (well, unless you're in a deep fjiord); sometimes it sends you closer into enemy LBA coverage so you can't use it, but it is there.

And yes, waypoints will be even better for avoiding LBA, but don't overlook their usefulness for your anti-sub camapign. Once the new sub system kicks in and players agree to keep subs out of enemy ports you will find out just how much it can help - knowing that the waypoints will have to change once your enemy figures out your new patterns.

Of course having waypoints won't solve the sub/transport problem, but it is an important tool to use in your ASW campaign.



mogami -> Waypoints (2/8/2003 4:10:56 AM)

"Since this is the ocean, there is always a long way around"

Hi, In WITP a player can still place his subs right on a port. But it will mean the quick end for the sub. (There are lots of ASW ships and aircraft in WITP) I think players will learn to sit outside the range of all but the longer range aircraft. (and away from the hordes of DD,PC,PG,MSW ships that will feast on ships located in a port hex) Even with poor ASW shear numbers will get the sub.

The Southern Resource Area has many choke points. The Japanese will not be able to avoid them (look at the map) Going the long way to avoid one will just mean he has to use another.
(oil ports in Borneo are really going to draw Allied subs operating from most likely Darwin Australia.) Likewise the Yellow Sea and East China Seas will see a lot of subs (from Midway I'll guess)
On the plus side this area is mostly shallow water making ASW work easier. (and ripe for mine barriers) But the entrance here will be a good place for subs hunting transports bringing resources back to Japan. (place subs right at entrance to Sea of Japan next to Korean Strait where water gets deep)

The West end of the Formosa strait is also deeper.

The Allies can go the long way, but the Japanese need only blockade the ports. (My guess is PH will always have 15-20 subs lurking to the east. )
Place 6 subs east of Brisbane, 6 off of Sidney. Place a dozen or so in the Indian Ocean. (Say 40-50 subs all told on station at any one time. The Japanese have over 100 (many are not suited for long patrols but he can find bases for them close to patrol zones)

Coupled with long range search aircraft to locate what routes the enemy is using. It might in the end prove more successfull to just take the short route (and get into protected waters sooner)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375