Naval Air Strike Priorities (Full Version)

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



Message

Luskan -> Naval Air Strike Priorities (6/28/2003 3:28:20 PM)

If you've read my AAR vs Raver you'll probably empathise and sympathise with how annoyed I am at my idiot CVs attacking thoroughly capped BBs at Irau, rather than attacking Raver's CVs which were spotted more times (so surely had a higher DL?), were closer, and were reacting closer and I was reacting closer to them too etc. Especially since the cap over the CVs had to be less than the CAP over Irau. This has cost me 350 aircraft, and in a turn will complete the destruction of all of the IJN CVs (13 or 14 CVs, 3 CS ships). If you think I'm exagerrating, go and check out the AAR.

Now - I would like to know how many other people want an option like "do not retire" and "react to enemy" for naval aircraft (or land based aircraft as well). It doesn't have to be an absolute control over the pilots - sure, fog of war, stress and timing of the moment, I don't mind seeing one airstrike rocket off against the wrong target, but not when the enemy is sighted, closing and your SECOND airstrike ignores it too.

I don't care if it is historical or realistic. I just want to know who would want such an option in the game.

Again I'll stress that this shouldn't be absolute - if a ship gets reported by a search plane as a CV, that should create a launch, or if there aren't any other targets detected, or if one is much closer than the other - or maybe just it doesn't work all the time but is more of an increased chance that your planes will only launch against your opponents CVs etc.

Where the poll says "operates", what I mean is, what method does the AI use to discriminate between targets. There should be a normal mode, calculated on DL as the airstrikes are now, and there should be a priority option, allowing you to set some parameters.

I would like my CVs to have orders not to launch at ANYTHING except enemy carriers. Sure, this could go very wrong, if an enemy CV is spotted and it turns out to be a CA, or if my CV sails within arms reach of an enemy transport group (DAMNIT - forgot to include a transports only option). Poll was also supposed to allow multiple votes but I screwed that up in my haste.



showboat1 -> (7/3/2003 9:57:22 PM)

LBA could be set up to function automatically, somewhat like PACWAR, but more flexible. For instance:

B-17/24 priorties would be: 1st airfield attack, 2nd naval TF attack, 3rd port attack

B-29 priorities would be: 1st city attack, 2nd airfield attack, 3rd naval TF attack, 4th port attack

B-25/25 A-20/26 Priorities would be: 1st airfield attack, 2nd naval TF attack, 3rd port attack, 4th ground attack.

Each type of aircraft would get different sets of priorities so that you wouldn't have to keep fiddling around witrh all of those switches. I mean, how many of HUNDREDS of air groups will be in this game. I don't want to have to micromanage every single little thing. Let me turn it on and off.

Fighter bombers and single engine bombers (A-24's, Wirraways, A-36's) could be set for ground attack as a primary, then naval, then port, then airfield. Having a mix of different A/C types would guarantee a wide spread of potential targets. However an over reliance on a single type could make you strong in one area, but weak in others.



madflava13 -> (7/3/2003 11:17:17 PM)

I think this is a good idea, and I'd like something similar for subs - that way you don't lose subs attacking escort forces.



Sonny -> Re: Naval Air Strike Priorities (7/4/2003 2:11:48 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B].............. (DAMNIT - forgot to include a transports only option). Poll was also supposed to allow multiple votes but I screwed that up in my haste. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I would have voted for priority by TF type i.e. transport, CV or surface group.:)

My P39s on naval attack won't do diddly against an IJN BB but will try it anyway when what i really want is for them to try to stop the transports getting ready to land at PM.:)



pasternakski -> (7/4/2003 4:38:14 AM)

I can only support a "naval air strike priority" option if less-than-perfect recon is built into it. When you tell your air ops commander, "Attack only CVs on pain of death," he is confronted with a massive problem. He has to know where the enemy CVs are and which CVs it is you want him to attack when more than one putative air combat TF is spotted. Further, the "Neosho" factor has to be present. Recon must be able to report carriers when, in fact, no carriers exist. Also, you should be able to "outsmart yourself" into having your strike aircraft grounded when the less-target-discriminating enemy shows up overhead and blasts your idle air assets to smithereens because you ordered an attack on only one type of ship and no such type of ship was detected.

If this cannot be done, it would be better to leave the current system alone, in my estimation. Don't forget that one of the foundation ideas for the UV system was to put you into situations where the stupidity and incompetence of your inferiors causes you to practice on your range of vulgar and expletive diction and react by exercising your considerable skills of operational command to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat (or vice-versa).



ltfightr -> Naval strike priority. (7/4/2003 6:29:17 AM)

I hate seeing my nellls and bettys launching at a few MWS or Sc at a base. I want someway to order them to ignore them. To preserve my assets for the CV or Big transport convoy.



juliet7bravo -> (7/4/2003 6:51:35 AM)

"Further, the "Neosho" factor has to be present."

Very true. FOW should be a major factor. But "real" FOW, not the kind you get in UV. Intel should be rated as to how solid it is.

But, airstrike priorities need to come with a default global setting that players can change at each airfield/TF. "Over here" I might be beating off a landing where my primary targets are the AP/AK's carrying troops..."Over there" I might be trying to decimate a bomb TF...and "Right Here" I might be trying to fight a carrier engagement with CV's, CVL's, CVE's, BB's and AK/AP/TK/AO's present where my intent is to attrite his carriers, and "All Over" my Sub Doctrine might be to attack his AO/TK's as the primary targets.

You should, in fact, have an "Aid de Camp" who acts as your staff. He SHOULD have a menu of options, one option of which is controlling target priorities for each base/TF.



Luskan -> (7/4/2003 10:14:27 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]I can only support a "naval air strike priority" option if less-than-perfect recon is built into it. When you tell your air ops commander, "Attack only CVs on pain of death," he is confronted with a massive problem. He has to know where the enemy CVs are and which CVs it is you want him to attack when more than one putative air combat TF is spotted. Further, the "Neosho" factor has to be present. Recon must be able to report carriers when, in fact, no carriers exist. Also, you should be able to "outsmart yourself" into having your strike aircraft grounded when the less-target-discriminating enemy shows up overhead and blasts your idle air assets to smithereens because you ordered an attack on only one type of ship and no such type of ship was detected.

If this cannot be done, it would be better to leave the current system alone, in my estimation. Don't forget that one of the foundation ideas for the UV system was to put you into situations where the stupidity and incompetence of your inferiors causes you to practice on your range of vulgar and expletive diction and react by exercising your considerable skills of operational command to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat (or vice-versa). [/B][/QUOTE]

agree completely.



Mr.Frag -> (7/4/2003 10:10:11 PM)

It would be great to have some simple'ish scripting that would let you control things a tad better.

Such as:

Fly mission type a to range x until fatigue > y with z% of available aircraft.

This would take care of two things: extreme range silliness and overflying, allowing you to set and forget a base without having planes run off and commit suicide for nothing.



von Murrin -> (7/5/2003 10:47:22 AM)

Having the CAP setting for CV's switched to the percentage of aircraft flying strike escort and having CAP as a max launch effort (like radar equipped land bases) would also be welcome.

Add those to what pasternakski and Mr. Frag proposed, the game would be much more dynamic, and we'd be spending about 1/8th of the current time spent to manage aircraft.



HMSWarspite -> (7/6/2003 1:26:31 AM)

I voted no, but meant 'no, if...'
As I understand it, ground units have objectives. If they are on the objectivee they are preparing defence, if not, they are learning the objective for the old beach landing. Air units, given something similar would be able to have different target priorities automatically. If on the objective, priority invasion forces heading here, CV, BB, invasions headed else where.
If not on objective, CV, BB, etc etc.

I do not want any more micromanagement!



LargeSlowTarget -> Re: Re: Naval Air Strike Priorities (7/6/2003 5:38:38 PM)

Sonny, Mr. Frag & von Murrin, I second your proposals!



CommC -> (7/10/2003 11:10:19 AM)

I think the final answer to this naval attack priority issue is to simply make the game what it was advertised to be (at least for UV) and make it truely simultaneous real time execution. In this mode, the player simply watches the sighting reports as they flash in real time on the map or info screen and pauses the game time to give what strike orders he wants, then restarts the action to observe the execution of the strikes.

A variant of this idea would be insanely easy to implement in the present UV or WiTP setup as follows. Realistically, a commander only had two chances during a day to order an airstrike, in the morning after sighting reports from scouts, or at mid day, after the return of the first wave of attacks. The game is already built around these two phases. All that would have to change is to stop the action after the first round of scout reports and give the player the opportunity to order what strikes he wants, if he doesn't want to order a strike, he simply hits the "continue" button. This could be repeated for the afternoon phase of each day turn.

All the other operations could continue as currently programmed.

This mode could be offered as an option. The player could choose to play it the "old" or current way if he wanted.

A simple variant of this, is that each time a new sighting report comes in, the player is given the opportunity to order a strike at that target. If the strike group doesn't actually find the target group and hits something else, thats ok, its the fog of war.

If this type of system is not implemented, UV and WiTP will simply be unplayable... or to be more precise, the frustration level as expressed by many in these forums will exceed the satisfaction level of seeing a sound battle plan executed to achieve victory. Without these changes, executing a sound battle plan will not necessarily lead to victory.... the whim of your dumb AI commanders will decide your fate, rather than your own decisions. If I lose, at least I can take the satisfaction of knowing I lost due to my own decisions, rather than being frustrated at never getting the chance to even make a strike decision.

If the programming team is reluctant to make this change due to eliminating PBEM, the answer is that there are many simultaneous realtime games played over the internet and WiTP or UV could be done this way. They could always put this as an option, and keep the current way where PBEM is used as one of the optional modes of play.



CommC -> (7/10/2003 11:23:50 AM)

Continuing on my post, above ... ordering air strikes against naval or other targets is not micromangement... it is essential battle operations execution.

Micromanagement is detailing this supply ship to go here, that one there. If we want to reduce micromanagement in the game, we need to simplify or stream-line the supply and reinforcement model, not take away the players ability to order appropriate and timely airstrikes at specific (though moving) targets.

Utilizing a simplified supply model could be an option chosen at the start of each scenario. The detailed air strike targeting could also be offered at the scenario start options screen.



pasternakski -> (7/10/2003 11:30:24 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CommC
[B]I think the final answer to this naval attack priority issue is to simply make the game what it was advertised to be (at least for UV) and make it truely simultaneous real time execution.[/B][/QUOTE]

Good luck with all that.



mapr -> CV's only (7/10/2003 1:46:29 PM)

Nothing original here, but...

I'd like to see 'CV's only' option to work in a way that it would attack CV's where ever they are. Meaning that planes would hunt CV's even if you don't know if they are in port or as TF. Same could go with all other ships. Option could be "ship attack".

Present UV model makes it possible to try really annoying tricks.



Sonny -> (7/10/2003 7:27:22 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CommC
[B]I think the final answer to this naval attack priority issue is to simply make the game what it was advertised to be (at least for UV) and make it truely simultaneous real time execution. In this mode, the player simply watches the sighting reports as they flash in real time on the map or info screen and pauses the game time to give what strike orders he wants, then restarts the action to observe the execution of the strikes.

......................[/B][/QUOTE]

Imagine the problems that would cause in PBEM!!:eek:


One thing I do think should be done is to have ship movement between the am and pm air phases. That way a search would have to be done again and some ships which seem to be sitting ducks for two strikes may be able to dodge or outrun the second strike. You get two moves at night, why not during the day. right now the only additional move between air phases is when carriers react in the second phase.:)



CommC -> (7/11/2003 7:16:36 AM)

In this mode, simultaneous real time execution, PBEM would not be possible, instead the two human players would play together at the same time over the internet. When one player stops the execution, the other player would get a message that the action had been stopped, and he could also enter orders. Orders could also be given while the action was underway, much like RTS games. The action would stop a regular intervals, for example, each day, and each player then enters his orders, then hits the go button. When both have issued their orders, the action proceeds.



ltfightr -> Real time (7/11/2003 7:58:18 AM)

If "real time" not PBEM was implimented no one would finish a game as scheduling would be a nightmare. In PBEM I can return turns before I go to work and when I get home with a multitude of opponents. The proposed way I do not think I would have an opponet that would meet my schedule at all. I think it is much more likley that we will have a range to attack button. For one thing the programming of that would be faster and I want this game to be released. At the current rate of wishes it will not get done at all.



ADM Vincent -> ...and as to Aide de Camp? (7/11/2003 9:58:04 AM)

WHAT? Rearm the planes with torpedoes again GEHNDA!

:eek:



CommC -> (7/11/2003 10:17:28 AM)

thats why we should have both modes.... or at least a compromise of some sort that would let the players execute their battle plan strategies by choosing what their airgroups attack.



Snigbert -> (7/12/2003 2:52:08 AM)

I think this is a good idea in theory, but I am afraid of the thought of adding another layer of management which will have to be set 'just so' for every air group to get the results you want. The kinds of problems it would be solving, like Bettys and Nells attacking the lone MSW or SC I can live with, if the alternative winds up being an even more complicated air combat system. Keep in mind the scope of the game when you make requests that add levels of micromanagement...



CommC -> (7/13/2003 4:16:48 AM)

Well, I've already commented above on my view about whether this is micromangeement, i.e. I think designating air attacks on naval targets is an essential part of carrying out the battle plan.

However, I concede defeat in that in a long strategy game like this, a real time mode is simply not practical. Its just too much to try to do in such a long a detailed game.

The real time designation of targets would be a different game, or perhaps a very short scenario which has a carrier battle in it, maybe two weeks in length max. I think this mode would be fun and satisfying, but it would not be UV or WITP as we know it.

In the current concept of WITP, we need less detail and more of the AI commanders making battle and targeting decisions. All we can do is direct the main strategy by putting forces generally where we want them. If anything, the feature we need to be pleading for is a more general summary of the battles.... if we are examining each plane and man lost, thats going to make the game too long and essentially unplayable for most of us.

We also need a quicker way to issue orders.... point and click once, etc, not layers of complex menu screens everytime we want a TF to move from hex A to hex B.



Ron Saueracker -> (7/16/2003 8:21:57 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]I think this is a good idea in theory, but I am afraid of the thought of adding another layer of management which will have to be set 'just so' for every air group to get the results you want. The kinds of problems it would be solving, like Bettys and Nells attacking the lone MSW or SC I can live with, if the alternative winds up being an even more complicated air combat system. Keep in mind the scope of the game when you make requests that add levels of micromanagement... [/B][/QUOTE]

Matt. I believe a target priority menu is vital. I also see no problem with it. Right now we have control over altitude, CAP, mission type etc, some of which are much less important and have more to do with the unit CO than the theatre CO (we players) than target priority and selection. A simple binary type yes/no menu for air units (or perhaps bases only with the air units stationed there conforming to base restrictions, most likely a needed "simplification" for WITP) would do the trick. Let's face it, the AI is next to useless as either an opponent or a subordinate. Like a child, it has to be given limits and guidelines or all hell breaks loose.

An example is readily available in our game. Half the time I have to stand down my bombers on Lunga to keep them from getting cut to pieces by your CV TFs, which they have attacked a few times (got lucky with that torp hit on Hornet ...or did I?) instead of blasting your transports at Irau, a closer, more vulnerable, and more important target than CVs at this juncture. A simple yes/no selection toggle would alleviate this. What is so strange by having the theatre commander ring the Lunga base commander and order him to blockade Irau by air and ignore CVs? The co's rating could determine how well these order are followed, but right now, one has to hope the hex your CVs are in is socked in by squalls or bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, well trained air groups are thrown into the sawmill by the friggin' AI subordinate!

Another example in our game is Nells and Bettys on Lunga. Put them on naval strike and voila, into the grinder they go (CAP heavy bases with TFs) instead of dominating the sea within their range) despite Matrix's/2by3's best efforts to keep the friggin' AI from doing just this. Provide a priority or do/don't do list and this at least will give the player the tools to deal with the friendly AI and possibly solve the problem. Why not let players set the base/CV TF parameters and have the leader's ratings affect the execution rather than tackling the problem by coding it is beyond me. I don't see a use for HQ leader ratings otherwise.

I should probably have posted this in the dev section. Too big to rewrite.:D



babyseal7 -> (7/16/2003 10:38:29 AM)

I have no problem with micromanagement that accomplishes something...unlike quite a bit of the pointless micromanagement you're forced to do in UV due to a kludgy interface or someones vague and basically wrong understanding of what "strategic control" is.

"Like a child, it has to be given limits and guidelines or all hell breaks loose."

Exactly. This would also be micromanagment that you'd have to do ONCE, at games start. Any changes as the game progressed would be to specific units/bases, done in response to local conditions, or major shifts in the strategic conditions, ie. you've gained total air superiority due to the numbers/quality of your aircraft. What's more, if you didn't like it, and think it's just pointless micromanagment, then you could just leave it defaulted to the initial setup...then everyone's happy.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6425781