|
swagman -> (10/8/2003 3:35:06 AM)
|
I'll try the suggestions to improve air ops.
The question of the computer playing with historical constraints and lack of knowledge, while the human player has the benefits of ahistorical information and history comes to the crux of the point that concerns me. I do note however that the computer often does not play with historical task group formations, as it consolidates carriers into a single taskgroup if the start the game in the same hex.
There are two games options being discussed, the first is a historical simulation, the second one is a game influenced by the knowledge, information available and skills of the human player.
UV works as a historical simulation when played AI against AI. Fine, but human players don't want to simply watch the game being played for them. They buy the game in order to participate. If the game is played H2H or PBEM, it works too, because then both players have the save advantages.
However, a human player against the AI, the game fails it seems to me, because it can't work as a simulation because the human has the advantage of foreknowledge, etc. Hence, one needs to look at playability, and I think playability would be improved by changing the management of these little strikes.
As Feinder said, at the start of the war small strikes may have occurred, with each carrier acting independently with their own taskgroup. But quickly, US carrier groups usually had 4 CV/CVL in order to concentrate air power. Does UV reflect such historical changes of strategy.
|
|
|
|
