us float plane tactics (Full Version)

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



Message

waynec -> us float plane tactics (5/18/2004 3:07:35 AM)

had this game since it came and am finally getting into it in preparation for war in the pacific. was originally turned off by the lack of control (which is realsitic but disconcerting at times). but i digress:
i notice in the game that the us can use float planes from BB's and cruisers for search. i know the japanese did this all the time but i didn't think the us did. is this a flaw or did i miss something in all my reading (game manuals and history books)? i know when i play the allies i can just turn it off. this strikes me as a possible preference like japanese submarine tactics.
just won my first coral sea (as us). could have done better but as i was using this scenario for game training i forced a carrier v carrier confrontation just for the hell of it.
second question: the manual talks about surface warfare tactics such as crossing the "T". I thought surface combat was completely controlled by the computer once contact was made. again did i miss something?

thanks



rogueusmc -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/18/2004 3:35:30 AM)

The US used them in a primarily ASW role but that is basically a naval search in itself.....the US planes didn't have near thye range the japanese did though.

As for the manual......in two words....it sucks. I just used it as a reference for upgrade paths and such....it is helpful in the tables concerning react and do not react for more desired results.



scorryuk -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/18/2004 11:36:24 AM)

Surface Combat completely up up to AI. Pick a good commander, put him in charge of good experienced fleet and let him do his job. And sometimes he crosses the T and supposedly gains the advantage. Though last time one of my commanders did this it was still pretty even battle.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 12:46:07 AM)

I think the main use of BB and CA floatplanes during the war was artillery observation against ground targets... something not present in UV, except if you use Seagulls and Kingfisher to fly recon of land targets. They are not very useful for naval search because of their short range. And I can't remember to have seen a Seagull hit a Japanese submarine... and I have seen a lot of IJN subs go down....

For both sides, I land most of the floatplanes, especially the short-range ones (Pete and Seagulls) so they won't be lost with the ship if she is sunk, so saving some points.

And in 1943 Japanese floaplanes can be used with some success as 'Washing Machine Charlie'. In one of my games a dozen Jakes destroyed 3 planes and score 2 supply hits in some nights.



waynec -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 2:50:50 AM)

that has been my understanding as well. i don't even think we used them as asw but only as spotting for bombardment. i recall we tried to use them in one slot battle in a manner similar to the japanese at savo island, but it didn't work and i think most every ship got rid of them if they expected a fight, especially at night.
well, guess this is a "gamey" question. how close do i want to play to the history (tactics wise) or is part of the whole wargame experience doing what would not or could not have been done.
sounds like the topic for an article. how much can you vary from history before a wargame is so distorted it is meaningless for anything except a game?



Fred98 -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 3:20:52 AM)

In every game I play, I attempt to use the assets in their historical role.

If the commanders attacked to the left I have no problem with alternative history – and I might attempt an attack to the right.

But I will continue to use the assets in their historical role.

If the game designers make errors, then a player could use a Tiger tank to attack submarines. This is meant only as an extreme example.

I would continue to use the Tiger tank in its historical role. But some players would use gamey tactics and use the Tiger tank in a ASW role because the game allows it. The only way to beat the gamey player is to:

- apply a patch so players are forced to use assets in their historical role or;
- use gamey tactics yourself to win

Before using the latter I would throw the game in the bin
-



waynec -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 5:03:55 AM)

i know. back in '76 when i was stationed in germany we would play Terrible Swift Sword, 2-3 guys per side. according to the game, the confederates could break of a brigade from heth's division and force march them south to interdict the iron brigade moving north before the iron brigade got to gettysburg proper (and into the line to the west). none of the players ever did that because it would have beeen inconsistent with civil war infantry tactics.

which, of course, has nothing to do with ww2. i think the grander the scale and scope of the game, the greater the possibility that the game system will allow for these ahistorical tactics. not a flaw, just the nature of game and ai design.



scorryuk -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 1:06:40 PM)

Some intresting points of view on using only historical tactics. But I have always felt the purpose of games like this was not to repeat history but to re-write it. To indulge yourself with what if`s. And one way of doing this is to fight on your own terms using your own tactics and doctrines on how best to do that.



609IAP_Thumper -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 6:42:18 PM)

Hey waynec, now I finally met one other guy on the planet who has Terrible Swift Sword. I loved the game, but could never get too far before something upset those stacks of cardboard pieces. Trying to straighten up that huge board was a real task. That sure is a blast from the past.



crsutton -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 7:22:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: waynec

that has been my understanding as well. i don't even think we used them as asw but only as spotting for bombardment. i recall we tried to use them in one slot battle in a manner similar to the japanese at savo island, but it didn't work and i think most every ship got rid of them if they expected a fight, especially at night.
well, guess this is a "gamey" question. how close do i want to play to the history (tactics wise) or is part of the whole wargame experience doing what would not or could not have been done.
sounds like the topic for an article. how much can you vary from history before a wargame is so distorted it is meaningless for anything except a game?


Yes, a lot of times they were flown off the ship if a naval battle was expected. If they remained on deck the concussion from the main arament would blow them to bits and could start a fire. IIRC The Houston did this very thing to herself early in the war.



crsutton -> RE: us float plane tactics (5/19/2004 7:25:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scorryuk

Some intresting points of view on using only historical tactics. But I have always felt the purpose of games like this was not to repeat history but to re-write it. To indulge yourself with what if`s. And one way of doing this is to fight on your own terms using your own tactics and doctrines on how best to do that.


A great game for its day. I played to a lot solo. I liked "Gleam of Bayonets" even better. We used to play it two on three. The wing commanders for the Union could not communicate tactics except by time delayed dispatch. Made for a great game.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.90625