Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view - 3/17/2006 1:29:55 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Would you like to have 1-6 hour pulses instead and wait an hour for a day to pass staring at the monitor? I am a big fan historicalicity but given the restraints of the interface IMHO it is the BEST we can get.


I think a 24 hr turn with four 6-hour movement pulses would be better. But that is a different problem.

The problem here is just as dTravel has stated. In order for my carriers to react, then you have to know where the Allied carriers are. But how can you know where they are when the movement impulse occurs before the search impulse? It's simple, the AI cheats and compares positions without regards to spotting and sends them on their merry reactive way.

The other part of this equation is: Why is the AI incapable of realizing that heavily damaged carriers that are incapable of flight ops should be running away, not towards the enemy in a futile banzai charge? Reaction should be determined BOTH ways: when to close and when to run (assuming you don't care about the fact that reaction occurs before spotting). That is the real problem with reaction IMO.

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 3/17/2006 1:32:31 AM >


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 31
RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view - 3/17/2006 3:26:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Would you like to have 1-6 hour pulses instead and wait an hour for a day to pass staring at the monitor? I am a big fan historicalicity but given the restraints of the interface IMHO it is the BEST we can get.


I think a 24 hr turn with four 6-hour movement pulses would be better. But that is a different problem.

The problem here is just as dTravel has stated. In order for my carriers to react, then you have to know where the Allied carriers are. But how can you know where they are when the movement impulse occurs before the search impulse? It's simple, the AI cheats and compares positions without regards to spotting and sends them on their merry reactive way.

The other part of this equation is: Why is the AI incapable of realizing that heavily damaged carriers that are incapable of flight ops should be running away, not towards the enemy in a futile banzai charge? Reaction should be determined BOTH ways: when to close and when to run (assuming you don't care about the fact that reaction occurs before spotting). That is the real problem with reaction IMO.

Chez


I remember this example,,,bummer! That's the problem...there has to be a set of checks and parameters to govern naval movement. They exist for some air aspects but these were developed for other games I suspect so they are more developed overall. This is the main reason why multi turn play is a non starter for me...no cause and effect relationships exist at all regarding naval ops.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 32
RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view - 3/17/2006 8:52:10 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
I see. Misunderstood. Sorry.

That's why you should only use Yamaguchi till May 42.
As a mostly IJN player I tended to underrate Nagumo, but with similar exp's (altough not that serious) I've learned to value him and Ozawa too.

< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 3/17/2006 8:54:47 AM >


_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 33
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Reaction closing and distancing - IJN point of view Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.641