Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Frustration!

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Frustration! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Frustration! - 5/9/2002 11:49:55 AM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		It appears that the BUG that I found most annoying in PacWar has been carried over to UV, and will also be in WitP. Here's how it goes in PacWar: You spot an enemy supply TF on its way to Australia. You set up 6 squadrons of Nells and Betties on Santa Cruz and set them for NI to pounce on it, and you set up patrol craft to spot the TF as it passes. You watch the combat unfold. All the Betties and Nells suddenly take off and attack Espiritu Santu port where there is a single tuna boat docked, and run into a CAP of 100 fighters. All planes are lost. The supply TF sails by to Brisbane. Very frustrating. Explanation: Can't be changed, and besides ports are vaild NI targets.

Now it appears the system works the same way in UV. I would like a patch to allow port attacks only, or TF attacks only, or both. I would actually like to be able to specify a single port to be attacked, and not allow the computer to second guess and attack another, but I could make do with just the ability to determine exactly what type of targets can be attacked by my squadrons. Maybe a check-box dialog with allowable targets: TF, port, airfield, supply depot, ground troops, etc. If both port and TF are checked, it would work as it does now. If only TF, then that's all that could be attacked. I think it unhistoric that a commander cannot tell his squadrons not to fly unless a TF is spotted in the vicinity.

This has got to be a better interface than PacWar, not just a prettier one! What say you, forum members?

kp
Post #: 1
I think I'll wait - 5/9/2002 11:57:58 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I know the PacWar thing. Train CV pilots to over 90. Sail down to give battle. Enemy CV TF but your commander instead sends all his airgroups to attack airfield. they get wiped out. Enemy CV commander launches attack and all your fighters have been killed in arfield attack so you have light cap and he sinks your CV's without a counterstrike.

I hope it does not go that way in UV. But I will wait to play game before worring about it. One solution I found in PacWar was to use aircraft range. Put short range bombers at front and long range bombers in rear (So short range could not attack targets like heavy CAP airfields) but long range bombers could still reach my bases against attacking TF.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 2
Re: I think I'll wait - 5/9/2002 12:14:55 PM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I know the PacWar thing. Train CV pilots to over 90. Sail down to give battle. Enemy CV TF but your commander instead sends all his airgroups to attack airfield. they get wiped out. Enemy CV commander launches attack and all your fighters have been killed in airfield attack so you have light cap and he sinks your CV's without a counterstrike.

I hope it does not go that way in UV. But I will wait to play game before worring about it. One solution I found in PacWar was to use aircraft range. Put short range bombers at front and long range bombers in rear (So short range could not attack targets like heavy CAP airfields) but long range bombers could still reach my bases against attacking TF. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually you can prevent the airfield attack by putting all your planes on NI on board the carriers. But they still might go after a tuna boat in a nearby port which has CAP, with the same result.

I was willing to wait also, despite seeing it happen to Iain in his AAR when his planes flew to Noumea, instead of waiting for the coming TF, since I thought that they would do something about it from his report. But tonight in the chat, Mike Woods basically gave the old PacWar line that a port is a valid NI target. I really find it frustrating. Noumea is many miles away. The tuna boat there could not have been a target of opportunity as the bombers were flying to the task force once it was spotted. Iain, as commander, wanted to be able to order his planes to attack the TF, but had to order them to not attack anything to avoid suiicide attacks on Noumea port. With such a nice interface, one shouldn't have to resort to tricks to get around obvious bugs.

kp
:(

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 3
Bug versus quirk - 5/9/2002 12:22:33 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, if it works according to design it is not a bug. It is however an annoying quirk. What PacWar needs and games with mutipile targets within range need are mission parameters. You tell the airgroup "attack enemy TF within __ range. " or whatever The CV groups in PacWar I set the bombers to NI but not the fighters since I want them to fly cap. Boom off they go conducting fighter sweeps over enemy bases and getting massacured by planes that can't reach them. Then the enemy unescorted bombers come in and all my fighters are dead from their silly adventure. I would like an order option for just 'fly cap over home base' if I want to do a fighter sweep I target the enemy base and assign fighter groups to do it. I would not lose any sleep over this issue as far as UV goes. If in fact it does prove to be an issue I am sure they will do something to correct it.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 4
- 5/9/2002 12:57:20 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		UV is different than what you are saying. There are distinct orders for port attack, airfield attack and naval attack. If naval attack is the primary mission and no secondary mission is set, they will never attack a port or airfield. If naval attack is the primary, you can set one of the others as a secondary mission in case no valid TF to bomb is around.

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 5
- 5/9/2002 1:18:04 PM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline 		I understand that Japanese tuna fishermen slaughter tons of dolphins each year, so those boats need to be taken out anyway :D

Joel, just to clarify:

If naval is set as primary and port as secondary, will the strike always hit a TF that is spotted and in range no matter what? Also with pulse lengths of mulitple days, would the strike do both during a pulse?

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 6
- 5/9/2002 1:21:24 PM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		Should wait to get the game, but what the heck, it passes the time. :D :D

Is it possible to set TF's on 'limited' reaction? It's worth it to react into the teeth of the enemy's LBA only to a point. I wouldn't care to have my CV's react deep within the air radius of Noumea, but it's sometimes worth the gamble to react into extreme range of Noumea if you can possibly bag a wounded CV or 2. :D :D

Like I said, it may be able to be done this way and I'll find out in when I get the manual, but it's worth checking on.

_____________________________


(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 7
- 5/9/2002 1:59:53 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Unless deterred by a very bad CAP to escort ratio, the air units will always bomb a spotted TF within normal range if that is the primary mission. I can't swear that they would attack at extended range (but I think they would, they just want a better CAP to escort ratio to bomb at extended range). In multi day turns, the computer is resolving each phase (2 6 hour phases in day and 1 12 hour phase at night) independently. So you might get several strikes on day 1 of the turn, and then several strikes on day 2 of the turn. Of course this assumes that your carriers haven't been forced to turn for home during day 1.
As for the limited reaction, no there isn't. If you set your TF to react they will run anywhere to go after enemy carriers. For that reason, I rarely use it. However, the react order is very often used for surface groups that I am using to defend friendly bases from enemy bombardent TF's. I sure hope the game gets in your hands soon so you guys can all see for yourself (and hopefully enjoy the game).

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 8
- 5/9/2002 9:01:32 PM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		[QUOTE] I sure hope the game gets in your hands soon so you guys can all see for yourself (and hopefully enjoy the game).[/QUOTE]

Aren't we all? :D :D :D :D :D :D

_____________________________


(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 9
- 5/9/2002 9:22:17 PM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]UV is different than what you are saying. There are distinct orders for port attack, airfield attack and naval attack. If naval attack is the primary mission and no secondary mission is set, they will never attack a port or airfield. If naval attack is the primary, you can set one of the others as a secondary mission in case no valid TF to bomb is around. [/B][/QUOTE]

If this is the case, then I will be happy. I just wonder why Iain had that trouble. Perhaps it was his older version. Perhaps you should let Mike Woods know this is how it works, since he seemed to think Naval attack allowed port attacks last night. Thanks for the response.

kp

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 10
- 5/9/2002 9:32:10 PM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rowlf
[B]Should wait to get the game, but what the heck, it passes the time. :D :D

Is it possible to set TF's on 'limited' reaction? It's worth it to react into the teeth of the enemy's LBA only to a point. I wouldn't care to have my CV's react deep within the air radius of Noumea, but it's sometimes worth the gamble to react into extreme range of Noumea if you can possibly bag a wounded CV or 2. :D :D

Like I said, it may be able to be done this way and I'll find out in when I get the manual, but it's worth checking on. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi--

Well, we here in the Pacific Northwest think alike. I was going to ask that one myself. I think they ought to look into that as part of a patch, since as Joel says, it is to dangerous to use the reaction feature as it is. Historically, if a TF were spotted near Noumea, the Japanese TF commander would probably have said, "we're not going after this one". An American commander would definitely have ignored a TF near Rabaul. Perhaps a maximum numer of hexes within enemy LBA range that you will allow a reaction would work.

kp

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 11
- 5/9/2002 9:57:14 PM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Perhaps a maximum numer of hexes within enemy LBA range that you will allow a reaction would work.[/QUOTE]

Or, the possible/probable LBA range anyway. After all, you might know the characteristics of the air assets of the other side, but you might not know what was actually at that particular base. Therefore, you would tend to think/act conservatively.

_____________________________


(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 12
- 5/9/2002 10:54:04 PM   
IChristie

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		I should have responded to this sooner. I would say that I very rarely had the problem of a/c passing up a close and significant TF in order to sacrifice themselves attacking ships in a heavily defended base.

The problem is that Noumea is so close to L'ville that fast convoys would get there in a day. If I took the air groups of Naval Attack, the convoy would arrived in L'ville by the time I switched them and then the convoy would be halfway home before they would attack it. If I left them on Naval Attack to interdict any convoys inbound they would often attack convoys forming up in Noumea harbour where they would be decimated by the 150+ CAP. [B]I would say that the AI typically set very sensible priorities for air targets[/B].

It did however send strikes that I would not have sent because of the magnitude of the opposition that would be encountered. In fact, it was usually because the targets in port were of very high value (CA's, big AP's etc). The AI is one of the things that was modified late in the development process and this may be less likely to happen in later versions of the game.

In the end, I approached the problem by using a higher proportion of short range a/c out of PV (Vals and Kates) since they could not reach Noumea in normal range they did not tend to engage in the suicide missions.

I think one interesting option to add for WITP might be a way specifying (by base, command, or theatre) the priority of targets. For instance, supply ships vs. large surface vessels, CV's etc.

For instance there was a lengthy discussion during the invasion of L'ville about the inclusion of CVE's as decoys amongst the transports. As I expected, teh AI spent almost all of it's airpower on two very small carriers while 35 transports sailed on unmolested. If I had sent out the strikes, I assume the same thing would have happened. Usually this would be the sensible thing to do since CV's are the most valusble units in the game. But there are times when you might want to be able to set the priorities differently...

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 13
- 5/9/2002 11:10:22 PM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		Thanks, Iain, for your reply. That clears it up. So it was attacking a TF that had just formed in Noumea, not ships in the port. Still it would be nice to be able to specify which port is a priority when you place it on port attack, but at least it is a big improvement over PacWar in this regard. I do agree that it would be nice to be able to specify a one-turn reprioritizing of possible naval targets, so that you can attack troop carrying transports rather than BBs for example. But I think it will be a great game! Thanks for the great AAR. Although I and some others were going to buy the game since we heard GG was working on it, I think you, with your well-crafted prose in your AAR may have sold a thousand copiues to those who weren't sure.

kp
:)

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 14
Port Attacks - 5/10/2002 12:36:04 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Port Attack missions allow you to leave the target to the squadron commander's discretion or you can specify a target. Naval Attack orders cannot have a specified target, since they depend so heavily on up to the minute spotting. However, the AI is generally quite good about choosing the most important targets in range.

I agree though that we can always use more flexibility, but the existing system works very well in my experience.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 15
- 5/10/2002 1:47:20 AM   
IChristie

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I agree though that we can always use more flexibility, but the existing system works very well in my experience[/QUOTE]

Concur

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 16
- 5/10/2002 4:08:05 AM   
ftwarrior

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: Springfield, VA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]If I left them on Naval Attack to interdict any convoys inbound they would often attack convoys forming up in Noumea harbour where they would be decimated by the 150+ CAP. [/QUOTE]


It is reasonable that port facilities would offer protection to any TF located there, even if the TF is a separate 'entity.'

Without more information than what is offered so far by this board's posts, it seems that either:

1) The planner should factor into its decision making all types of defenses that are presumed to be present, and alter its behavior accordingly as to when the attack should occur (before or after TF leaves facility) or

2) the planner should regard even its primary mission of NI against TFs located in a port as a port attack and therfore not allowed if "ports-as-secondary targets" is turned off.

3) Some other type of control over this situation should be afforded the player

Personally, I would prefer either 2 or 3.

Love the game, can't wait to get it.
:D

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 17
- 5/10/2002 4:48:07 AM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by ftwarrior
[B]
2) the planner should regard even its primary mission of NI against TFs located in a port as a port attack and therfore not allowed if "ports-as-secondary targets" is turned off.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I think this should do it. It probably is not difficult at all to make the routine for NI check whether a fleet is in port.

Hartmann

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 18
- 5/10/2002 7:59:31 AM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
[B]

I think this should do it. It probably is not difficult at all to make the routine for NI check whether a fleet is in port.

Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

I like this solution also. Perhaps they can implement it in a patch, since there are many island bases that are close together in this game, and it would make plotting stategy a lot easier if you don't have to check to see if the planes might be sent off to a newly formed TF in a port.

kp

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 19
- 5/10/2002 9:18:37 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		That's a darned good and presumably easily remediable solution. Congrats!

How about it Gary? (or Mike or whoever)

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 20
- 5/11/2002 2:38:54 AM   
daniel123

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline 		Maybe they can put like a dot area next to NI one for TF and one for ports. If there is a dot in the select spot it allows the LBA to attack shipping in that area type. this will prevent LBA attacking port area with a lot a CAP.

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 21
- 5/13/2002 6:24:57 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Hello...

Sorry, I misunderstood your question on the forum. I thought you had naval interdiction as the primary mission and port attacks as the secondary.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1089
[B]

If this is the case, then I will be happy. I just wonder why Iain had that trouble. Perhaps it was his older version. Perhaps you should let Mike Woods know this is how it works, since he seemed to think Naval attack allowed port attacks last night. Thanks for the response.

kp [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 22
- 5/13/2002 7:00:41 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		"I think one interesting option to add for WITP might be a way specifying (by base, command, or theatre) the priority of targets. For instance, supply ships vs. large surface vessels, CV's etc."

That would be a VERY helpful option. It'd be pertinent for subs especially as the priority would be something like "(1) CV (2) CVL (3) CVE (4) CS (5) AO (6) TK ect.

Add it in as a pre-attack check for all air or sub attacks. Remember the PW penchant for strafing PT boats endlessly while ignoring everything else? Didn't need to use CVE's as bait...just include a pod or two of PT boats.

(in reply to 1089)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Frustration! Page: [1]
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

0.918