Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Controlling TFs with React/Retirement - A Feature Discussion

 
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 >> Controlling TFs with React/Retirement - A Feature Discussion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Controlling TFs with React/Retirement - A Feature Discu... - 5/21/2002 10:41:01 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		We absolutely must have a TF behavior setting to allow Retirement ONLY from Land Based Air.

There are too many cases of people watching carriers "react to enemy" in ways that a real commander would not do, and losing the task force carriers as a result.

The current options in the Patrol/Do Not Retire, Retirement Allowed and React to Enemy, Do Not React to Enemy are insufficient to enable a player to do what was done historically : cruise around outside enemy LBA range and reacting to any spots but WITHOUT stupidly endangering his carriers to LBA.

I think the best Solution would be to have 4 settings in Reaction status :


Unrestricted React
React to Enemy outside of enemy LBA range
React to Enemy Within range of Friendly LBA only
Do not React to enemy.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
Post #: 1
- 5/21/2002 10:51:39 PM   
osros

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/3/2002
Status: offline 		Interesting, nice ideas there. But cant have the computer do everything. Taking care of the CV's like it was your own mom adds flavor to the game.

Very Satisfying when it works out you way.

Pisses you off when things go to hell.

Gets the blood movin :D

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 2
- 5/21/2002 10:58:42 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by osros
[B]Interesting, nice ideas there. But cant have the computer do everything. Taking care of the CV's like it was your own mom adds flavor to the game.

Very Satisfying when it works out you way.

Pisses you off when things go to hell.

Gets the blood movin :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I really like the idea by DGAAD but OSROS speaks the truth. I LOVE my carriers if one can say that and must treat them that way. It really does ad flavor to the game as you said and it is possible to avoid land based air anyway. Its not like my TF will suddenly move 10 hexes towards Raboul because a reaction move occured. Choose your destinations carefully and count on a few hexes for an eventual reaction.

Dan

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 3
- 5/21/2002 11:22:31 PM   
osros

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/3/2002
Status: offline 		I keep my Carriers just out of Land Base Air range and move around a bit, sometimes stay in one hex for a couple of days. If an enemy CV TF moves into my range, In most cases I got the drop on them and get first strike.

Im very cautious with my Carriers the IJN have 4 or 5 to my 2. In the game Im playing. No sense charging them in.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 4
- 5/22/2002 1:54:18 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		Dont get me wrong guys. I'm not presenting this idea because I've lost a carrier group to LBA. I haven't. I'm very careful also. But I think counting hexes from nearby enemy bases and attempting guess at the radius circle is rather stupid.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 5
Problem - 5/22/2002 2:12:50 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Well i see a major problem, Allied LBA from Cooktown with B-17's reaches up past Rabaul. IJN TF would always be withdrawing.
You have to set them to human control, do not react, do not retire and drive them yourself. Of course you also then don't have your TF commander reacting, however if the TF is at a friendly base with aircover of it's own you can use the react command. Just don't go sailing into enemy waters with react on.
(I have yet to have a carrier attacked by LBA I did not expect to attack it) (IN over a dozen carrier battles with both sides I have only had 2 carriers damaged)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 6
- 5/22/2002 2:30:03 AM   
osros

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/3/2002
Status: offline 		Mogami,

Your exploits dont count, Your a wargamming freak! :D

Us normal lesser commanders have to work for our victories!

;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 7
Re: Problem - 5/22/2002 2:34:22 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Well i see a major problem, Allied LBA from Cooktown with B-17's reaches up past Rabaul. IJN TF would always be withdrawing.
You have to set them to human control, do not react, do not retire and drive them yourself. Of course you also then don't have your TF commander reacting, however if the TF is at a friendly base with aircover of it's own you can use the react command. Just don't go sailing into enemy waters with react on.
(I have yet to have a carrier attacked by LBA I did not expect to attack it) (IN over a dozen carrier battles with both sides I have only had 2 carriers damaged) [/B][/QUOTE]

Mogami, I'm not asking for anything to be taken away from the game as it stands now. I'm asking for additional behavior OPTIONS. An option is optional. How is that a problem?

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 8
OK - 5/22/2002 3:12:35 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I am only pointing out if you tell a TF to withdraw from LBA it will return to Truk since US LBA reaches up to Rabaul. No matter where you are south of Rabaul you are in US LBA range (it only needs allies to set groups to Naval attack. With this option IJN TF's would always be forced to retire. You would need a setting for range (I do this by driving the TF myself and staying a certain distance away.)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 9
Re: OK - 5/22/2002 4:06:29 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I am only pointing out if you tell a TF to withdraw from LBA it will return to Truk since US LBA reaches up to Rabaul. No matter where you are south of Rabaul you are in US LBA range (it only needs allies to set groups to Naval attack. With this option IJN TF's would always be forced to retire. You would need a setting for range (I do this by driving the TF myself and staying a certain distance away.) [/B][/QUOTE]

Obviously, if you order your TF to do something you don't want it to do, thats a problem. With the additional options I'm suggesting here, you could set your TFs to Patrol/Do Not Retire (exactly as you are doing now, no changes) and rely on your carrier and LBA to protect the TF. Nothing I've suggested here will force you to do things you don't want to do.

Without these options, however, I have to manually count the distance from enemy bases and see if where I want to go is within theoretical range. I also have to use the aircraft database and manually calculate the range in hexes for threat aircraft. I don't want to spend my time in game doing that if I don't have to. An option to automatically retire if within range of LBA or to react only outside of range of enemy LBA would save me this time.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 10
you are mis reading my point - 5/22/2002 5:26:21 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, I am not trying to debate your point. I understand it.
What I am saying is not a retire from LBA (that would cause all TF's every where with this option on to retire (since the Japanese have LBA that reaches Cooktown and the Allies have LBA that reaches past Rabaul, as soon as you toggled it the TF would retire. What you really want is a toggle for range from an enemy base. (Example I don't mind if B-17s fly 20 hexes to bomb me but I don't want to get 4 hexes from allied base and trigger groups that will have shortrange escorts and torpedo planes so I set my TF to remain 5- 6 hexes from enemy bases)
A generic LBA retire trigger will not work since the LBA of both sides reaches so far. (the normal retire/do not react function keeps TF's away from enemy CV groups.)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 11
Re: you are mis reading my point - 5/22/2002 6:30:44 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Greetings, I am not trying to debate your point. I understand it.
What I am saying is not a retire from LBA (that would cause all TF's every where with this option on to retire (since the Japanese have LBA that reaches Cooktown and the Allies have LBA that reaches past Rabaul, as soon as you toggled it the TF would retire. What you really want is a toggle for range from an enemy base. (Example I don't mind if B-17s fly 20 hexes to bomb me but I don't want to get 4 hexes from allied base and trigger groups that will have shortrange escorts and torpedo planes so I set my TF to remain 5- 6 hexes from enemy bases)
A generic LBA retire trigger will not work since the LBA of both sides reaches so far. (the normal retire/do not react function keeps TF's away from enemy CV groups.) [/B][/QUOTE]

I think this is a good idea . . . a user-enterable number for range to avoid from enemy airbases.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 12
In lieu of - 5/22/2002 6:54:09 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Currently I drive my TF's I do lose the react to enemy funtion. I get around this draw back by using lots of Naval search and predicting enemy movement. As allies I keep watch on enemy CV groups and 'creep up' when I get to where my max movement will place me within my 4hex torpedo plane range I go full steam (also like to stay back intill the weather will help approach. As Japan I do the reverse. I keep 7-8 hexes from USN CV groups (to remove torpedo planes and 1000lb bombs. ) When I decide to go into LBA to attack a port I use the weather and a slower approach to stay out of range till fast run in. and then run in to 8 hexes. I would most likely do this this even if their was a toggle since I don't like my forces doing things I did not tell them to do. I reserve the react mission for forces I want to stay away from a place unless enemy TF's show up (I keep reaction TF at Shortland to watch Lunga) These groups are already in areas I am not concerned with non CV air attack (I never use reaction if enemy CV forces are around (It could be an ambush) I don't give the TF commander permission to gamble with my money.)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 13
Effective LBA - 5/22/2002 7:05:29 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		During the 1942 period, USN carrier air only risked torpedo laden LBA with surprise in hand and when conducting offensive actions, ie. the early 42 raids. After that, no way. USN carriers should not go rampaging into the stuff that sank Prince of Wales and Repulse with impunity. It was SOP. That's why Fletcher left the Guadalcanal landings early...to avoid exposing his CVs for too long with diminishing CAP resources.

Anyway, I was under the impression that "React to Enemy" carriers meant that carriers would close into strike range to extend the relative range of their aircraft **during** an engagement to somewhat nullify the longer range of IJN aircraft, not, I repeat, not to force an engagement which defies the concept of calculated risk. The fact that all 1942 engagements had USN CVs out of IJN LBA range should speak volumes, despite the fact that USN was on the defensive. When IJN was on defensive later in war, the situation was reversed. Maybe only offensive operations should allow the forces involved to risk LBA, as their numbers or strategic surprise deemed it necessary and a reasonable risk.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 14
more detail - 5/22/2002 7:12:37 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Ron sorry I was assuming everyone understood in all cases I was trying for suprise. I would not choose to just slug it out with the enemy (it sometimes happens dispite what I try) If my TF is spotted I always reverse course to extend range. My USN CV never go north of Woodlark Island. (I have caught several US TF north of there as Japan. I have refused more carrier actions then I have fought. But also I have yet (knock on wood) to lose a carrier while I have sank 6 CV 1 CVL 1 CVE and damaged 6 CV

The main point is you are not required to let your carrier commanders run loose. Do not go into an area without recon forces (all my CV TF have at least one other TF assigned to proceed it with search planes.)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 15
Re: Effective LBA - 5/22/2002 1:08:00 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]During the 1942 period, USN carrier air only risked torpedo laden LBA with surprise in hand and when conducting offensive actions, ie. the early 42 raids. After that, no way. USN carriers should not go rampaging into the stuff that sank Prince of Wales and Repulse with impunity. It was SOP. That's why Fletcher left the Guadalcanal landings early...to avoid exposing his CVs for too long with diminishing CAP resources.

Anyway, I was under the impression that "React to Enemy" carriers meant that carriers would close into strike range to extend the relative range of their aircraft **during** an engagement to somewhat nullify the longer range of IJN aircraft, not, I repeat, not to force an engagement which defies the concept of calculated risk. The fact that all 1942 engagements had USN CVs out of IJN LBA range should speak volumes, despite the fact that USN was on the defensive. When IJN was on defensive later in war, the situation was reversed. Maybe only offensive operations should allow the forces involved to risk LBA, as their numbers or strategic surprise deemed it necessary and a reasonable risk. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm quoting Ron, but talking to Mogami. Mogami : read this again. You talk about what you do with the game. You do what most good tacticians would do : not risk carriers against LBA except in overwhelming force. But, the game does not make this easy. You have to micromanage placement, manually count range from bases, etc. We are all in agreement what the right tactics are, indeed what the STANDARD tactics were for the real commanders.

We need Matrix to make it alot easier to implement standard tactics, with some behavior controls that automate the process to some extent, like a user-enterable number for not going near enemy airbases. Right now, the react and retirement modes make it really easy to do something that is actually completely unrealistic.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 16
- 5/22/2002 1:36:31 PM   
Andrew Offen

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 10/29/2000
From: Singapore
Status: offline 		Can someone help clarify exactly what the current reaction rules mean in terms of actual distance covered? How far will a CV TF actually move in order to get into strike range of an enemy CV. In my experience it seemed a huge distance and kind of implied the distance was a full 12 hour impulse at max speed. That could be as far as 8 hexes or so. Is this wrong?

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 17
AI limits - 5/22/2002 1:46:23 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, The AI would have to be Deep Blue to know what you wanted to do. When you brief that carrier commander he will want to know exactly where 7 hexes off Noumea you want him Not "Admiral go bomb Noumea but stay 7 hexes away"
Even with a toggle for that range there are too many hexes for the AI. The reason I take control (operational not tactical) is to insure coordination between the TF's (the CV's also have oilers and recon and surface TF's operating and just saying 'follow' doesn't place them exactly where they need to go. UV is an operational level game. We the players only decide who takes what where for what mission. There is no way to input this to the AI except actually taking 15 minutes per turn to go around and make sure every one is on the same page.(Radio traffic) (during intense periods it sometimes even takes 20 minutes to enter all the orders for a single turn, and I do every air group and every Tf every turn.) I am sure I still do not understand what it si exactly you want. You want to leave operational decisions to the AI? (where a TF ends it's movement phase is a primary operational concern, it has to be
Coordinated with every other friendly force involved (a task force could meet the LBA requirement but because it chose hex a 8 hexes out rather then hex B 8 hexes out it is now also out of aircover of friendly bases. We don't have tactical control of our forces. The leaders in charge of the units do. I don't want the AI also excising my operational control, if you do I understand but I would point out how difficult it would be to create an AI that understood your plan. Only the human brain with the larger picture knows exactly what is going on and where units need to be.
I guess the real difference of views expressed in this thread is not staying out of dangerous hexes. But what micro managing on an operational scale is. It is not micro managing for a Theater Commander (the player) to tell a TF where exactly to go (in fact that is exactly the Higher commanders job. He decides what goes where. The TF commander handles the actual fighting. but not what he fights with or who he fights against) Micro managing would be going into the airgroup and saying Ens Smith flies today and Ens Williams takes the day off. Setting airgroup operational limits for a task (30percent cap) Thats my job. Telling a TF how far to go (is also saying how fast-or how much fuel to burn) These are operational since I am the one that has to get the replenishment TF to the unrep site.
I do not concur with the standard tactic notion. Tactics are the means by which operations meet strategic goals. There is no standard tactic. (are there standard battles where standard tactics are applied?)
There is a option for a TF to be computer controlled (I wouldn't touch it for routine supply convoys)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 18
- 5/22/2002 10:09:03 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		Mogami :

Your knowledge of the ability of programmers is lacking, and you are making incorrect assumptions.

There is no question that the routines to enable the prevention of entering within a defined range of any enemy airbase can be programmed. The code is mostly already there, since part of the current "retirement allowed" code checks to see whether it is currently within range of LBA.

The options we are requesting would make that check from the standpoint of which hex the reacting TF would go to. AI checks for reaction, determines end point of reaction move, checks for LBA or user-entered range from any LBA threat. If the end point for reaction move is within enemy LBA range, go through the routine again but subtract 1 from the allowable distance of the react move. Check end point again, if still within LBA, subtract 1 again and etc. Its not hard at all, and it aint "Deep Blue".

I don't understand, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding, why you are arguing against this.

I frequently encounter people who think that additional options are a bad idea, and I've never pretended to understand that kind of logic.

About "Standard Tactics" : Ron was talking about the SOP for US Carrier Group commanders during the war. Name a single instance during the Pacific War where a US carrier commander entered enemy LBA range without one of the following two assets : overwhelming force, or surprise (the 1942 Marshall raids). I have no doubt that this SOP was so SOP that it was documented in Naval Staff manuals.

What you choose to make your own personal standard tactics is your business, but don't try to debate what the US Navy's SOP was. There isn't a dispute about that.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 19
- 5/22/2002 10:33:37 PM   
osros

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 5/3/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]Mogami :

Your knowledge of the ability of programmers is lacking, and you are making incorrect assumptions.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Thems fighting words! I see a dgaad vs Mogami PBEM game..

Get in there & fight! :D

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 20
that would be NO contest - 5/23/2002 12:23:04 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		Mogami, agree with everything you've posted in this thread. Ignore works great but a topic that might cause a change to the game requires a response. There is nothing broke. Anyone who doesn't keep an OPERATIONAL leash on their TF's, whether CV's or others, deserves a trip to Davey Jones' Locker.

In a Coral Sea scenario, my first game, I got the Shoho too close to Port Moresby and a dive bomber put a 1000 pounder in her, severely damaging her. I screwed up, it was my FIRST game. I could have posted "No Fair! LBA got my CV!" but instead I learned from my mistake. I will learn the game, play a few hundred hours and then post appropriately. Matrix - please don't change a thing concerning operational control of the fleets, you got it right the first time! :)

In my opinion, We MUST NOT have a new setting for Carrier TF's.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 21
LBA React Options - 5/23/2002 12:28:24 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		As I posted in the other thread related to this topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering this option. However, it clearly needs to be hashed out more than just "avoid LBA" given some of the ranges in the game.

However, I have personally found the Do Not React orders, with their built in limited reaction ability (that might seem non-intuitive, but it's there) to be ideal for Carrier TFs in the vast majority of situations. Using these orders, I've won many engagements and haven't exposed my Carriers to LBA for a long, long time without significant micro-management.

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 dgaad)
Post #: 22
Re: LBA React Options - 5/23/2002 12:50:35 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]As I posted in the other thread related to this topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering this option. However, it clearly needs to be hashed out more than just "avoid LBA" given some of the ranges in the game.

However, I have personally found the Do Not React orders, with their built in limited reaction ability (that might seem non-intuitive, but it's there) to be ideal for Carrier TFs in the vast majority of situations. Using these orders, I've won many engagements and haven't exposed my Carriers to LBA for a long, long time without significant micro-management.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]


Erik : how about a user enterable variable representing avoidance range? That way, if an LBA has been more or less supressed, you could adjust the avoidance range to something that would allow you to enter LBA range, but not get close enough to trigger a surface reaction.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 23
- 5/23/2002 12:53:12 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		Could someone explain to me why having additional options in the retirement / react parameters is a bad idea? I'm not asking for anything that currently exists to be taken away, limited or changed.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 24
Re: that would be NO contest - 5/23/2002 12:53:24 AM   
Fuchida

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Stevenage, England
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B]Mogami, agree with everything you've posted in this thread. Ignore works great but a topic that might cause a change to the game requires a response. There is nothing broke. Anyone who doesn't keep an OPERATIONAL leash on their TF's, whether CV's or others, deserves a trip to Davey Jones' Locker.

In a Coral Sea scenario, my first game, I got the Shoho too close to Port Moresby and a dive bomber put a 1000 pounder in her, severely damaging her. I screwed up, it was my FIRST game. I could have posted "No Fair! LBA got my CV!" but instead I learned from my mistake. I will learn the game, play a few hundred hours and then post appropriately. Matrix - please don't change a thing concerning operational control of the fleets, you got it right the first time! :)

We MUST NOT have a new setting for Carrier TF's. [/B][/QUOTE]

No one is suggesting that bad tactics should not be punished.

However, the player has a limited control over the movement of his task forces, understandably so since this is an operational level game. Therefore those task forces should exhibt reasonable behaviour under a given set of circumstances.

Assume for arguments sake that I have a US carrier task force near San Cristobal, outside of LBA. If I spot an enemy carrier group making an end run around me to get at Santa Cruz then I would like to react toward it and launch strikes. If instead I spot a carrier task force near the Slot, I certainly do not want to react towards it to launch strikes because LBA will get me.

Under the current options I can choose react or don't react. If I choose react I stand the chance of getting hit by LBA, if I choose don't react, I stand the chance of the Japs getting past me unmolested to attack Santa Cruz

What I need is a third option. React but don't enter range of LBA (or probably more realistically don't go within x number of hexes of any enemy airbase). This is not because I want to get away with bad tactics but because I want my commanders to have the option to behave sensibly in a wide variety of situations.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 25
Re: Re: that would be NO contest - 5/23/2002 1:02:18 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fuchida
[B]

No one is suggesting that bad tactics should not be punished.

However, the player has a limited control over the movement of his task forces, understandably so since this is an operational level game. Therefore those task forces should exhibt reasonable behaviour under a given set of circumstances.

Assume for arguments sake that I have a US carrier task force near San Cristobal, outside of LBA. If I spot an enemy carrier group making an end run around me to get at Santa Cruz then I would like to react toward it and launch strikes. If instead I spot a carrier task force near the Slot, I certainly do not want to react towards it to launch strikes because LBA will get me.

Under the current options I can choose react or don't react. If I choose react I stand the chance of getting hit by LBA, if I choose don't react, I stand the chance of the Japs getting past me unmolested to attack Santa Cruz

What I need is a third option. React but don't enter range of LBA (or probably more realistically don't go within x number of hexes of any enemy airbase). This is not because I want to get away with bad tactics but because I want my commanders to have the option to behave sensibly in a wide variety of situations. [/B][/QUOTE]


Fuchida : I agree.


Consider the following :

This game is the engine that is going to be used for WitP. In that game, there will be much more varied terrain in the sense that you will have isolated islands that are completely out of the range of other islands for support.

Suppose there is an island that is a major base, like Truk, and is surrounded by many hexes of open sea? You might have a Jap carrier group operating there that you want to ambush. Suppose the enemy carrier group moves due north.

Under the current settings, if you set to react, your carrier group will stupidly enter LBA range of Truk and fight a carrier engagement at a huge disadvantage. If you set to Do Not React, you will not catch the group.

A third option would be React but Avoid LBA. Here, you could deploy the carrier group just outside the range of LBA, and the enemy carrier group that moves northwest will be caught by your carrier group which takes a react path outside of LBA, but still far enough and long enough to catch the enemy carriers.

The point is, the React command takes NO NOTICE of enemy LBA threats, and this is totally against the historical SOP of all belligerents of the period. The third option to react but stay out of LBA is something that WAS SOP for the belligerents of the period, but we players cannot do that without close supervision of our own carrier's position and movement.

I want a command to automate to some extent what I do already. Its becoming tedious to count hexranges from LBA so my carrier group avoids LBA. I do the nearly ALL THE TIME, while at the same time I lose the extra movement that I should be entitled to under a REACT status because I know that the REACTION will be stupidly controlled by the code precisely because it isn't cognizant of LBA threats. I shouldn't have to do it this way, it should be an additional option in TF behavior controls. Any sequence of activity that players repeat over and over again needs to be *seriously* considered as a candidate for some feature enhancement - and this is a principle that extends well beyond the wargaming community.

MATRIX : Please also consider that there are a number of people who are not excellent tacticians who are playing this game and getting easily frustrated by carrier group reactions that result in LBA attacks which sink their carriers. This segment of your market will largely abandon the game without additional operational controls that are both easy to understand and provide them with more of an enjoyable experience. This particular operational control request is not something being implemented just to satisfy those people, however, as we have said, its something that was in fact SOP for all belligerents historically.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 26
- 5/23/2002 1:55:20 AM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline 		I agree with dgaad that something should be done simply because, at the moment, the "react to enemy" option is far too hazardous for carriers which pretty much renders it useless (with respect to carriers at least). Everyone of us who made a pertinent experience with "react to enemy" will set it to "off" for good. (I do not even mention the micromanagment issue resulting from having it otherwise).

Certainly, "avoid LBA" is not the thing to go with, but there are several, relatively easily implementable modifier variables which would really help to get more sensible results if they were integrated into the decision routine (in a probablistic, not in a deterministic way). Especially "distance in hexes from bases with airports>=4" seems a good variable to me. Make the decision to follow an enemy TF less likely the closer this action will take your TF to a size 4 airport of the enemy (maybe the estimated amount of planes there should be taken into account, too).


Hartmann

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 27
- 5/23/2002 2:19:03 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
[B]Everyone of us who made a pertinent experience with "react to enemy" will set it to "off" for good. (I do not even mention the micromanagment issue resulting from having it otherwise).

Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

A good point, Hartmann.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 28
Differing views - 5/23/2002 5:30:27 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, I have been in accord with your request for the options. I also have described how to avoid the problem in lieu of a patch (not ready yet) I also have noticed the 'micro managers' have not had the bad LBA reaction. If you leave those decisions to the AI before there exists the option you will continue to get the result you do not desire. Since the issue is really one of control. The micro mangers will most likely after a patch is made available continue to manage their TF's as before.
If my recon spotted a TF approaching as described above I would direct it's movements as I saw fit. The TF near Lunga would not trigger my TF into a bad reaction. (I don't want my TF's reacting period. except for the limited reaction for tactical reasons that already takes place when TF is set to "do not react"
There is no problem dgaad, everyone is in favor of the requested toggle. My expressions are just for the present conditions. In regard to Deep Blue you again missed my real point. The AI cannot adjust it's behavior to your plans, you must adjust your plans and operational control to the AI. Having an AI that could understand what you really intend when you make and deploy and move a TF would require quite a bit more interface. No matter how many options for TF behavior are installed the micro managers will still have better results since they are moving their assets according to their plan rather then adjusting the plan every turn to account for how the AI moved the TF's. My TF's never go into a hex unless I expressly tell them to. (except of course for that very minor tactical adjustment reaction)
It is not my nature or desire to make posts merely to disagree with someone else. If I cannot make a positive contribution as a response I refrain from posting anything. I have been trying to show players who encounter the LBA reaction there are ways of avoiding it, only this and nothing more. Styles of play and operational outlooks are the concerns of each person and nobody's business but their own. If I have sounded like I am criticizing anyone I am sorry since this was not my aim.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 29
- 5/23/2002 5:56:22 AM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline 		Well, even if there will be a patch tweaking the "react to enemy" option satisfyingly, there will still be situations where I *want* to micromanage things, too. No problem with that. :)

Of course, noone demands that the computer aided management does everything perfectly, because - if we would take this to the extreme - it would in the end mean that we've got nothing left to do but watch "Deep Blue" play the game for us.

So I hope it is now crystal clear that we do not want the "react to enemy" option anticipate all our ideas. We just want it to be sensible to a degree that it can be trusted in those 75% of not-so-vital-and-decisive situations, that's all.

The debate is in fact comparable to the CAP issue. We don't demand the routine to organize the CAP *perfectly*. Just that it does its job better to a degree where we can concentrate on other things, and only micromanage the CAP when it is really important.

Hartmann

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Controlling TFs with React/Retirement - A Feature Discussion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.984