Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 6/5/2002 8:49:38 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		I doubt there will be anything in this patch to address the issue, but like I said, some options have been floated.

Adding a check for surface combat when TFs that happen to ocupy the same hex during the turn will not add significantly to the number of surface engagements, At a rather siginicant penalty, as it force the game to run lots of little increments advancing everyting proportinally to see when a "close quarters situation" develops. The rarity of the occurance doesn't seem to justify the significant effort required for marginal gain.

As the player, with the advantage of a hex grid, you have a significant information advantage over your realife counterpart, for whom a few degrees of error in a stern chase or losing sight of the quarry do to smoke screening or squals made a pursuit difficult.

Search planes added a good capability, but tended to be slow, short on endurance and often rendered ineffective by cloud cover. If it was as easy as you indicate, Why did it take so long to hunt down the Bismarck? The Atlantic battles were largely supported by landbased search planes and the much higher submarine density. Even the it took many days of cat and mouse that often resulted in the escape of teh quarry.

We forget the technology of the times and to get a magnetic compass navigated search plane to KNOW WHERE HE WAS WHEN HE REPORTED THE CONTACT was subject to errors on order of a hex! You had to fly a compass bearing that was +/- several degrees, in winds that could off from your weather briefing by many knots in almost any direction. No GPS back then...

THere were fewer such engaements in the pacific because the immensely larger scale of the problem.

The "solution" wold make "alternative strategies and tactics" far more efective than they were in real life because you have a far superior situational awareness and the luxury of no navigation errors...

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 31
- 6/5/2002 9:17:13 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		What about a simple reaction move check only at the beginning/end of each turn? If you're within a few hexes, have your orders configured correctly, the right commander, ect. you would have the possibility of a limited (say 2-3 hexes tops) reaction move occuring against spotted enemy TF's at that time. That would be operational level control...you've ordered your TF commander to patrol a particular area, then making something happen is up to him within realistic constraints. Same thing would work for CV TF's. Put the right man in the right place, with the right guidance, and let him make the tactical decisions.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 32
- 6/5/2002 9:23:54 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		Where it becomes really noticeable is when dealing with choke points like 'The Slot', the various straits between the islands and the approaches to harbours like Gilli Gilli.

I tend to monitor these and place Subs on permanent overwatch for passing convoys etc. I'm not too bothered that enemy ships sail straight through these submarine pickets as their primary mission is not to sink the enemy but merely to report their presence.

However, if I were to station a surface group in such a location I would expect some chance of intercepting an enemy TF passing through it.

30 miles may be a large expanse of ocean but on a clear day a British masthead lookout could see the topmasts of a French frigate 9 miles away so a picket line of 6 Destroyers ought to be able to spot anything moving through the hex they are in especailly if you know what direction they will be coming from.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 33
- 6/5/2002 9:34:24 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]What about a simple reaction move check only at the beginning/end of each turn? If you're within a few hexes, have your orders configured correctly, the right commander, ect. you would have the possibility of a limited (say 2-3 hexes tops) reaction move occuring against spotted enemy TF's at that time. That would be operational level control...you've ordered your TF commander to patrol a particular area, then making something happen is up to him within realistic constraints. Same thing would work for CV TF's. Put the right man in the right place, with the right guidance, and let him make the tactical decisions. [/B][/QUOTE]

This gave me another idea. What about MINES?

Surely mined hexes have to be tested when a TF sails through them so why not add a second test for the existence of an enemy TF. Then if there is one the TF's move can be interdicted until the end of the phase subject to a spot check. Two opposing TF's could still sail straight past each other but at least those on deliberate picket duty would have a chance to intercept something.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 34
- 6/5/2002 9:56:29 PM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline 		My experience suggests that MINES are treated just like ships; end points only.

Anyone confirm this?

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 35
Mines... - 6/5/2002 10:07:20 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Moving through a mined hex can result in hitting a mine, you don't have to begin or end your move in the hex.

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 Pkunzipper)
Post #: 36
- 6/5/2002 10:59:34 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Mines are a lot easier because they don't move. I'm not sure if mines only get you if you end up there, does seem to be that way, but I recall one case where I think I hit a minefield in route?

Anyway, for ships the paths not only have to cross, but the ships have to be there at the same time. The vagueries of the hex grid don't help...

If a TF "Acts like minefield" and sits in a hex the entire turn, its easier to quickly figure out, that is the line along which possible future tweaks may be made, so you can patrol a choke point by begining the turn there with no movement orders (patrolling).

But again this may risk being abused and causing ahistorical numbers of, or situations, that could make the cure worse than the disease.

Gary et. al. reads the forums and give consideration to what gets reported, others of us chime in with suggestions, but ultimately the balance between parts of the game is delicate, so we will go slow with changes of this nature.

Its easy to look "up from the bottom" and say a certain tactical option that you may want to exploit isn't available and envision ways to fix it. But the top down result, care must be taken not to make the cure potentially worse than the disease...through the ability to ahistorically exploit it.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 37
- 6/5/2002 11:17:01 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		There are a lot of new combat reports during the surface action to give some insight into what sort of damage appears to be happening (your look outs get carreid away sometimes)

Penetrations don't give just "critical hit" but "serious damage" or Critical damage to give you an idea of how "good your damage roll was".

reports of listing now are made, (and counterflooding), Engine damage, Comms and electrical, deck explosions, apparanet internal secondary explosions and fires, etc.

These results are still abstract in their effect to a major extent, but gie you an idea of teh type of damage (flotation, system, or fire) damage you are doing and as stated above "how good the damage roll roll was" (within the limits of fog of war)

The new penetration routines and hit loaction determination fix the previous problems with deck penetrations (they are very rare now except to destroyers with inconsequetial armor) and fix teh major probelm of heavy class vulnerability to light class.

The Japanese "tin-clad" cruisers have a real rough time with the decently armored Allied CLs and CA's are to be greatly feared if all you have are DD"s and CL's (but torps can get lucky, and you can have the occassional Adm Hipper in the Barants Sea situation...IF you meet a BB you better hope you have one, or have a LOT of DDs for fodder to start fires topside on her and hope the Capt gets spooked...or pray for lots of Torp hits...

I think these changes improve teh results considerably, especially in class mismatch engagements (ther appears to be a reason for CA armor now ;) ) and the communications of "what is going on" greatly enhances the immersiveness of surface battles.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 38
- 6/6/2002 2:02:08 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]There are a lot of new combat reports during the surface action to give some insight into what sort of damage appears to be happening (your look outs get carreid away sometimes)

Penetrations don't give just "critical hit" but "serious damage" or Critical damage to give you an idea of how "good your damage roll was".

reports of listing now are made, (and counterflooding), Engine damage, Comms and electrical, deck explosions, apparanet internal secondary explosions and fires, etc.

These results are still abstract in their effect to a major extent, but gie you an idea of teh type of damage (flotation, system, or fire) damage you are doing and as stated above "how good the damage roll roll was" (within the limits of fog of war)

The new penetration routines and hit loaction determination fix the previous problems with deck penetrations (they are very rare now except to destroyers with inconsequetial armor) and fix teh major probelm of heavy class vulnerability to light class.

The Japanese "tin-clad" cruisers have a real rough time with the decently armored Allied CLs and CA's are to be greatly feared if all you have are DD"s and CL's (but torps can get lucky, and you can have the occassional Adm Hipper in the Barants Sea situation...IF you meet a BB you better hope you have one, or have a LOT of DDs for fodder to start fires topside on her and hope the Capt gets spooked...or pray for lots of Torp hits...

I think these changes improve teh results considerably, especially in class mismatch engagements (ther appears to be a reason for CA armor now ;) ) and the communications of "what is going on" greatly enhances the immersiveness of surface battles. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then there's only one thing left to say, and that is

WHOO HOO!!! :D

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 39
- 6/6/2002 3:10:51 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]What about a simple reaction move check only at the beginning/end of each turn?[/QUOTE]

The problem with "reaction" at more than a single hex or so is the "chain reaction" problem, especially around the Slot... If TF A reacts to B and moves out of range of C reacting to B and A then reacts to C you can get some nasty 'infinite loops' or other logic bombs that can lead to really bizzare cases of multiple TFs chasing each others tail, or the "but the stupid thing went after THAT TF, I wanted it go after THE OTHER one... or the "I'll put a gauntlet of week TFS' to casue the enmy to stop and never get where they want to go". It really measn a LOT of new code and LOT of testing to put the required guards in against "gamey" behavior.


And the possibility of all sots of gamey tactics of sending out small single ship task forces to try to "soak off" reaction, stream raids to "clear the way of reactors"...it can readily get way out of hand...

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 40
- 6/6/2002 5:21:14 AM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]

The problem with "reaction" at more than a single hex or so is the "chain reaction" problem, especially around the Slot... If TF A reacts to B and moves out of range of C reacting to B and A then reacts to C you can get some nasty 'infinite loops' or other logic bombs that can lead to really bizzare cases of multiple TFs chasing each others tail, or the "but the stupid thing went after THAT TF, I wanted it go after THE OTHER one... or the "I'll put a gauntlet of week TFS' to casue the enmy to stop and never get where they want to go". It really measn a LOT of new code and LOT of testing to put the required guards in against "gamey" behavior.


And the possibility of all sots of gamey tactics of sending out small single ship task forces to try to "soak off" reaction, stream raids to "clear the way of reactors"...it can readily get way out of hand... [/B][/QUOTE]

I see your point but I suspect its only a matter of time before someone learns how to exploit the no mid-move interception feature. I've already discovered its possible to charge down enemy CV's if you time it right.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 41
- 6/6/2002 8:48:20 AM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		Paul wrote:

"If a TF "Acts like minefield" and sits in a hex the entire turn, its easier
to quickly figure out, that is the line along which possible future tweaks
may be made, so you can patrol a choke point by begining the turn there
with no movement orders (patrolling)."

This would be a very big improvement over what we have now. :)
And it would avoid the raised issue of TF's chasing each other
all over the place in some sort of goofy chain reaction.

As long as the player can send a surface combat TF to any hex
he wants with orders to "react to enemy", so that if the TF spots
enemy ships passing through that hex, the commander will make
his best effort to intercept and engage those ships.


P.S. I want to further clarify what I mean, since it might have
come across wrong above.

Surface combat TF's need the ability to intercept enemy TF's whether
either of the TF's are in mid course or at a destination hex.
Making TF's like mines once they get somewhere and don't
move doesn't help, because I believe it's been pointed out
that TF's can already be ordered to go to a destination hex
and have the TF react once they are there sitting at the
destination hex. So that wouldn't change anything.

If the player sends a surface combat TF up the slot and a
jap CA TF is coming down the slot, there should be a
chance that they will spot each other once they both enter
the same hex as they travel along their routes. Once one TF
spots the other, and if the TF has previously been
given orders to engage enemy ships, then the commander
would try to intercept and fire on the enemy TF.

If the other TF has orders to retire (or if the commander decides
he had better run because he's not a very aggressive CO or
because he sees he's outclassed), and if it's speed is close to, equal
to or better than the attacking TF, then there is a very good
chance that only a few shots would be traded, if any. But if the
evading TF is significantly slower than the attacking one (or if the
other TF commander also chooses to engage), then there should
be a real chance that they can force the fight on the fleeing TF.
The exact speed difference between each TF, commander
experience, weather, time of day, etc. would obviously play a
big role in all this.

And this would only apply to TF's that pass through the same hex,
not other nearby hexes. This will keep potential encounters from
becoming common, and yet provide for realistic battle opportunities
between surface combat TF's that want to fight it out
(or slow TF's that can't get away from the attacking TF). :)

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 42
- 6/6/2002 9:46:48 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		"looping"; OP points are already part of the game. What if a TF that reacts expended OP points...checking OP points could be part of the pre-reaction move check. TF's refueling, expended all their movement points for the turn, or that have just completed a reaction move would flunk this test. All newly created TF's could be automatically defaulted to "do not react" to help reduce the number of TF's needing to be "checked" on any given turn.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 43
- 6/6/2002 3:56:28 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dunedain
[B]

Surface combat TF's need the ability to intercept enemy TF's whether
either of the TF's are in mid course or at a destination hex.
Making TF's like mines once they get somewhere and don't
move doesn't help, because I believe it's been pointed out
that TF's can already be ordered to go to a destination hex
and have the TF react once they are there sitting at the
destination hex. So that wouldn't change anything.

:) [/B][/QUOTE]

I think eveyone agree's that in an ideal world TF's would be capable of interception at any point along their movement path.

However, as Paul was quick to point out UV has not been designed with the capability to do that and building it in after the event is going to be impractical.

My idea to use the MINE sub-routine to test for the existence of a TF along the route of the subject TF was a compromise solution that gave a limited opportunity the intercept a moving TF with a carefully placed Surface force.

Thus in your example placing a strong Cruiser TF on overwatch in the slot would produce a good chance that any enemy convoy coming down it would trigger a surface intercept and a battle.

Personally, I am prepared to accept that two opposing TF's both en-route somewhere else are more likely to slip past each other than if one of them was specifically assigned to patrol and interception duties.

Again! at the risk of flogging this dead horse even more I must just add that if the turn length was reduced to 12 hours then this problem would largely disappear simply because the TF's would probably end their moves within reaction distance of each other.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 44
- 6/7/2002 3:06:29 AM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		juliet7bravo: Those are some good ideas on how to realistically limit
when surface combat TF's could attempt to intercept enemy TF's. :)
A surface combat TF that just finished trying to engage an enemy
TF but the enemy TF got away, is likely not going to be in a good
position to attempt another interception for awhile. On the next impulse,
they could try again, if an enemy TF was present in their current hex
during that impulse. Whether either TF was moving through the hex
or stopped in that hex shouldn't matter, though.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 45
- 6/7/2002 4:21:22 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		I think that would quickly get some folks to attemt to "soak off" op points form a large task force by getting it chase after smaller fast TFs sent in front of the "main body" while there is som potential historic value in such, I think for teh most part it would get players thinking up ways to 'game the system' The current system is bassically a big randomizer, and while it has its problems in choke points, I think in most games reported, you are seeing fairly historical numbers of "blue water" surface actions and an historically difficult time chaseing down damaged survivors.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 46
- 6/7/2002 6:46:05 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		Yes, but generally you have to expend a serious amount of time, effort and tedium trying to make those engagements happen. Plotting intercepts on a specific hex by hex basis is tactical. It's either an operational level game or a tactical level game, one or the other, and right now it's really neither one.

"Soaking off" reaction/guard forces is strictly historical, and that is precisely why they are reactive forces. The solution is very easy, in game terms you have a main body set "do not react" squatting on the OBJ. The enemy can fritter away small elements trying to suck off your reactive elements and weaken your forces. Alternatively he has the option of sending in heavier forces in an effort to chop up your light reactive forces in detail. As the Operational Commander you would have the option of making the reactive forces just as powerful or weak as you like in responce, with orders set as you desire, or to sortie with the main body...this is "operational control", and is a vast improvement in gaming pleasure and realism over "I'll set a mother huge TF on top the base so that anything he sends in has to fight it". Besides, at sea intercepts shouldn't happen each time, every time for the reasons put forth here, and all the factors leading to a react/don't react decision should come into play during the reaction check.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 47
- 6/7/2002 7:37:44 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]The solution is very easy, in game terms you have a main body set "do not react" squatting on the OBJ.[/QUOTE]

Thats basically how it works now?

I thought the problem was with units not intercepting "while en-route" somewhere? I sounds like your talking more about choke-point barriers?

If you want to block a choke point, then the "Stationary TF as minefield" works pretty well, with the ability to try to 'sucker it" into going after fodder while your main force slipsby, unless it makes short shrift ot he fodder and turns back.

Once you get out of a chocke point situation the difficulty bringing an enemy TF to battle is daunting and I'm not sure expending a lot of CPU cycles to check for situations that might occur 3 or 4 times in a game is really worth it?

I'm not saying its a bad idea, just looking at "bang for programming buck" value.

What do you feel "all teh factors are" that need to be considered in the reaction check?

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 48
- 6/7/2002 8:43:24 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		"The solution is very easy, in game terms you have a main body set "do not react" squatting on the OBJ."

That is how it works, period. That isn't very realistic or "fun", to be basically shuttling TF's from port to port.

From what you're saying, interceptions "en route" would be prohibitive in CPU time...I can understand and live with that.

By a limited reaction move, I (and most people here I think) are talking about being able to station a TF in hex X/Y, with "react to" and "patrol" orders and having some hope of it making a limited reaction move to close with and engage the enemy instead of putzing around trying to guesstimate where they're going and getting your TF into the same hex manually. This could take place as part of the end of turn sequence...no moving parts. Currently only Air TF's will do so against enemy air TF's, and they usually do it and end up deep into enemy AZOC's.

I can think of scores of opportunities for surface TF reaction moves occuring every game. I've had surface TF's end up in hexes adjoining or closely adjoining enemy TF's numerous times, even Carrier TF's socked in by weather...they might as well be on Mars.

Checks...OP check, Commanders aggression level check, sighting reports and how "solid" they are, weather, radar, fuel state, enemy AZOC. That would do for starters.

I know there's movement checks going on already...you have OP checks, "fleeing from enemy carrier" checks, carrier reaction checks...

Two "operational" fixes (1) a limited EOT reaction moves, (2) being able to set limits to carrier reaction moves, would, IMO add a GREAT deal to the game from the operational end.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 49
- 6/7/2002 12:30:51 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		J7B - You make good points and I sense we are arguing in circles a bit. There won't be any thing related to this in this patch I don;t think, it would probably take a week or two of coding and at least a month of testing to do even a minor change of this sort and be sure it ws fixing more than it was breaking. IT has implications of the AI too tht would be hard.

But a variety of things are under consideration for the future.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 50
- 6/7/2002 1:47:05 PM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline 		I think that reacting to surface forces would be a nice addition to the game.

However, I've been pretty successful in forcing interceptions of crippled ships. You have a pretty good idea where the enemy is going and in restrict waters they have limited choices.

I generally pick a point 4 hexs from the current location back the enemies main base. If the TF is slightly damaged it will be going speed 4 and you'll catch at night. If it is severely damaged it will be going speed 2 and you'll have a day surface battle. Yes sometimes the go speed 3 and you miss them completely or they use a different route but... That's war plans for you.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 51
- 6/7/2002 6:12:05 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		Paul...understood. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the next patch sounds like it's going to tweak a variety of issues. I do think these "Command and Control" issues are the 2 biggest issues that need to be discussed and sorted out in the future.

strollen; yeah, it works sometimes, but that's taking tactical command. You're probably always have instances were you need to do so, but in an "operational level" game the ships/TF Commanders oughta do more than sit there like lumps waiting for you to hand carry them around. If you can get them in approximately the right location and with the right orders, your TF commanders ought to have some limited autonomous ability to have/take the initiative to close that last 1-3 hex gap on their own.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 52
- 6/7/2002 8:33:57 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		Paul

Please make any significant change to the current system an optional rule. I'm sure there are others like me who are happy with the current method of initiating surface combat and are worried about the potential for "gaming the system" that allowing picket line tactics and mid-turn interceptions will create. Thanks.

elmo3

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 53
- 6/7/2002 9:28:47 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		The current system is totally gamey and already allows itself to be "gamed" in a variety of ways. One key way that strikes me offhand is the current thread about attacking major bases...just move to an empty beach next/close to the port and unload. Bammo...now you've created what is effectively a new base side by side with the base you're attacking and can unload fuel/supplies (at the same rate you could inside the enemy base during a frontal assault), base ships out of it, your screening ships can "anchor" in it for long periods, shuttle next door to bombard the enemy base without taking system damage from being "at sea", repair damage, plus resupply fuel/ammo each turn. You've did it totally without risk of interception by enemy surface units, and your transport TF's can move in/out of it unescorted by anything other than an ASW element at will without even the slightest risk of interception by enemy surface units. Now THAT is "gaming the system".

It's an "operational level" game, let's focus on operations and let our TF commanders earn their pay by making some tactical decisions.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 54
- 6/8/2002 12:05:45 AM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		I'm no expert on the Solomons Campaign. So can anyone give a couple of examples, even one, where an intentional interception and subsequent surface combat occurred more than 30 miles from a base (i.e. not in a base hex) during the campaign? I'm not talking about hunting down cripples. Even if there were several then we're still only talking about such an event happening once each 100 days of the time period covered by the campaign.

If that is a good rough estimate then that would make implementing such a feature a very low priority IMO. It's all well and good if the game allows people to explore "what-if" type surface encounters as an option, but it should not allow an unrealistically high number of them as a matter of course.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 55
- 6/8/2002 12:15:12 AM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline 		I can't think of any surface engagement that was fougt more than 20 miles from land in this campaign.

An example of what did happen in the war, that CANNOT happen in this game, due to the end point find only feature, First Savo Island.

Look at the map.

Lunga and Tulagi and the hex next to Lunga towrds Shortland.

That hex is Savo Island and Tassoforanga (?) Point.

In that hex, the Allied cruiser/DD force screened the Transports in Lunga hex, over 10 miles away.

The goal of the IJN was to get through that screen and hit those transports.

The screen in that hex in UV will not interfere if the plotted end point is Lunga.

The IJN will shoot throught Savo and hit Lunga.

The End Point Design Decision (EPDD) is most glaring at this zero to one hex passing in the night situation.

Actually, the "excitement" of the slot is fairly mitigated by this design.

Ships won't go "Bump" in the night, so to speak.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 56
- 6/8/2002 12:15:28 AM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]
It's an "operational level" game, let's focus on operations and let our TF commanders earn their pay by making some tactical decisions. [/B][/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, as has been documented elsewhere the TF Commanders can't be trusted to make sensible decisions. So, most players are switching 'React to enemy' and 'Retirement Allowed' off.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 57
- 6/8/2002 12:46:51 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]The current system is totally gamey and already allows itself to be "gamed" in a variety of ways. One key way that strikes me offhand is the current thread about attacking major bases...just move to an empty beach next/close to the port and unload. Bammo...now you've created what is effectively a new base side by side with the base you're attacking and can unload fuel/supplies (at the same rate you could inside the enemy base during a frontal assault), base ships out of it, your screening ships can "anchor" in it for long periods, shuttle next door to bombard the enemy base without taking system damage from being "at sea", repair damage, plus resupply fuel/ammo each turn. You've did it totally without risk of interception by enemy surface units, and your transport TF's can move in/out of it unescorted by anything other than an ASW element at will without even the slightest risk of interception by enemy surface units. Now THAT is "gaming the system".
. [/B][/QUOTE]
Dont follow you. You cannot repair ships at most beaches - they will be port 1 or 0. You can only refuel/rearm if you ship in supplies/fuel. This supply hex can then be attacked by the enemy (air/naval). TF in a hex can still be attacked, even if docked - in fact that is the only time most level bombers (except naval specialists like Betty's) will hit them. Walking 30 miles to attack the next hex will really take the edge off most troops, hence isn't a cake walk either. TF can be intercepted in either hex, since they will start in one, and finish in the other (unless the unload time is very short, in which case they would do better to be well out at sea heading for home at the end of the turn). Finally, the defender can of course, defend the beach in question by shipping supplies, garrisoning and fortifying it. What would be gamey is to force the attacker always to assault frontally in a 30mile hex!

Why is landing next door to the objective 'gamey'?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 58
- 6/8/2002 12:53:02 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]I can't think of any surface engagement that was fougt more than 20 miles from land in this campaign.

An example of what did happen in the war, that CANNOT happen in this game, due to the end point find only feature, First Savo Island.

Look at the map.

Lunga and Tulagi and the hex next to Lunga towrds Shortland.

That hex is Savo Island and Tassoforanga (?) Point.

In that hex, the Allied cruiser/DD force screened the Transports in Lunga hex, over 10 miles away.

The goal of the IJN was to get through that screen and hit those transports.

The screen in that hex in UV will not interfere if the plotted end point is Lunga.

The IJN will shoot throught Savo and hit Lunga.

The End Point Design Decision (EPDD) is most glaring at this zero to one hex passing in the night situation.

Actually, the "excitement" of the slot is fairly mitigated by this design.

Ships won't go "Bump" in the night, so to speak. [/B][/QUOTE]

You're thinking too precisely for the scale of the game. Savo Island can (in effect) happen just as reality. There is a slight abstraction in that (if you are correct as to the placement of Savo vs Lunga, and the hex boundary), the battle takes place 'slightly nearer the landing' (one hex over). The effect is just the same - hence no problem with the simulation. BTW a good naval battle at 1+hr and an average speed of close to 30 kts will actually take place in 2 or more hexes, and the game doesn't take account of that either. No big deal, the effect is captured.
You could, of course, set up the 'perfect' simulation. Just get yourself a network or really high spec PCs, and about 50 people a side, wait for someone to do about a zillion man years of programming, and than take about as long as the real thing to play it......

;)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 59
Refueling = Rearming - 6/8/2002 12:54:16 AM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline 		The rules state that you reload ammo in two ways:

1. Disband a TF in level 3 or greater port.
2. Refuel a TF.

Concerning 2, the rules are not clear on this.

Will a ship get reammoed if refueled at sea?

If that is the case, then we have a problem.

I can see getting some new ammo from a Replenish convoy, but not from refueling from say a BB or CV.

And, if you can via a Replenish Convoy, you should not get much ammo.

BTW, how many Supply Points are used when you get ship ammo?

Any at all?

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

1.563