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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 6/9/2002 2:20:20 AM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
[B]

Actually, last time I checked the poll

30% of your customer base said they weren't happy with the current balance of turn duration to ground scale.

70% satisfaction doesn't satisfy the 80:20 rule and can't be really be described as a 'vast majority'. [/B][/QUOTE]

BTW, please take a look at the "rate UV" poll. It is more like 95% of the people are satisfied by the game :p

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 91
- 6/9/2002 3:26:20 AM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		I'm sure overall satisfaction with UV is quite high, but that
doesn't mean there aren't things that need fixed.

For example, the naval gunnery modeling had some flaws in it
which produced very inaccurate results. But now in the latest patch
version it's been reported that these flaws have been corrected, and
it's made a huge improvement to surface combat.

By the way, a big thanks to Gary and the folks at 2x3 and Matrix for
fixing that gunnery problem! :)

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 92
- 6/9/2002 4:32:21 AM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline 		Yeah, the more I play, the more I think that the actual surface battles are what need tweaking most. I rarely have a surface battle where I think: "this is more or less what I expected". Instead, I almost always go :eek: :eek: :eek: !! ;)

Over time, I have posted some of those strange outcomes, but the most strange was when, recently, some 4 AKs and an AP managed to set several of my CAs on fire with their 3 inch guns, while my 15 ship TF all fired on one AK which didn't even sink until after the battle ...

At the moment, I almost solely rely on air warfare. :)

Hartmann

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 93
- 6/9/2002 6:04:00 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
[B]Yeah, the more I play, the more I think that the actual surface battles are what need tweaking most. I rarely have a surface battle where I think: "this is more or less what I expected". Instead, I almost always go :eek: :eek: :eek: !! ;)

Over time, I have posted some of those strange outcomes, but the most strange was when, recently, some 4 AKs and an AP managed to set several of my CAs on fire with their 3 inch guns, while my 15 ship TF all fired on one AK which didn't even sink until after the battle ...

At the moment, I almost solely rely on air warfare. :)

Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

Ok, I guess I won't bitch about the lone AK sinking 2 of 8 PT boats. Those .5" Browning getting belt hits and causing critical damage are pretty funny. Personally, I find about 1/2 the time the results are pretty much what expected, 1/4 of time the results are unlikely, and 1/4 of the time, I shake my head.

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 94
- 6/9/2002 6:09:02 AM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath
[B]Well the intel you got is not 100% correct.

WITP is going to be 60 miles a hex and 1 to 7 days. We are looking into the interception changes but it maybe a little while before they get into the game.

David [/B][/QUOTE]

Whew! Thank goodness for that. That should improve things no end.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 95
the bombardment situation needs the work most! - 6/9/2002 10:11:22 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		The present situation of the bombardment TFs ending one day 10-12 hexes away and then sailing in that whole distance, bombarding, and then sailing the whole distance back away before being sighted is the biggest weakness of the whole game, IMO. Since 10 hexes is 300 miles (or 10 hours at 30 knots), these TFs are travelling 600 to 720 nautical miles in the twelve hours of darkness, which is a physical impossibility for ships of WW2 vintage (actually, it's still impossible for large warships today). To do so would mean that the ships have a flank speed of 60 knots!

I have regularily seen a bombardment TF consisting of the Kongo class battlecruisers end the previous day in the China Strait (60 nm E of Gili Gili - I misquoted the distance in a post on a similar subject), sail in that night and return to the China Strait before being spotted - and this with a US 3CV TF patrolling just 120 nm south of the New Guinea shore about halfway between Gili Gili and Port Moresby. I cannot see the actual number of hexes involved at this moment, but I can guarantee that half of the time those ships were moving they were moving in daylight and so there should have been the possibility of an air strike from my CVs.

My preference would be to have the ship movement broken into two phases, night and day movement. The day movement should occur AFTER the morning air phase. This would end the problem of ships virtually travelling all their daily distance under the cover of darkness. I have no idea if the game code could support such a change but I think that doing so would greatly enhance the feel of the game. Instead of having the program check for contact in each and every hex a unit passes through, it need only be done twice a day (as opposed to the once a day we are seeing now).

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 96
very happy - 6/9/2002 1:38:49 PM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		From the patch list that David Heath posted, all the rough edges will be smoothed and I think the game will be ready for human vs human. I am like the current turn scale and the way surface combat is resolved. I have had TF's in adjacent hexes on patrol react into a hex and engage the enemy. The Tokyo Express was a historical fact and the game recreates its effectiveness. This is an operational game not a tactical one and that's what I want.

Paul Vebber's posts in defense of the game are right on and I especially like to hear that WITP is on tract to be a worthy successor to PACWAR. The idea of playing 4 years of WITP using 1 day turns is riduculous. There is a reason PacWar remains a classic 10 years later - it worked, in scale and results. I trust the team that made that game can do better with WITP. So Matrix and 2by3 - I know you have to listen to all the critics but for me IGNORE works great!

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Pkunzipper)
Post #: 97
Re: very happy - 6/9/2002 3:49:06 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B]The Tokyo Express was a historical fact and the game recreates its effectiveness.[/B][/QUOTE]

I afraid this is a 'red herring'.

The Tokyo Express is NOT a valid historical example of a bombardment mission consisting of major BB's coverng 720 miles of ocean in 12 hours bombarding a base with a fully developed air umbrella and escaping undetected. In fact it does more to support the argument that such a mission would NOT be viable in the real world.

For following reasons:

[list=1]
  • The Tokyo Express was a covert supply and reinforcement mission NOT a bombardment mission.
  • The largest single force involved consisted of 12 destroyers that managed to land 6,000 troops in a single night although normal night time operations were much smaller and involved no more than one or two DD's landing 900 men at a time.
  • The Japanese had air superiority over the slot for the entire duration that these landings were taking place. They were suspended in late October when it was realised there was no way to get larger forces through.
  • The only US air cover over Guadacanal was being provided by a partially constructed airbase at Henderson Field. Nimitz having withdrawn all CV's from the area. On the 16 October the US only had 34 planes available at Henderson Field (9 F4F4; 11 SBD; 7 P39 & 7 P400. Hardly a deterant for naval operations.
  • The engineers at Henderson Field did not start laying Bomber strips until December 42 and so the base could not launch effective naval strikes.
  • During the day the airfield was under air attack from Rabaul and when not providing CAP the defending planes were flying Ground Support against the Japanese beachhead and so were not in a position to spot the approach of the next landing force which could assemble in its staging area's relatively close-by without risk of detection. They certainly didn't sail 720 miles overnight to get there.
    [/list=1]

    I would also add the following extracts from

    [URL=http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-M-Guadalcanal.html]http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-M-Guadalcanal.html[/URL]

    On 12 October the American positions were subjected to a two-hour air attack by four waves of enemy bombers under fighter escort. At sunset the next day, a heavy bombardment of the perimeter and the airfield was begun by land-based artillery situated far up the coast. The effect of the bombardment was to deny the use of the airfield for the time being, and all air activity during that period was carried out from the newly completed fighter strip.

    Later the same night, a strong attack was made upon the American positions. The battleships Kongo and Haruna, screened by light cruiser Isuzu and eight destroyers, rained a continuous fire upon the airfield and the fighter strip for a period of 80 minutes.13 Flares from observation and spotting planes illuminated the area, and the fire was accurate.
    [Note: Henerson Field was neutralised, if only temporarily before the bombardment mission went in but it only had 34 planes including 11 SBD's on it anyway]

    ....Late October:... The growth in numbers and in effectiveness of our aviation on Henderson Field, together with the growing size and aggressiveness of the Navy's surface task groups, had forced the Japanese to resort to an inadequate and unsatisfactory system of supply and reinforcements for their troops on Guadalcanal.

    By the end of October, it had been decided to abandon, for the moment, attempts to send down troops and materiel by destroyer in hurried trips by night, for it had been learned that by such methods it was impossible to transport the tanks and heavy artillery that were badly needed on the island.

    [The Japanese therefore realised they needed to push a proper convoy through]

    Information received from the coastwatcher in the Buin-Faisi area served notice of the collecting at that point of a group of combat and transport vessels of imposing size--on 10 November there had been visible to him no less than 61 ships, including six cruisers, 33 destroyers, 17 transports, one large cargo liner, and smaller craft.76 Almost coincidentally with the arrival of this news came warning of an air strike, which was delivered on the morning of 11 November in two waves. Again on 12 November there was a heavy air raid on the shipping in the area, during which 30 of the 31 attacking enemy planes were shot

    When, on 12 November, enemy ships had first been seen approaching the island by search planes, it had been discovered that in addition to the combat craft, a group of supply ships and transports was also in motion in the same direction. On 14 November, at about 0830, these ships were seen again, once more on the move toward Guadalcanal. A short time later they were taken under a preliminary and not to successful attack by two search-planes from the Enterprise, recently repaired and operating to the south of Guadalcanal.

    [Note: The convoy is detected en-route]

    Aircraft from the Enterprise had been landed on Henderson Field in order to allow the parent ships to retire beyond danger of air attack. In spite of difficulties arising from lack of equipment on the field, they took an active part in the subsequent action.

    [Note: And attacked from the LBA]

    The main attack against the approaching transports began at 1300 when 40 Marine Corps planes from Henderson Field found the enemy force in the vicinity of the Russell Islands. The ensuing action was a slaughter. Planes were armed and fueled at the field for the relatively short run to the scene of the engagement, released their bomb-loads, and returned for new supplies. By 1500 planes from the Enterprise were making similar sorties, as were Army planes stationed on the field and B-17's from bases outside the island area.

    [Note: That this is in daylight operation]

    By nightfall the transports had been cut to pieces. The Japanese escort craft had left the scene early in the engagement and left the transports to their own devices. There was no air cover, and the only limitations upon the possibility of annihilating the force were those of time--(the attacks continued until nightfall)--and the fact, as stated before, that mud and lack of equipment on the field slowed up rearming of planes.

    When the engagement was broken off for the night, seven ships--Shinanogawa, Nako, Nagara, Sado, Canberra, Brisbane, and Arizona--had been sunk outright or were burning and dead in the water. During the night the remaining four, Yamazuki, Yamaura, Kinugawa, and Hirogawa, nevertheless stood in to Guadalcanal, preceded by the reinforced remnants of the covering force which had been turned back on 13 November. In the meanwhile, however, a comparable American group (the battleships Washington and South Dakota, and four destroyers) had arrived on the scene, and once more there was a heavy surface engagement.

    I hope this will finally lay to rest the suggestion that the 'Tokyo Express' in some way justifies the current procedure for conducting Bombardment Missions in UV. None of the IJN ships involved sailed 720 miles in a single night and no undetected Bombardment Missions were made on Henderson Field whilst the airbase was operational.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    • Post #: 98
    Re: Re: very happy - 6/9/2002 4:37:45 PM   
    HMSWarspite

     

    Posts: 1401
    Joined: 4/13/2002
    From: Bristol, UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    I afraid this is a 'red herring'.

    The Tokyo Express is NOT a valid historical example of a bombardment mission consisting of major BB's coverng 720 miles of ocean in 12 hours bombarding a base with a fully developed air umbrella and escaping undetected.
    [SNIP]

    Information received from the coastwatcher in the Buin-Faisi area served notice of the collecting at that point of a group of combat and transport vessels of imposing size--on 10 November there had been visible to him no less than 61 ships, including six cruisers, 33 destroyers, 17 transports, one large cargo liner, and smaller craft.76 Almost coincidentally with the arrival of this news came warning of an air strike, which was delivered on the morning of 11 November in two waves. Again on 12 November there was a heavy air raid on the shipping in the area, during which 30 of the 31 attacking enemy planes were shot

    When, on 12 November, enemy ships had first been seen approaching the island by search planes, it had been discovered that in addition to the combat craft, a group of supply ships and transports was also in motion in the same direction. On 14 November, at about 0830, these ships were seen again, once more on the move toward Guadalcanal. A short time later they were taken under a preliminary and not to successful attack by two search-planes from the Enterprise, recently repaired and operating to the south of Guadalcanal.

    [Note: The convoy is detected en-route]

    Aircraft from the Enterprise had been landed on Henderson Field in order to allow the parent ships to retire beyond danger of air attack. In spite of difficulties arising from lack of equipment on the field, they took an active part in the subsequent action.

    [Note: And attacked from the LBA]

    The main attack against the approaching transports began at 1300 when 40 Marine Corps planes from Henderson Field found the enemy force in the vicinity of the Russell Islands. The ensuing action was a slaughter. Planes were armed and fueled at the field for the relatively short run to the scene of the engagement, released their bomb-loads, and returned for new supplies. By 1500 planes from the Enterprise were making similar sorties, as were Army planes stationed on the field and B-17's from bases outside the island area.

    [Note: That this is in daylight operation]

    By nightfall the transports had been cut to pieces. The Japanese escort craft had left the scene early in the engagement and left the transports to their own devices. There was no air cover, and the only limitations upon the possibility of annihilating the force were those of time--(the attacks continued until nightfall)--and the fact, as stated before, that mud and lack of equipment on the field slowed up rearming of planes.
    [SNIP]
    I hope this will finally lay to rest the suggestion that the 'Tokyo Express' in some way justifies the current procedure for conducting Bombardment Missions in UV. None of the IJN ships involved sailed 720 miles in a single night and no undetected Bombardment Missions were made on Henderson Field whilst the airbase was operational. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Whilst I appreciate the issue here, you do yourself no favours by citing a transport mission (not 30kts, unless the Japanese have uprated a few ships whilst I wasn't looking;)), to show that a 30kts bombardment force couldn't work!
    BTW the bombardment force isn't moving 600-720 miles in a single night. It is covering that distance (in effect) in the time from near dusk (too late to launch and recover a strike on the TF at the current range), all night, and then late enough in the morning to launch search planes, locate the enemy, launch a strike, and fly to the TF. This is more like 16-18 hrs, although this is still a little fast. We have to look at the effects not the detailed mechanics here.
    Also BTW - let's all have a debate about the effect of 'winter' and 'summer'. Lunga is 10deg south of the equator. That means the length of the night must vary by several minutes. Omigod - major hole in the game:rolleyes:

    How's about we deem this issue well and truely registered with Matrix. I have yet to see their reply, and we have to accept that what ever is done will HAVE to be a small tweak to the system, not a major re-write. Lets stop asking for continuous search/interception checks, etc. (or at least do it in the WitP thread, where there IS a chance for change.) If Matrix 'knee-jerked' a response in the way some people have been suggesting, several other things will be even more broken. To give an example, swapping the daylight air and naval phases, to give LBA a chance to catch bombardments actually means that as dawn breaks, a full strike miraculously appears over the ships (in effect), with no searching delays, and no flight time (i.e. they took off in the dark, knowing where the target is!). I suspect that might be worse than the current issue. These bombardment forces CAN be countered, use surface TF (esp PT), mines, subs, etc. You will get the cripples in air strkes the next morning, and the AI isn't suicidal.

    I would like to know if giving bombardments an OP point cost is a practical fix though?

    _____________________________

    I have a cunning plan, My Lord

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 99
    - 6/9/2002 4:38:02 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
    [B]Now if you're talking about intercepting a TF on the high seas then please see my post on page 4 of this thread where I ask for real life examples from this campaign of it happening. So far there has been one marginal example, first Savo Island. Nobody else has come forward with another. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Not sure when this debate became limited to TF interception on the high seas. My understanding is that a TF will not interdict another in any hex other than the destination hex whether that hex is in open ocean, beach, or a narrow passage between two islands.

    Given that lookout visibility range is about 9 miles (an 18 mile radius), that some ships are equipt with radar and that others were equipt with seaplanes I don't see why it would be so difficult for a TF to spot another one passing through the same 30 mile stretch if ocean.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 100
    - 6/9/2002 4:56:07 PM   
    HMSWarspite

     

    Posts: 1401
    Joined: 4/13/2002
    From: Bristol, UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    Not sure when this debate became limited to TF interception on the high seas. My understanding is that a TF will not interdict another in any hex other than the destination hex whether that hex is in open ocean, beach, or a narrow passage between two islands.

    Given that lookout visibility range is about 9 miles (an 18 mile radius), that some ships are equipt with radar and that others were equipt with seaplanes I don't see why it would be so difficult for a TF to spot another one passing through the same 30 mile stretch if ocean. [/B][/QUOTE]


    I think there is a misconception here - I have definately caught CV on the high seas with a surface TF. The issue is that interception is only checked at the end of the phase (not just ultimate destination). If I am correct, this gives you a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of having a chance at intercepting a cruising TF (if you know its course), and 1 in 8 or worse of a sprinting one.

    The ability to detect a TF in the same hex isn't the issue - given the area of ocean a TF covers, they are almost bound to spot eachother. The game doesn't model it - IIRC Matrix have never justified the omission by the physics, but on the CPU load to do it. In RL, the lack of interceptions is down to 'rarely being in the correct hex' ('cos there is a lot of ocean out there), nothing to do with whether you can miss TF in the same hex. You can get the same effect as interception by close patrol of objectives. The only time this is not true is if you have 2 or 3 objectives close (but>1 hex from each other), and one choke point leading to all 3. In RL. you could patrol the choke point, and 'guarantee' interception, but in the game, you would have to have 3 TF, or guess the objective. Now if someone would just give me the hex numbers of where that happens on the map...;)

    I agree that mid ocean interception mid move would be 'nice', but it is not a show stopper. IIRC we managed for 10 years in PACWAR! If there were nothing else for Matrix to fix, I would say fix it (and force me to get a bigger computer!). However, there is lots of stuff to fix/program for WitP!

    _____________________________

    I have a cunning plan, My Lord

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 101
    Re: Re: Re: very happy - 6/9/2002 5:49:30 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
    [B]
    Whilst I appreciate the issue here, you do yourself no favours by citing a transport mission (not 30kts, unless the Japanese have uprated a few ships whilst I wasn't looking;)), to show that a 30kts bombardment force couldn't work!


    I would have quoted a bombardment mission if I could have found one. but the only one I could find detail on was the bombardment by the BB's Konga and Haruna on 12 October. I think this was preceded by a bombardment by CA's the night before but in any event both these attacks occured when Henderson Field was out of action and so are not valid examples.

    The point about the operation on the 12 November was that by then Henderson Field was able to give some attention to Naval issues because the Japanese had already abandoned 'Tokyo Express' and the situation on the ground was begining to ease.

    The attack by a 2 BB's 1 CL and 11 DD's heading toward Guadalcanal on 13 November was really an extension of the battle begun on the 12 November and this time the Japanese were sighted before they reached the island.

    This battle ended with aircraft from Henderson Field sinking the Hiei.

    quote:


    BTW the bombardment force isn't moving 600-720 miles in a single night.....although this is still a little fast. We have to look at the effects not the detailed mechanics here.


    Exactly. And the effect we have to look at is the same as if the BB's were allowed to cover 720 miles in a single night. Which as has the effect of giving it almost total immunity to air attack and allowing it to perform a Bombardment mission of a heavily protected US base without risk of detection and air attack.

    quote:


    If Matrix 'knee-jerked' a response in the way some people have been suggesting, several other things will be even more broken. To give an example, swapping the daylight air and naval phases, to give LBA a chance to catch bombardments actually means that as dawn breaks, a full strike miraculously appears over the ships (in effect), with no searching delays, and no flight time (i.e. they took off in the dark, knowing where the target is!). I suspect that might be worse than the current issue.


    I agree, I think the solution to this issue needs careful consideration. In fact the only thing that is keeping this debate going is the ongoing attempt by Matrix to suggest that in some way it is not a problem that needs to be addressed at all.

    quote:


    These bombardment forces CAN be countered, use surface TF (esp PT), mines, subs, etc. You will get the cripples in air strikes the next morning, and the AI isn't suicidal.


    No they can't. Well not in my game anyway.

    Use of surface TF's: is a direct voilation of my strategy for #17 of avoiding surface combat. Anyway I don't have the ships and PT boats aren't available in this scenario. Even if I won the survivors would be finished off by air strikes from Rabaul.

    Mines: Subs won't lay mines in the beach hexes around Gilli Gilli I've tried repeatedly. I have also tried using DM's but they get detected and sunk by planes from the enemy LBA at Rabaul even though they are on the fringes of the Rabaul air umbrella. Presumably you can't lay mines at night.

    Subs: Subs do not interdict enemy TF's in mid-move and go into dock as soon as they are placed on a base hex or beach. Even if they could attack they would be faced with an 11 DD escort in shallow water.

    Hence the frustration that these BB's are able to move in and out of LBA air range with impunity.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 102
    - 6/9/2002 6:08:29 PM   
    elmo3

     

    Posts: 5820
    Joined: 1/22/2002
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    ...snip...

    Given that lookout visibility range is about 9 miles (an 18 mile radius), that some ships are equipt with radar and that others were equipt with seaplanes I don't see why it would be so difficult for a TF to spot another one passing through the same 30 mile stretch if ocean. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Then you should read an account of the first battle of Savo Island. The two Allied picket DD's with radar failed to spot the Japanese TF even at close range. Allied spotters failed to see the Japanese TF before they fired due to squalls around the island. No Allied seaplanes were flying that night. The Allied spotters did see enemy planes overhead but assumed they were friendly. Even after the Japanese opened fire some Allied ships remaing unaware of their presence because the general warning did not reach them. It is not as simple or automatic as you make it sound.

    I've asked anyone to give examples of interceptions taking place somewhere other than within close proximity to a base, and I may have confused you or others by using the term "high seas". I believe virtually all, if not in fact all, surface combat occurred close to a base which would translate to a destination hex and is already possible in the game now. People have explaind how to intercept TF's in transit by manual calculations and a little luck. My objection to allowing a program check for every possible in transit interception is that it could easily result in an unrealistically high number of such encounters which will distort historical ship damage and losses to unreaonably high levels. "Unreasonably high" levels in this case doesn't mean exact historical levels but much higher levels than otherwise achievable.

    Anyway, Paul has said some sort of in transit interception capability is being considered. Guess we'll all have to wait and see what they come up with.

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 103
    - 6/9/2002 6:16:01 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
    [B]
    I think there is a misconception here - I have definately caught CV on the high seas with a surface TF. The issue is that interception is only checked at the end of the phase (not just ultimate destination). If I am correct, this gives you a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of having a chance at intercepting a cruising TF (if you know its course), and 1 in 8 or worse of a sprinting one.


    No! I agree your with the description of the problem. I used the term 'Destination Hex' in the context that it was used by Matrix earlier in the debate 'as the hex that the TF ends up in at the end of a phase'.

    quote:


    The ability to detect a TF in the same hex isn't the issue - given the area of ocean a TF covers, they are almost bound to spot eachother. The game doesn't model it - IIRC Matrix have never justified the omission by the physics, but on the CPU load to do it. In RL, the lack of interceptions is down to 'rarely being in the correct hex' ('cos there is a lot of ocean out there), nothing to do with whether you can miss TF in the same hex. You can get the same effect as interception by close patrol of objectives. The only time this is not true is if you have 2 or 3 objectives close (but>1 hex from each other), and one choke point leading to all 3. In RL. you could patrol the choke point, and 'guarantee' interception, but in the game, you would have to have 3 TF, or guess the objective. Now if someone would just give me the hex numbers of where that happens on the map...;)


    Err!:confused:. Not sure I understand the point your trying to make here. But as far as I am aware this happens in every hex on the map. It is obviously less noticeable in open water as two TF's passing through the same hex under such circumstances might not even be noticed by the player let alone each other. But it becomes more obvious is restricted waters such as The Slot and the Louisiade Archipelago. I have had one of my CV task groups sail straight through the middle of an IJN Surface Group in the slot before and of course Bombardment Missions inbound and out bound from Gilli Gilli will sail through any TF placed on patrol outside the base hex even though there is only one route into the destination hex.

    quote:


    I agree that mid ocean interception mid move would be 'nice', but it is not a show stopper. IIRC we managed for 10 years in PACWAR! If there were nothing else for Matrix to fix, I would say fix it (and force me to get a bigger computer!). However, there is lots of stuff to fix/program for WitP! [/B][/QUOTE]

    I agree. I think its only become an issue in UV because of the change in ground scale to 30 miles per hex. At 100 miles per hex one could accept that two TF's could miss each other.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 104
    - 6/9/2002 6:34:51 PM   
    elmo3

     

    Posts: 5820
    Joined: 1/22/2002
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]
    ...snip...

    I have had one of my CV task groups sail straight through the middle of an IJN Surface Group in the slot before and of course Bombardment Missions inbound and out bound from Gilli Gilli will sail through any TF placed on patrol outside the base hex even though there is only one route into the destination hex.

    ...snip...
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    The former is certainly possible although I understand the objection to it being a "sure thing". The latter case should be covered by your Surface Combat TF being set to React. They could then intercept the enemy bombardment TF in the GG base hex.

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 105
    - 6/9/2002 9:30:13 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
    [B]

    The latter case (e.g. Gilli Gilli) should be covered by your Surface Combat TF being set to React. They could then intercept the enemy bombardment TF in the GG base hex. [/B][/QUOTE]

    In this instance it wouldn't make much difference because Gilli Gilli and all the hexes around are under Rabaul LBA. However, in other instances there could be a very good reason why you would want your surface force to intercept the enemy in a hex en-route to their destination rather then in the destination hex itself.

    Perhaps for instance the enemy destination hex is inside the enemies LBA but is moving through a choke point outside this umbella en-route to its destination. Or perhaps you are unloading a convoy at the destination hex and you want to force an action with the enemy TF before it even reaches it in the hope that your transports won't get caught up in the fighting.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 106
    Reactions... - 6/9/2002 10:39:16 PM   
    Erik Rutins

     

    Posts: 37503
    Joined: 3/28/2000
    From: Vermont, USA
    Status: offline     		You can park a surface TF some three or four hexes south of Gili Gili where Rabaul air is quite unlikely to spot and attack them. Set them on Patrol / React and they should head in to attack anyone bombarding Gili Gili. The same works for Lunga. In the morning, if your ships haven't cleared out, Rabaul may have some fun with you but that's the way it works in this theater.

    I understand you'd rather not engage in surface combat, however in some cases you will need to. You can't remove one very significant part of South Pacific "combined arms" and expect to still have a tool for every job.

    As always, we're reading the boards and discussing all viewpoints and ideas. Nothing has been decided as yet but we are watching. :)

    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 #: 107
    - 6/9/2002 11:28:24 PM   
    elmo3

     

    Posts: 5820
    Joined: 1/22/2002
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    In this instance it wouldn't make much difference because Gilli Gilli and all the hexes around are under Rabaul LBA. However, in other instances there could be a very good reason why you would want your surface force to intercept the enemy in a hex en-route to their destination rather then in the destination hex itself.

    Perhaps for instance the enemy destination hex is inside the enemies LBA but is moving through a choke point outside this umbella en-route to its destination. Or perhaps you are unloading a convoy at the destination hex and you want to force an action with the enemy TF before it even reaches it in the hope that your transports won't get caught up in the fighting. [/B][/QUOTE]

    I'd be very surprised if any changes to the way TF's intercept each other will allow for as specific an order as you are proposing the in the first example above. IOW I can't see you having the flexibility to give an order like: Intercept any TF coming into hex so and so but not hex such and such because the latter might be in enemy LBA range.

    Your second example looks like it will be covered in the new patch without any need for special intercept orders. Here is an excerpt from what Erik just posted:

    "2) Naval combat: The general situation is now displayed at the beginning of combat. Non-combat task forces will try to disperse and flee, while escorts run interference and engage the enemy task force."

    So it looks like you will now be able to escort your transports and get a screen automatically. This is essentially what happened at the first battle of Savo Island and it sounds like an excellent addition to the game mechanics.

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 108
    - 6/9/2002 11:37:49 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
    [B]
    Intercept any TF coming into hex so and so but not hex such and such because the latter might be in enemy LBA range.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    I was thinking more in terms of

    "Patrol the Bunga Bunga Strait intercept and destroy any enemy supply ships attempting to use the strait en-route to Big Base but avoid direct confrontation with enemy combat vessels."

    Such an order would require a sort of qualified reaction rule that says OK! attack that TF but only if your not going to get creamed doing it.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 109
    - 6/9/2002 11:49:34 PM   
    bradfordkay

     

    Posts: 8683
    Joined: 3/24/2002
    From: Olympia, WA
    Status: offline     		I understand that any fix might not be possible given the retraints of the game code. If that is the case, I will accept it, as I think that the game is excellent. The situation we are arguing is the game's biggest departure from the reailstic flavor we want from an operational game. We aren't asking for tactical control, just for this strange occurence to be handled. If it takes making bombardments and TF loading/unloading to use up operational points to correct the problem, then I'll be all for it.

    However, to say that my earlier proposal would be even more unrealistic is to ignore the abstraction that is occuring in the operational level of the game.

    "To give an example, swapping the daylight air and naval phases, to give LBA a chance to catch bombardments actually means that as dawn breaks, a full strike miraculously appears over the ships (in effect), with no searching delays, and no flight time (i.e. they took off in the dark, knowing where the target is!)."


    To use your reasoning, the game now spends the whole day searching for ships and then only strikes at dusk (hmmmm.... why aren't there more a/c operational losses from nighttime carrier landings? The answer is that the game abstracts the attacks and considers them as daylight attacks even though they hit the enemy at the end of his movement).

    When I look at the game's Sequence of Play, I note that there are only two naval movement phases, nighttime and daytime. At the same time, there are two daytime air phases, a morning phase and an afternoon phase. If it is possible to separate these two air phases, then having one occur before daytime movement would seem to be a reasonable fix. I would not want both daytime air phases to occur before daytime naval movement.

    Now, if the morning and afternoon air phases COULD be seperated by the daytime naval movement phase we would be simulating the natural occurence of morning (anytime between dawn and noonish) and afternoon airstrikes. While such a fix would not be perfect, it should take a lot less reprogramming than the idea of having the computer check for interception in every hex the TF enters. And it certainly would be no more unrealistic than having the TFs blythely sail all day long knowing they won't be attacked until the end of their day's transit.

    Another possible fix might be to allow (not require) any a/c that could have reached that TF during its daytime movement to form an air strike against it, rather than only those who can reach the end of day destination hex. It's possible that the game already does this but we haven't seen it yet - or it's possible that the game code couldn't handle this without serious revision.

    Probably the easiest method to solve this would be to have the bombardments take up operation points to the extent that the ships are not allowed to cover such a huge distance between airstrikes.

    The main idea is that there should be some sort of fix that can be implemented in order to make this game the best it could be...

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 110
    Re: Re: Re: Re: very happy - 6/10/2002 12:38:14 AM   
    HMSWarspite

     

    Posts: 1401
    Joined: 4/13/2002
    From: Bristol, UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]
    No they can't. Well not in my game anyway.

    Use of surface TF's: is a direct voilation of my strategy for #17 of avoiding surface combat. Anyway I don't have the ships and PT boats aren't available in this scenario. Even if I won the survivors would be finished off by air strikes from Rabaul.

    Mines: Subs won't lay mines in the beach hexes around Gilli Gilli I've tried repeatedly. I have also tried using DM's but they get detected and sunk by planes from the enemy LBA at Rabaul even though they are on the fringes of the Rabaul air umbrella. Presumably you can't lay mines at night.

    Subs: Subs do not interdict enemy TF's in mid-move and go into dock as soon as they are placed on a base hex or beach. Even if they could attack they would be faced with an 11 DD escort in shallow water.

    Hence the frustration that these BB's are able to move in and out of LBA air range with impunity. [/B][/QUOTE]
    As someone said, if you are going to try to fight this theatre without using one element of your forces, you are going to have trouble! Try the same logic with 'I have set a policy of not flying CAP on bases that can have escorted raids against them, because they might get shot down :)' - not far different from abdicating the surface fleet battle.
    As for mines - I have mined loads of beaches, GG, and PM. Are you sure your subs had mines loaded? You have to disband and reform non-specialist sub minelayers to get them to reload the mines (confimed in a thread somewhere). The subs docking issue I will have to check, but I am sure I have intercepted a bombardment at PM with one (base them elsewhere, and send them to the target, dont base them at the target?). Even if you are correct, you can experiment with postioning them where the bombardment force must be at the end of the previous phase - 8-10 hexes from the target - the DD attack isn't that bad -(I have lost 8 subs in my game for all causes, but the AI isn't bombarding me any more! Actually most were lost to convoy excorts, because the AI didn't persist in bombardments once I crippled about 6 ships over a week or so:D )
    The DM attack by air - wont happen all the time. And I am afraid thems the breaks! DMs aren't that valuable, you can afford to lose a couple, and they lay very effective fields!

    _____________________________

    I have a cunning plan, My Lord

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 111
    - 6/10/2002 1:24:42 AM   
    HMSWarspite

     

    Posts: 1401
    Joined: 4/13/2002
    From: Bristol, UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
    [B]I understand that any fix might not be possible given the retraints of the game code. If that is the case, I will accept it, as I think that the game is excellent. The situation we are arguing is the game's biggest departure from the reailstic flavor we want from an operational game. We aren't asking for tactical control, just for this strange occurence to be handled. If it takes making bombardments and TF loading/unloading to use up operational points to correct the problem, then I'll be all for it.

    However, to say that my earlier proposal would be even more unrealistic is to ignore the abstraction that is occuring in the operational level of the game.

    "To give an example, swapping the daylight air and naval phases, to give LBA a chance to catch bombardments actually means that as dawn breaks, a full strike miraculously appears over the ships (in effect), with no searching delays, and no flight time (i.e. they took off in the dark, knowing where the target is!)."


    To use your reasoning, the game now spends the whole day searching for ships and then only strikes at dusk (hmmmm.... why aren't there more a/c operational losses from nighttime carrier landings? The answer is that the game abstracts the attacks and considers them as daylight attacks even though they hit the enemy at the end of his movement).[/B][/QUOTE]
    I do not agree. Most air attacks in the game are not particularly time critical, and effectively happen any time during the half day, but are abstracted to occur after naval movement. It does not mean they occur at dusk!
    All I was pointing out was that in the bombardment case, the true sequence is:
    - Bombarding force aims to cruise to get to sprint range to target, with a ToT of say midnight, by say 1 hour prior to dusk (although you can sprint in from further out than this, and lessen the window for spotting). For a 30 kts TF, that means 7hrs flat out from 5pm(to simplify the example - I know dusk isn't always at 6pm!). This places the TF at 210miles out at 5pm. Even if spotted here, too late for a strike before dark. (you're welcome to try a night raid in RL, but not effective usually)
    - The TF sprints in, and duly arrives at midnight. Say 1hr bombardment, leaves at 1am, sprints out.
    - At dawn (6am), is 150miles out, steaming hard. Say the base isn't knocked out, and gets a search plane off on the dot of 6am (5 hrs after 8" or 14" bricks were going bang in the neighbourhood, and no, I wouldn't take off in the dark on a freshly ploughed airfield!). Flight time, even if it goes directly to the TF, at say 150kts (v fast for a search cruise), =approx 1 1/4 hrs(the TF is still steaming). Sends contact report at say 7:10 (sees enemy in distance).
    - Base is really on the ball and gets strike off as soon as message recieved (say 10mins to get off and form up, which is impossibly fast). Flight time to TF (again at say 150kts - loaded bombers remember), now about 1 1/2 hrs. So the earliest a strike could occur is say 8:50. The ships are now nearly 8 hrs steaming from the target, ie 240miles.
    - This means that the TF has covered 210+240, i.e. 450miles (BTW all miles are nautical miles - I presume UV hexes are nm?), in 16hrs, and is the subject of an air strike at 240 miles out, about when it reverts to cruise speed. (Incurably optimistic best case for the base).

    If you put half realistic delays in, you could easily not spot the TF until 9:00, and then you are then trying a strike at range 240 miles.

    From where I am looking, in the game there should be a small chance of catching the bombardment force at extreme range in the morning, rather then apparently none as at present. A poor commander bombarding for too long (or not finding the target straight away), or having to enage surface forces first, would increase the chance of an air stike from roughly zero, to some (but not a lot, unless he really fouls up). There should also be some chance of spotting him as he cruises up to sprint start point, which there is, although at too long a range at present.
    As I have said before, the 600-700 miles case in the game is a little extreme, but has no real effect on the average case, which is that a bombarding TF WILL get in and out without significant risk of air attack. YOU may know he's coming, but the target is a little busy! I would love the bombardment to be 'not a sure thing' but it doesn't keep me awake nights!
    [QUOTE][B]
    When I look at the game's Sequence of Play, I note that there are only two naval movement phases, nighttime and daytime. At the same time, there are two daytime air phases, a morning phase and an afternoon phase. If it is possible to separate these two air phases, then having one occur before daytime movement would seem to be a reasonable fix. I would not want both daytime air phases to occur before daytime naval movement.

    Now, if the morning and afternoon air phases COULD be seperated by the daytime naval movement phase we would be simulating the natural occurence of morning (anytime between dawn and noonish) and afternoon airstrikes. While such a fix would not be perfect, it should take a lot less reprogramming than the idea of having the computer check for interception in every hex the TF enters. And it certainly would be no more unrealistic than having the TFs blythely sail all day long knowing they won't be attacked until the end of their day's transit.

    Another possible fix might be to allow (not require) any a/c that could have reached that TF during its daytime movement to form an air strike against it, rather than only those who can reach the end of day destination hex. It's possible that the game already does this but we haven't seen it yet - or it's possible that the game code couldn't handle this without serious revision.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    The suggestion that the game is changed to do morning air strikes before naval movement would give the base a chance of a strike at zero range! Now, I may be biased against the aircraft, but how does this fix anything? You have now made bombardments in the dark impossible! This is exactly why Matrix should not do a quick fix to this.

    _____________________________

    I have a cunning plan, My Lord

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 112
    Re: Re: very happy - 6/10/2002 1:37:19 AM   
    HMSWarspite

     

    Posts: 1401
    Joined: 4/13/2002
    From: Bristol, UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]



  • The Japanese had air superiority over the slot for the entire duration that these landings were taking place. They were suspended in late October when it was realised there was no way to get larger forces through.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    Missed this the first time. What this says isn't that the Japanese abandoned the Tokyo Express because it didn't work, they abandoned it because you couldn't get enough troops, and any heavy equipment ashore. If they had merely wanted to bombard, they could have continued, however, the few infantry they could deliver were no help to the land battle.

    If you want to fix something in the game, limit the heavy kit that can be carried on non specialist ships (AP/AK/LST etc). I routinely airlift heavy units by C47, then use a APD force to take the heavy residue over. This is gamey!

    _____________________________

    I have a cunning plan, My Lord

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    • Post #: 113
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: very happy - 6/10/2002 3:02:56 AM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
    [B]
    The DM attack by air - wont happen all the time. And I am afraid thems the breaks! DMs aren't that valuable, you can afford to lose a couple, and they lay very effective fields! [/B][/QUOTE]

    Well it may not happen all the time but unless you lay mines in a raging thunderstorm you can more or less bank on a visit from Rabaul and you only get four DM's in #17 so I certainly don't want to risk them laying mines to stop a bombardment mission that shouldn't be possible anyways.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 114
    - 6/10/2002 3:44:13 AM   
    strollen

     

    Posts: 159
    Joined: 5/18/2002
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Well it may not happen all the time but unless you lay mines in a raging thunderstorm you can more or less bank on a visit from Rabaul and you only get four DM's in #17 so I certainly don't want to risk them laying mines to stop a bombardment mission that shouldn't be possible anyways.[/QUOTE]

    If you make the DM based in Gili Gili, have them mine the hexs near Gili they'll mine at night and be back in Gili Gili under air cover in the morning. You do want to attrit the Japanese Betty force and shooting it down while its attacking something pretty low value like DMs is a good strategy. The ship don't do a bit of good in the harbor.

    I understand on being cautious as the Americans early in #17, especially with the carriers, but....

    I think the commander evaluation report on you would read.

    RADM Didz is a competent and very very careful commander.

    He is best suited for commanding a fleet with your son on it.

    :)

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 115
    Re: Re: Re: very happy - 6/10/2002 4:33:02 AM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
    [B]
    Missed this the first time. What this says isn't that the Japanese abandoned the Tokyo Express because it didn't work, they abandoned it because you couldn't get enough troops, and any heavy equipment ashore. If they had merely wanted to bombard, they could have continued, however, the few infantry they could deliver were no help to the land battle.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    Yep! The actual explanation given is that the growth in numbers and in effectiveness of the aviation on Henderson Field, together with the growing size and aggressiveness of the Navy's surface task groups, forced the Japanese to resort to an inadequate and unsatisfactory system of supply and reinforcements for their troops on Guadalcanal.

    Of course the bombardment missions were intended to suppress the development of Henderson Field. In fact the Japanese bombardment on the 12 October was so effective it prevented the use of Henderson Field for two days but the Japanese failed to follow through with a major landing on the island.

    Yamamoto tried to repeat the exercise on the 12 November with Battleship Div 11 commanded by Rear Adm Abe consisting of the battleships.

     Hiei - Capt Massao Nishida
     Kirshima - Capt Sanji Iwabuchi

    And Destroyer squadron 10 Rear Adm Kimura

    Light Cruiser - Nagara and 11 DD's

    But a coastwatcher on Buin-Faisi had already warned the US on the 10 November that a group of combat and transport vessels consisting of no less than 61 ships, including six cruisers, 33 destroyers, 17 transports, one large cargo liner, and smaller craft was visible off-shore.

    Then, on the morning of 11 November an Air Strike in two waves was made on Henderson field and again on 12 November there was a heavy air raid on the shipping in the area, during which 30 of the 31 attacking enemy planes were shot down.

    The US were also warned of the attack by MAGIC intelligence and reconnaissance reports and this enabled an American force of five cruisers and eight destroyers, to take up station in "Ironbottom Sound" in order to interdict the attack.

    On 12 November, enemy ships were seen approaching the island by search planes, it was discovered that in addition to the combat craft, a group of supply ships and transports was also in motion in the same direction.

    A confused naval battle ensued in the darkness early on the 13 November which left the Hiei crippled within 20 miles of Henderson Field. She could only limp along at 5 knots and had lost the use of her rudder. She was attacked all the next day by planes from Henderson Field and B17's other bases nearby.

    This confusion caused by this battle delayed the rest of the mission for a day but during the night of the 14th, a number of fast cruisers, led by Chokai approached Guadalcanal from the northwest and subjected the airfield to a bombardment which lasted for about an hour

    The next morning at about 0830, these ships were seen again together with the rest of the fleet, once more on the move toward Guadalcanal. A short time later they were taken under a preliminary and unsuccessful attack by two search-planes from the Enterprise, operating to the south of Guadalcanal.

    The aircraft from the Enterprise had been landed on Henderson Field in order to allow the parent ships to retire beyond danger of air attack but in spite of difficulties arising from lack of equipment on the field, they took an active part in the subsequent action.

    The main attack against the approaching transports began at 1300 when 40 Marine Corps planes from Henderson Field found the enemy force in the vicinity of the Russell Islands. The ensuing action was a slaughter. Planes were armed and fueled at the field for the relatively short run to the scene of the engagement, released their bomb-loads, and returned for new supplies. By 1500 planes from the Enterprise were making similar sorties, as were Army planes stationed on the field and B-17's from bases outside the island area.

    The Japanese escort craft left the scene early in the engagement abandoning the transports to their fate. There was no Japanese air cover, and the only thing stopping the US planes annihilating the force was time--(the attacks continued until nightfall)--and the fact, that mud and lack of equipment on the field slowed up rearming of planes.

    Well! This is about the best I can make of the various accounts I have come across on the net. Whether the successful bombardment on the 14th November was the result of poor naval search operations from Henderson Field or the fact that the entire strength of the base was being used to finish off the Hiei is not made clear but I suspect little air search would be conducted when an enemy BB was a sitting duck on your doorstep.

    Certainly, the bombardment group didn't escape undetected the next morning and one can only speculate what would have happened had the bomber pilots not been presented with a sea full of juicy transport ships to aim at.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 116
    - 6/10/2002 5:05:47 AM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
    [B]
    If you make the DM based in Gili Gili, have them mine the hexs near Gili they'll mine at night and be back in Gili Gili under air cover in the morning. You do want to attrit the Japanese Betty force and shooting it down while its attacking something pretty low value like DMs is a good strategy. The ship don't do a bit of good in the harbor.
    [/Quote]

    I wasn't sure if it was safe to have ships in Gilli Gilli harbour with a IJN bombardment group capable of appearing in it without warning. They are being kept busy enough mining the approaches to bases on Santa Cruz and the New Hebrides.

    quote:


    I understand on being cautious as the Americans early in #17, especially with the carriers, but....

    I think the commander evaluation report on you would read.

    RADM Didz is a competent and very very careful commander.

    He is best suited for commanding a fleet with your son on it.

    :) [/B][/QUOTE]

    :D Thats me!

    As a firm fan of Wellington I don't beleive in wasting my mens lives when I can sit on a ridge and force the enemy to charge into a solid wall of musketry (or in this case naval strike aircraft).

    I was also curious if it was possible to win the game by a less direct strategy of attacking the enemies logistical ability.

    According to the PACWAR briefing this was the IJN's biggest weakness so I am concentrating on attacking convoys and supply ships rather then their CV's and BB's. I'm want to know if I can sink enough to make a difference and what exactly the AI will do if it finds it can't maintain its bases.

    So far it seems to have given up supplying Guadacanal and Lae and is letting its troops starve to death but I'm curious if it will make one last attempt to break the blockade like Yamamoto did in November 1942. It also attempted a 'Tokyo Express' type resupply of Lae using PC's, DD's and CA's but lost a lot of ships. Possibly, because they didn't unload fast enough to get out of bomber range, which is an interesting contrast to bombardment missions.

    So far I've sunk 85 IJN ships including CA Myoko and 2 DD's plus 63 AP's and 19 others worth 748 pts. I've lost 15 ships mostly AK's woth 131 pts. So I'm ahead at the moment.

    Who knows I may manage to win without losing a single CV.;)

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 117
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: very happy - 6/10/2002 5:48:47 AM   
    HMSWarspite

     

    Posts: 1401
    Joined: 4/13/2002
    From: Bristol, UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]

    Well it may not happen all the time but unless you lay mines in a raging thunderstorm you can more or less bank on a visit from Rabaul and you only get four DM's in #17 so I certainly don't want to risk them laying mines to stop a bombardment mission that shouldn't be possible anyways. [/B][/QUOTE]

    a) Rabaul isn't superhuman. It suffers from weather as you note, and also often has better things to do than persecute single DM's. Ships can survive in air range, it's just that big TFs tend to get attention!
    b) I am reminded of a John Wayne film - can't remember what its called, but near the end John Wayne (playing the commander of an AP in the Pacifc) stands on his bridge yelling at a burning Kamikaze coming straight at him 'Get your filthy plane away from my ship'. Dramatic but pointless.
    c) It is a game. You don't have to play it... If you do play it - play it, not the game you think it should be.
    d) As I showed in another message it is perfectly possible to bombard and escape. It only goes wrong when you can get effectively intercepted - which you can if you patrol the target, as happened in RL!

    _____________________________

    I have a cunning plan, My Lord

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 118
    - 6/10/2002 9:16:12 AM   
    bradfordkay

     

    Posts: 8683
    Joined: 3/24/2002
    From: Olympia, WA
    Status: offline     		"Most air attacks in the game are not particularly time critical, and effectively happen any time during the half day, but are abstracted to occur after naval movement. It does not mean they occur at dusk!"

    Here is where we disagree. They are time critical IF they cannot occur until the TF in question is out of range of the a/c involved. If the a/c could have hit the TF during the daytime movement of that TF, but cannot in the game because it is beyond the range of the a/c, then the situation does become time critical (actually it is distance critical, in my book). The attacks are not happening until the ships have reached their dusk position.

    As I mentioned, IF the game allows a/c that could have hit the TF in any location through which it passed during its movement phase to actually attack the TF in its final dusk location, then my concerns are laid to rest and I'll not mention this again. So far, I have not seen that occur. My experience has been that EVERY time the bombardment TF sails from a position out of range, bombards, and then ends the daily movement out of range again. Thus, if the attacks cannot occur because the TF is now out of range of the a/c while it passed well within range during the daylight hours then the situation has become somewaht time critical.

    It is not a game crasher, but it does detract from the feel of the game, IMO, and I do think that it could be exploited in head to head games.

    "The suggestion that the game is changed to do morning air strikes before naval movement would give the base a chance of a strike at zero range! Now, I may be biased against the aircraft, but how does this fix anything? You have now made bombardments in the dark impossible! This is exactly why Matrix should not do a quick fix to this."

    Okay, so is this saying that the game can only handle interception of the TF at max range or zero range? If so, I would have to agree with you that there should be no fix. However, I have faith that the guys at 2by3 can come up with something that would change the situation as it is into something a little more reasonable.

    I don't want it to be impossible to have bombardments, I just don't think that they should be allowed to occur without risk. If you will note, I offered several possible fixes, not knowing if any of them could be implemented. The idea is not to complain that the game is wrong but rather to give input with ideas as to how it could be improved. I've had my fill of friends who gripe about a game but never offer constructive advice to the designers as to what could improve it. I doubt that any of my ideas would work, but at least I'm giving them some ideas as to how a fix could be done. The guys at 2by3 are professional and put out an excellent game. It is possible that they haggled over this forever during the original playtesting and decided to let it stand as the best possible compromise. It's also possible that no one really took notice and so it slipped by.

    I noticed it because I set up a major CV TF in location to intercept (by air strike, not surface warfare) the bombardment TF either on its way in or out (didn't care which) but was never able to get a strike off because the TF always ended out of range. The gaming situation would be along the lines of this: a 2 BB TF was seen leaving Rabaul, heading SW. Later that day it was seen W of Woodlark Island. 3 US carriers which are patrolling south of the China Strait are sent closer to Port Moresby to intercept this TF, as Port Moresby is the only base the allies have on New Guinea at this time. We are willing to allow that they may be headed for Australia, but Port Moresby is the base we are protecting. In the evening the TF is spotted entering the north end of the China Strait. How is it that this TF can sail all the way to Port Moresby and back again without being sighted by the extensive naval search a/c combing the precise sector through which it travels. I will agree that there is a chance of this occurring, but it appears that in the game it is not a chance, but a certainty. That is what bothers me.

    Will I pan the game if it isn't fixed? No, but I probably will quit any head-to-head game where my opponent repeatedly takes advantage of this quirk of the system. Thus I would rather see some sort of fix, whatever that fix might be.

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 119
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: very happy - 6/10/2002 4:12:42 PM   
    Didz


    Posts: 728
    Joined: 10/2/2001
    From: UK
    Status: offline     		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
    [B]
    a) Rabaul isn't superhuman. It suffers from weather as you note, and also often has better things to do than persecute single DM's. Ships can survive in air range, it's just that big TFs tend to get attention!
    It only takes one torpedo to put a ship out of commission. I watched one air attack that only contained 3 Betty's fight its way through my LRCAP at Port Moresby losing half a dozen Zero's, the 3 Betty's picked out one of my AP's in the harbour taking flak that killed 1 and damaged another then dropped a single fish that hit midships. "CRITICAL HIT" and that AP is still in dry dock being repaired.
    quote:


    b) I am reminded of a John Wayne film - can't remember what its called, but near the end John Wayne (playing the commander of an AP in the Pacifc) stands on his bridge yelling at a burning Kamikaze coming straight at him 'Get your filthy plane away from my ship'. Dramatic but pointless.

    Quite right too! If some idiot had sent my ship out under the enemy air umbella with no escort and inadequate air defense. I'd have been standing on the bridge screaming my head off too.
    quote:


    c) It is a game. You don't have to play it... If you do play it - play it, not the game you think it should be.

    This isn't a game, its a wargame. If I want to play a game I can play Red Alert or Tiberium Sun. The whole point of a wargame is that it should allow players to try out alternative strategies and tactic's and see if they work. Hence the need to accurately model the physical capabilities of the weapons and units involved and the impact of the environment on those capabilties. Its the responsibility of the designers to provide that model, what I do with it after I've bought it is my business.
    quote:


    d) As I showed in another message it is perfectly possible to bombard and escape.[/B][/QUOTE]
    Never, said it wasn't. I merely pointed out that it isn't possible to get away with it repeatedly and that it isn't possible for a BB's to steam 720 miles in 12 hours, which is (in EFFECT) what the turn phasing allows at present.

    _____________________________

    Didz
    Fortis balore et armis

    (in reply to Pkunzipper)
    Post #: 120
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
    All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
    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

    1.938