Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval air attacks-Why can we not set the target area?

 
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 >> Naval air attacks-Why can we not set the target area? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval air attacks-Why can we not set the target area? - 11/28/2002 12:20:28 PM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline 		We can set the target area for almost all attacks (air to ground, lcap, escort, ship to ship, etc.) but why not for air to ships? This doesn't make sense to me. Why leave this one out for the computer to choose? Seems to me fixing and letting the player assign a target if he wished would be a simple great add on and end everyone's frustration over planes attacking stupid targets which the player didn't intend. I recently had captured Port Moresby as the Japanese and set my planes to naval attack. Instead of attacking allied troop transports headed for Gili Gili right next door (which is what I wanted and needed as I did not need a strong allied force in the area) the computer sent my planes all the way to Guadalcanal and Tulagi to attack some cruisers and destroyers with strong AA. Too far, too wasteful, not needed, and not wanted. Sucks, sucks ,sucks!!!:mad:
Post #: 1
- 11/30/2002 2:32:10 AM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Hi,

Something really should be done about this...

How about if you could atleast order what kind of ships your planes most likely would attack? Wery much high level decision...
I'd like see this done base by base... But I am one of tose control freaks who see allmost nothing good in computer commander decisions. Same ones who does run towards from enemy CV's but DOES NOT take your planes away from training missions... Castrated naval combat ships(not able to chase enemy TF's) And so on..

To topic:
In my PBM game my Japanese opponenp brought tanker TF to Gili Gili and couple task forces full of AP's towards PM. All I wanted to do was to keep PM unsuplied and keep Japanese infantry stuck there... Lots of it. My planes kept on attacking tankers at Gili Gili and AP's sailed quite safely to PM and back... I had lots of naval search and so on, no question about unsufficient recon. All I could have done would have been risking my CV's(or other ships) agains 3-4 for build up Japanes bases... And my Australian level bombers would have been enough to sink every ship sailing to PM if I had any means to tell them to do so...

-Antti

PS. Great Game ;)
Pps. But in may aspects wery much inferios to ancient War in the South pacific C64 version... As general UV is much better, but after playing War in the South Pacific(WITSP) UV was like coming back home after many years. Learned much more about UV from WITSP manual than from UV manual....

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 2
Airgroup orders and turn phases - 11/30/2002 3:12:41 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, It might be a product of what orders you are giving.
And/or misunderstanding the manner in which turns/missions resolve.
Each airgroup can have 2 missions assigned.
Primary and secondary. You will note that all land targets are available for selection as secondary targets but naval attack is only an option as primary.

Each turn, search planes launch, aircraft in other groups assigned naval attack sit waiting at airbase ready to launch if target is found. If no suitable target then they will arm/fly to targe from secondary mission. If "rest" is secondary target then the aircraft stand down untill afternoon search planes launch.

"How bombers fly combat missions"
First they aquire a target
group checks primary, if primary is a land target then the group will move to fuel/arm phase.

What can prevent launch
Weather, not enough escort fighters assigned. (will cancel entire mission)
Things that can reduce number of aircraft in mission
Too many aircarft at base (sizex50) reduce 25percent
Fail morale check reduce 25 percent
Fail leadership check-reduce 25 percent
Not in range of Air HQ (only Japan has Air HQ at start and they only have 1) reduce by 25 percent

All reductions are cumlative so a group with all these problems will ground it's self.

So If computer selects a target you would not have prefered it might be because the one you liked had too much CAP. I am aware sometimes groups attack targets and get slaughtered by CAP (AI did not know CAP was there or it was still less then other target).

The missions are launched as time passess. Groups might launch against 1 TF simply because it is spotted first (computer does not wait for a search to resolve before launching)

Picking the targets (piority) yourself would not improve results
(you might turn down a mission because search reports only a transport and fly on one reporting CV only to discover "transport" was battleship and "CV" was oiler.
If I had been an operational commander, I am sure I would have been found in the radio shack where reports come in.
(I might have slept there) However I still would have preffered the group leader to make the attacks (I would just like to know what was going on) (UV does this)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 3
- 11/30/2002 4:54:42 AM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline 		My planes were set on naval attack primary, rest secondary.
There were no allied carriers or base planes to provide cap over either fleet. In the case I presented none of the reasons you presented for poor target selection applied. The troop transport taskforce was spotted first and the weather was fine with no cap.

"Picking the targets (piority) yourself would not improve results"
I disagree. In this case I would have destroyed the troop transports headed for Gili Gili and the allies would not have landed and posed a threat to me. Even if I did attack a fleet that was spotted wrongly that is part of the fun of the game aka Midway, Coral Sea battles this happened frequently.

I think if you are going to provide this argument then why should we get to set the target priority for any attacks at all?
Just let the AI duke it out against each other. We get to decide every single attack target except for air to naval. Why cant we decide this too. Heck if a few people are set on letting the ai be in control then make this an option at the beginning of the game.

AI Control over targets
Manual Control over targets

This would end this argument for good.





""Greetings, It might be a product of what orders you are giving.
And/or misunderstanding the manner in which turns/missions resolve.
Each airgroup can have 2 missions assigned.
Primary and secondary. You will note that all land targets are available for selection as secondary targets but naval attack is only an option as primary.

Each turn, search planes launch, aircraft in other groups assigned naval attack sit waiting at airbase ready to launch if target is found. If no suitable target then they will arm/fly to targe from secondary mission. If "rest" is secondary target then the aircraft stand down untill afternoon search planes launch.

"How bombers fly combat missions"
First they aquire a target
group checks primary, if primary is a land target then the group will move to fuel/arm phase.

What can prevent launch
Weather, not enough escort fighters assigned. (will cancel entire mission)
Things that can reduce number of aircraft in mission
Too many aircarft at base (sizex50) reduce 25percent
Fail morale check reduce 25 percent
Fail leadership check-reduce 25 percent
Not in range of Air HQ (only Japan has Air HQ at start and they only have 1) reduce by 25 percent

All reductions are cumlative so a group with all these problems will ground it's self.

So If computer selects a target you would not have prefered it might be because the one you liked had too much CAP. I am aware sometimes groups attack targets and get slaughtered by CAP (AI did not know CAP was there or it was still less then other target).

The missions are launched as time passess. Groups might launch against 1 TF simply because it is spotted first (computer does not wait for a search to resolve before launching)

Picking the targets (piority) yourself would not improve results
(you might turn down a mission because search reports only a transport and fly on one reporting CV only to discover "transport" was battleship and "CV" was oiler.
If I had been an operational commander, I am sure I would have been found in the radio shack where reports come in.
(I might have slept there) However I still would have preffered the group leader to make the attacks (I would just like to know what was going on) (UV does this)""

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 4
Target order - 11/30/2002 5:57:34 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I guess I was not specific enough in target allotment discription.

The more distant target might have been the earlist found (it might have been spotted the night before so your strike launched before the closer transport TF was discovered

or

the weather in the transport TF hex might have been worse then the weather in the CA hes

or

(heres where most players have the problem agreeing with game program)
The target they attacked had a higher point value then the transport TF. It is in this regard players would like to set values themselves. However the airgroup might still have attacked the CA group if the above (weather/time of discovery) reasons come into play.

What it comes down to is during turn the airgroup commander says I have a target within orders (naval attack) at hex xx yy
I am going to launch. 15 minutes after he launches a new target more in line with what you (the player) would like to attack appears but the group has already departed. In tactical level games there is often the option to break radio silence to redirect a group. Prehap a routine that could do something along this line would be favourable? (This would generate as much pain as joy)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 5
- 11/30/2002 7:39:49 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		Mogami, my aircraft refuse to attack enemy naval units. I have been playing this game since June 2002. My aircraft have NEVER made an air attack on enemy naval units. EVER.

My aircraft locate them often but never attack.

In the “reasons for not flying” you made 2 important points:

The need for an air force HQ unit. This is not mentioned anywhere in the manual. In fact it has been stated many times that a HQ unit has “support” and "aviation support". Whether this is army, navy or air force HQ is irrelevant. Then you said that only the Japanese have an air force HQ at the start. If that is so it explains why allied aircraft cannot attack Japanese shipping. Please clarify this point.

Your second point, said that one squadron should be set to Naval Search. They will search. And another should be set to naval Attack. If the search is successful, then second squadron will then attack. I had no idea.

Unfortunately I have assumed that if I set a squadron to “Naval Attack” it will search and then if it finds something it will attack. They locate but NEVER attack enemy shipping. Please clarify this point.

Whilst the original poster asked about asked about assigning specific naval targets, I am asking a different question: how can I get an aircraft to attack a ship????? Isn't this central to the game??

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 6
- 11/30/2002 8:06:30 AM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I suppose the main complaint the players have is caused by frustration of watching enemy TF that has been spotted for several turns doing its worse without anybody attacking it. Good examples are enemy carrier sitting for many days in one hex without a single attack attempt made on it, while those air groups that are in range, attack some other targets. Or an enemy invasion fleet sails quite unhindered over vast distances to your base, while the defending air groups waste their planes against impenetrable CAP of the CV taskforce.

I understand the fog of war, confusion during the battles and pure errors made by individual commanders and modeling of this is great in UV.

I love the fact that my subordinates make bad decisions occasionally and attack wrong targets. I served nine months as medic in the Finnish Defense Force and bad decisions by commanders and soldiers were a way of life in the military. In fact, every military makes BAD calls occasionally or maybe even regularly.

However, what I don’t agree with is that the theatre commander does not have a say on what TF a certain base should attack after a specific threat has been identified.

If the theatre commander (you) has decided to lay siege on PM, the base commanders in the area would be aware of this. They would have been briefed that any transport ships heading to PM are more important than cruisers somewhere else.

Now, if the cruiser TF is spotted before the transports I fully understand that the base commander decides to launch an air strike against it, but the next day when both the cruiser TF and the transport TF have already been spotted, the base commander should not attack the cruisers again.

If the contact report about the transports has reached the theatre commander I’m sure that the base commanders within a reasonable strike range would very quickly receive orders: “Drop everything else and attack the transports heading to PM regardless of your ready status or losses”. In this case the base commander would have to have a very good excuse indeed if the transports are not attacked, especially if he goes on and attacks another target.

In game terms the system could go like this. Any taskforce that has been spotted in the previous turn can be targeted, but this doesn’t mean an automatic attack. Targeting a taskforce with an air group would translate to orders: “To air commander of Lae. Enemy transport taskforce spotted yesterday at coordinates. x.x heading towards PM. Find and engage this taskforce”. After issuing such an order to an attack air group, it would wait for the results coming from search airplanes. If the taskforce is spotted again an air strike would be launched. If the TF is not found, the attack air group would miss the day’s action.

This way it would be a bit of a risk to order an air group to attack a specific target as it may well turn out to be a false contact report and while the search planes are at wild goose hunt, the attack planes sit on the airport doing nothing. Even if there would be other lucrative targets around.

This would also prevent frustration that people feel when an enemy TF sits for days and days right under your nose and nobody does anything.


To Joe:

Air HQs are not obligatory, but they are helpfull. This is mentioned in the manual. If you have set your attack Air groups for Naval Attack, but have put Naval Search to 100% there is no planes available to launch a strike. You need to have balance between search planes and attack planes. If you don't have specific recon planes such as Catalinas, try putting your Dauntless groups on Naval Attack and 30% search. That should do the trick.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 7
- 11/30/2002 11:21:55 PM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Bad decions:
Yes, thats good... I'd give even more 'rights' to computer. To do more mistakes and to recover from player made mistakes. Like to see possiblity to parametrize what kind of freedom computer commanders do have. But also player should be given more options to work with...

Targeting TF:
Something like this could be good... Possiblity to blokade area would be wery nice. But what annoyed me in my game was that I did not agree with computer that tankers were more important target than AP's. As high level commander I'd have given order to sink every AP in range if there is no CV's to attack.
This should be done base by base, because in Solomons i'd possibly like to hit other kind of ships than in New guinea. This would be enough for me. Some kind of "Attact ranking" by ship types.

Of topic:
Same would go with Task forces, sometimes i'd like send them to area to hit transports with every bomb,shell and torpedo they have and leave other ships than CV's in unharmed if there is one more transport to sink... And possiblity to hit and run missions. Now your only shot is to quess where enemy TF could be and run there and back... Not good... During daylight my TF should be able to use it's recon planes to locate enemy and start hunting for it.

-Antti

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Piiska
[B]...
I love the fact that my subordinates make bad decisions occasionally and attack wrong targets. I served nine months as medic in the Finnish Defense Force and bad decisions by commanders and soldiers were a way of life in the military. In fact, every military makes BAD calls occasionally or maybe even regularly.

However, what I don’t agree with is that the theatre commander does not have a say on what TF a certain base should attack after a specific threat has been identified.

....

In game terms the system could go like this. Any taskforce that has been spotted in the previous turn can be targeted, but this doesn’t mean an automatic attack. Targeting a taskforce with an air group would translate to orders: “To air commander of Lae. Enemy transport taskforce spotted yesterday at coordinates. x.x heading towards PM. Find and engage this taskforce”. After issuing such an order to an attack air group, it would wait for the results coming from search airplanes. If the taskforce is spotted again an air strike would be launched. If the TF is not found, the attack air group would miss the day’s action.

...
[/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 8
- 12/3/2002 1:12:58 AM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline 		More rights to the computer should be an OPTION at the beginning of the game. I dont want more mistakes!!!! But I agree with everything else you said :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mapr
[B]Bad decions:
Yes, thats good... I'd give even more 'rights' to computer. To do more mistakes and to recover from player made mistakes. Like to see possiblity to parametrize what kind of freedom computer commanders do have. But also player should be given more options to work with...

Targeting TF:
Something like this could be good... Possiblity to blokade area would be wery nice. But what annoyed me in my game was that I did not agree with computer that tankers were more important target than AP's. As high level commander I'd have given order to sink every AP in range if there is no CV's to attack.
This should be done base by base, because in Solomons i'd possibly like to hit other kind of ships than in New guinea. This would be enough for me. Some kind of "Attact ranking" by ship types.

Of topic:
Same would go with Task forces, sometimes i'd like send them to area to hit transports with every bomb,shell and torpedo they have and leave other ships than CV's in unharmed if there is one more transport to sink... And possiblity to hit and run missions. Now your only shot is to quess where enemy TF could be and run there and back... Not good... During daylight my TF should be able to use it's recon planes to locate enemy and start hunting for it.

-Antti

[/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 9
- 12/3/2002 3:46:04 AM   
Diealtekoenig

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline 		I think more control over ships on Naval Attack would make not only a better (more enjoyable/less frustrating) game but a more realistic game, but i would suggest doing it in the opposite way to what I think others are suggestiong, and I am not sure how to implement it.

I would suggest not "urging" AC to attack certain targets, but _forbidding_ them from attacking certain targets.

There are places I can see it would be suicide to send an airstrike, say against ships that are in a port with a huge airbase. It would seem as theatre commander (what I presume I am in this game) I could say "I forbid air attacks against ships in the Rabaul Hex" (or Port Moresby Hex) and allow A/C to attack targets they find elsewhere. As it is now, if I say "naval attack" the AC sometimes (not always) fly into enormous Land Based Cap (CV Based CAP they might blunder into, but they should be aware of the LB CAP).

I am not sure how practically this could be implemented. Designating specific hexes as forbidden seems cumbersome.

Perhaps one more level of orders: "Fear Land Based Air/Ignore Land Based Air" would work? That might effect not only where bases and CVs send airstrikes, but also effect whether ships on React will React only to hexes more than XX miles from _known_ (scanned/scouted recently) land based air over 50 AC or similar.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 10
- 12/5/2002 4:25:43 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline 		It seems to me that a previous poster (I know it isn't all my idea is what I am saying here - just can't find who said at this minute) had the right idea.

You should be able to target a specific type of ship or more specifically a specific type of task force mission; maybe with a secondary. This way if you know an invasion force is on it's way, you've just lost it's location, you can at least have a degree of control over what ships your air groups are giving priority to.

Scouting and chance, which is what the current system is simulating by giving AI control of targeting at the moment, will still be in effect as you will need to find teh task forces to target them; you'll just be allowed a little greater degree of control.

A typical air group mission status might be:Primary mission: bomb Naval - transport TF first, Any TF second; Secondary mission: bomb airfield - target Gili Gili.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 11
Re: Naval air attacks-Why can we not set the target area? - 12/14/2002 3:03:41 AM   
SViking

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 12/14/2002
Status: offline 		I have to agree with the original poster: we should be able to set priorities for air-naval atacks...or the AI needs to be improved. Here's an example of the senseless tactics that are driving me nuts a times...

Playing as Allies in May '42, I positioned my carrier fleet SE of Gilli Gilli and a surface fleet a little closer in to intercept enemy transport fleets. Never mind that my surface fleet failed to move to intercept allowing the IJN to land troops. What really annoyed me was watching my recon spot two transport fleets (indentified at least one AP in each - one obviously already dropped troops) and a carrier fleet (two CVs spotted plus ship types), then having my carriers launch the following attacks:

- A handful of SBDs and all of my TBDs *UNESCORTED* attack the enemy carrier fleet - needless to say the enemy CAP wiped them

- All of my escorting fighters (~30) and the majority of my SBDs attack an enemy transport fleet - the one that had already dropped troops

:mad:

There is no excuse for this nonsense. The commander should be hung for treason. The errors seem obvious:

a) complete misuse of fighter escorts
b) attacking a transport fleet that had already dropped troops when an enemy carrier fleet and another transport fleet were nearby

This is why we need the ability to designate target priorties. The AI often seems incapable. Not always incapable*, but definitely often.


*moments later the enemy carrier fleet launched ALL of it's A/C against my carriers. Scratch 2 flattops. **sigh**

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 12
SViking, - 12/14/2002 4:06:46 AM   
NorthStar

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline 		Actually, I'd say the AI Commander (at the TF Level) made the correct decision. Ok, possibly attacking the APs at all wasn't a terrificbad, but at least he also attacked the CVs.

What caused you major problem was poor strike coordination. The escorts failed to link up with the bombers. This was not an uncommon occurance in real live, especially early in the war. If the game didn't simulate occurances like this, it wouldn't be a good reflection of the war.

Also, while it may be obvious to YOU which APs just unloaded, it wouldn't be all that obvious to SBDs at 10,000 feet. And strike pilots are not know for circling over ships for long periods of time identifying the perfect target. More often than not, they hit the first likely looking target and high tail it for home. Misidentification and attacks on less than optimum targets were rampent for both sides during the war.

The trick, as Mogami said, is to learn how to manipulate your settings to have the best chance of what you want happening. Stuff like this is part of the game, and you have to learn to deal with it.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 13
Re: SViking, - 12/14/2002 11:56:37 PM   
SViking

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 12/14/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by NorthStar
[B]Actually, I'd say the AI Commander (at the TF Level) made the correct decision. Ok, possibly attacking the APs at all wasn't a terrificbad, but at least he also attacked the CVs.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Huh? You really don't believe that do you? The smart decision would be to attack the CVs first. A marginal possibility would be to catch the full transports as well.

[QUOTE][B]
What caused you major problem was poor strike coordination. The escorts failed to link up with the bombers.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, that's not true. The escorts did link up - just with a strike that didn't need them. Weather, btw, was clear.

[QUOTE][B]
Also, while it may be obvious to YOU which APs just unloaded, it wouldn't be all that obvious to SBDs at 10,000 feet.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Had the strike taken about a 90' heading to the right of their actual, they would have found the full transports. I didn't explain previously, but the two transport TFs were a few hundred miles part. So, the problem was, the strike went the bloody wrong direction to start.

[QUOTE][B]
The trick, as Mogami said, is to learn how to manipulate your settings to have the best chance of what you want happening. Stuff like this is part of the game, and you have to learn to deal with it. [/B][/QUOTE]

...and I still say we need to the ability to set priorities. Call it another setting to allow us to get a better chance for the desired results. It doesn't seem like a big deal and not unrealistic at all. In fact, I would even take this a step farther - as one person suggested, I think we should have the ability to restrict attacks on targets. E.g., I may see another surface fleet, but choose to wait until I spot CVs.

This isn't just a matter of occasional bad luck, this was a well planned screw up by the AI. I could understand missing the CV fleet had there been bad intel, but that wasn't the case. I've seen this before. This was just a particularly good example of how bad things can get when the AI makes bad decisions.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 14
Re: Re: SViking, - 12/17/2002 2:55:01 AM   
NorthStar

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SViking
[B]Huh? You really don't believe that do you? The smart decision would be to attack the CVs first. A marginal possibility would be to catch the full transports as well.[/B][/QUOTE]

Granted. As I stated, it wasn't brilliant, but at least the CVs weren't ignored. Also, depending on how close the APs were to the CVs, it is entirely possible that the second strike was supposed to atack the CVs, but found and hit the APs by accident.

[QUOTE][B]
Actually, that's not true. The escorts did link up - just with a strike that didn't need them. Weather, btw, was clear.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Correct. But again, my point is that this is most likely bad luck -- the escorts joined up with the wrong group -- not a poor decision by the AI. That is, I don't think the AI decided to send the first strike in unescorted, I think it just happened

[QUOTE][B]
Had the strike taken about a 90' heading to the right of their actual, they would have found the full transports. I didn't explain previously, but the two transport TFs were a few hundred miles part. So, the problem was, the strike went the bloody wrong direction to start.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There are a number of reasons why this might have happened. Most notebly, the timing of detection of the two groups. If the full transports were detected later, the strike may already have been airborne.

[QUOTE][B]
...and I still say we need to the ability to set priorities. Call it another setting to allow us to get a better chance for the desired results. It doesn't seem like a big deal and not unrealistic at all. In fact, I would even take this a step farther - as one person suggested, I think we should have the ability to restrict attacks on targets. E.g., I may see another surface fleet, but choose to wait until I spot CVs.

This isn't just a matter of occasional bad luck, this was a well planned screw up by the AI. I could understand missing the CV fleet had there been bad intel, but that wasn't the case. I've seen this before. This was just a particularly good example of how bad things can get when the AI makes bad decisions. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, I basically agree with you here. I think it would be great if we had manual control over attack priorites or could set exclusions, I jsut don't think it will make as big a difference as some people seem to think it will. The statement I take exception to is " ... this is a welll planned screw up by the AI".

The biggest problem with the game, IMO, is that the player is presented with a great deal of information out of context and with no information about what is going on under the hood. For instance, we see all of the search reports similtaneously at the begining of the air phase. However, when strikes are planned, the computer accounts for the ORDER and TIME which they came in. Since the player can not see this information, we are left cursing the AI for a dumb decision. So your statement about bad intelligence is not necessarily true. The player isn't given enough information to see how good or bad the intelligence is!

In point of fact, it is likely (agin, IMO, I'm willing to give the designers the benifit of the doubt) that the AI made a perfectly acceptable decision (AIs are never brilliant) based on information it had at the time. But since we don't have all the inputs it used, we can't judge.

Again, I basically agree with your premise. It's just that I am able in almost every instance to create plausible scenarios within the game rules as to why seemingly dumb decisions were made that would make them not so dumb. As long as this is the case, I'm not willing to say the system is broken in some way. And I hate to see others say (or imply) it either.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 15
Re: Re: Re: SViking, - 12/17/2002 6:11:48 AM   
SViking

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 12/14/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by NorthStar
[B]Granted. As I stated, it wasn't brilliant, but at least the CVs weren't ignored. Also, depending on how close the APs were to the CVs, it is entirely possible that the second strike was supposed to atack the CVs, but found and hit the APs by accident.

...

Again, I basically agree with your premise. It's just that I am able in almost every instance to create plausible scenarios within the game rules as to why seemingly dumb decisions were made that would make them not so dumb. As long as this is the case, I'm not willing to say the system is broken in some way. And I hate to see others say (or imply) it either.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Fair enough - there may be a plausible explanation for everything that happened that may exonerate the AI. So I will adjust my stand from certainty to one of deep suspicion...suspicion because this was not an isolated instance of apparently strange decisions, but only a particularly good example. Also, I've haven't noticed any attacks on secondary targets despite having identified a primary target during the turn. So the explanation of timing of indentification is questionable. Perhaps some further testing/observations will clarify the situation....or perhaps Matrix can clarify.


[B][QUOTE]
Actually, I basically agree with you here. I think it would be great if we had manual control over attack priorites or could set exclusions...
[/B][/QUOTE]

A Matrix rep responded in another thread that the item is on their list, though no work has started on it yet. If the AI is indeed acting rationally based upon available information, then the improvement should probably be one of exclusion, probably implied - i.e., by specifying the fleet types you want to attack and excluding all others - since I suspect that's the more likely situation. If you think about it, if the AI is working properly, then prioritization of targets could lead to the same ambiguities which are responsible for the current undesireable results. In any event, I hope (and trust) Matrix carefully considers the issues and defines the requirements before throwing something into the game.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 16
Re: Re: Re: Re: SViking, - 12/17/2002 10:39:40 AM   
NorthStar

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SViking
[B]. . . If you think about it, if the AI is working properly, then prioritization of targets could lead to the same ambiguities which are responsible for the current undesireable results. In any event, I hope (and trust) Matrix carefully considers the issues and defines the requirements before throwing something into the game. [/B][/QUOTE]

My point exactly (the more we talk, the more we agree;) ). The system already has a priority list "hard coded" into it. It was posted on another thread somewhere, but IIRC it goes something like CV, CVL/CVE, AP, BB, etc. . . .

Assuming everything is working correctly (an assumption I am willing to make) then shifting the top couple of priorities would not be likely to have a marked effect on results. The same uncertainties and randomness will continue to cause sub-optimal results.

Excluding fleet types is probably more reasonable (i.e. Surface TF or Transport TF), as long as we realize that misidentifications will still somethimes result in excluded fleet types being attacked.

Also, on a tangent, I would sugest that Carrier TFs should always be forced to have Carriers as their first and highest priorities. I don't really see a Carrier commander ignoring an enemy Carrier TF that can make his day very bad, very quickly in favor of a relatively harmless Transport group, no matter what orders come down from higher command.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 17
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SViking, - 12/17/2002 12:46:48 PM   
SViking

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 12/14/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by NorthStar
[B]Excluding fleet types is probably more reasonable (i.e. Surface TF or Transport TF), as long as we realize that misidentifications will still somethimes result in excluded fleet types being attacked.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yep. You could also end up attacking nothing, though you know very well that one of the fleets contains CVs. I guess that's the point where computer AI breaks down. You would need one extremely sophisticated program to emulate an educated guess based on the current situation, past intel, opponent tendencies, etc. However, I'd rather face that problem than the current situation...and, assuming it's an option, at least it's at the player's discretion. Ultimately, giving the player the option for more discretion over air missions may be the best solution...maybe.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 18
- 12/17/2002 5:47:09 PM   
caine

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/13/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		I also think that more control oer target selection should be done.Being the game like it is now, it is incredible to see how 2 aircraft can attack a carrier group but a lot a group of battleships, for example.What could be the effect of launching 3 or 5 planes against a carrier group?
I strongly support the idea of manually selecting targets according to the available information.Without that, very odd situations occur.Giving only the option for choosing targets and relative strenght of the attack against an objective should be implemented.In my opinion it is almosty impossible to implement an AI for choosing the best target and without options available for each air group, like priorities.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 19
- 12/17/2002 8:48:45 PM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I'd think that other issue concerning target selection could be target area selection. More i think of such option, more I'd like to have it. Even if practical result wouldn't be wery drastic. Now players have no control of area where planes attack. AI supposedly have some hadcoded ways to decide witch ones of possible targets to attack to optimise results...

Problem ain't too severe and concerns mostly bombers having range of 20+, but I find it somewhat annoying that bombers may do attacks anywhere on range and 360 degrees from their current location. Long range bombers placed at Lunga now may attack almost anywhere on the map. To me these bombers are quite random as a weapon... Not attacking where player would like them to attack. Or targets player would like them to attack. Wearing up themselves doing long range raids when it might be much more useful(atleast in players opinion) to keep planes downed and wait until targets are found nearby... And possibly on a certain area.

It would be nice if player could set target(and search) zone to each group, of cource AI could make it's own decisions, but would prioritise target zone that have been set much higher and concentrate more recon to the area and would most likely to attack targets in target zone. Setting search zones would be nice too... Would allow concentrated searching to some areas in the expence of others... Resulting that somewhere even a lifebout would not go unnoticed in thunderstorm and somewhere 10 CV TF could be sailing under clear skies for days and stay unnoticed.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 20
- 12/18/2002 3:45:02 PM   
caine

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/13/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		Yes, it would also be great to be able to determine search areas when in a "manual" mode which could be an option for each base.I understand that these options would be against the
"theater operations" idea of the game but anyway it would make a much better game.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 21
- 12/18/2002 9:48:03 PM   
mapr

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by caine
[B]Yes, it would also be great to be able to determine search areas when in a "manual" mode which could be an option for each base.I understand that these options would be against the
"theater operations" idea of the game but anyway it would make a much better game. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yesyes...

I wouldn't mind if AI could make such decisions... But in order to succesfully to do decisions like this AI should be able to 'see' whole picture as players do. But AI can't, no such AI is done yet(as far as I know ;). I think that decisions like this should be possible to do in order to make game better.

What I don't like at all is setting altitudes and checking fatigues etc. Setting these is MUCH less operational level decision than setting targets or targets(&search) areas would be... Instead of these I'd like better if there would some way to give more general commands to Bases and groups. Commands like "Put Base ZZZ's and GGG's airfields unoperational as soon as possible at all costs" sounds to me more operational level command than "Group X Attack at 6000 feet with escorts from Groups Y at altitude 8 000 to Lae Lae airfield". So "thats not operational level command" -comment ain't to good here...

Would be great if we had more options to guide AI with in operating AC's. Expecially in offencive operations which are at the moment worst donwfall in UV presently in my opinion.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 22
- 12/21/2002 12:10:07 AM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Perhaps the simplest solution to avoid player frustration would be to allow the targeting of a spotted task force.

This should have the disadvantage of missing the whole day’s air-action if the TF set as target is not found again. This would mean that the attack planes wait on standby when the search planes take off early in the morning to relocate the contact lost during the night. If the contact is found again, a strike is initiated. If the targeted TF is not found, the attack planes stand on the field and wait even if there are other targets in the area.

This could also incorporate the target prioritisation as well. When setting a TF as a target, there could be a pop up screen asking whether the planes attack freely, do they target particular ships types, or do they avoid certain ships. Specific ship type prioritisations should not be allowed generally, but they should be allowed when targeting a particular TF. I think that could give the player a better operational feeling to the game when things heat up a bit and as such could prevent some player frustration.

So in game terms most of the time planes would be set on just naval attack without targets and everything would be as it is now. However, occasionally the player could set an air group to attack particular ships in particular TF with the risk of losing the day’s air-action, if the spotted target has moved out of strike range, or if the contact was false in the first place.

With the secondary mission the player could control the time how long the strike planes wait on the field. If no secondary mission is set the planes wait the whole day for opportunity to launch their strike on the set TF. If secondary mission set for naval strike as well, the planes will attack (if still possible) any targets of opportunity with the same prioritisation given for the primary mission. Ie, if they cannot attack the set APs they will attack any APs in the area and if there is no APs at all they attack whatever they feel like. If the secondary is set for airfield then they attack the airfield just as the system is now.

I’m not claiming that anything is ‘broken’ as such. I’m just saying that while UV is a brilliant game, it can be improved in some regards.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 23
- 12/21/2002 6:22:09 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		I think the biggest problem with this game is that the players do not think at the correct level. You are simulating the area commander, at his desk, not the 'guy on the ground' (less still the all seeing eye in the sky). Try approaching the game differently. In RL, you do not get real time reports of the action, you get day end summaries, and copies of signals (reading the combat reports). There are already things that you control that you ought not to really (altitude, %of pilots on training etc.). The last thing this game wants are more options to control.
Someone said it when they said the game lets you see too much and not enough at the same time.

Why dont you try playing the game at the strategic level, not as a tactical one? Build up the base, maximise it's benefits (supply, support, quality of aircrew), minimse the hazards (TF on station with orders to react etc), AND LET THEM GET ON WITH IT. Sure, they will do some odd things, but the guy on the ground would not see what you can see. He, poor Sap, has to make sense of a sting of odd sighting reports, planes going u/s at the wrong moment etc. weather etc.

If you want an example of 'crazy' things that shouldn't happen, just look at reality: Midway, CAP pulled down after TB, DB get in untouched. One search plane delayed with engine trouble, happens to have the interesting search sector. At Leyte, INJ has CVEs on a plate, and pulls off. If you were playing the game where these happen, wouldn't you all be screaming 'lousy AI', I want proper control.... I thing you will find that Nimitz, Yamamoto et al were doing something similar!

Final note: Gen Custer - bit of an cock up on his last outing, split his force, got surrounded, defeated in detail yes? If done by AI, big scream of 'oh no, stupid AI, why cant it be sensible'?
I had a really interesting replay of this action once. Disguised (obviously, no one is going to make any mistakes playing 'Custer's last stand'), fed the same info as Custer had, and given the objective of a quick easy victory, guess what, the players split their force, got surrounded, and defeated in detail....Lousy AI!?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 24
- 12/22/2002 2:53:53 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		I shall add my voice to the chorus:

I have only played two full scenarios but the situation I am about to describe happened in BOTH games almost exactly the same way (both scenarios were #1).

Port Moresby is stocked to the gills with fighters and PBYs and even a few B17s...

PM scouts spot the IJN CV forces off the north coast of New Guinea and 1-3 invasion TFs with troops (we will call this Day 1). My CV’s are far to the south of Gili Gili with my surface combat group in front of them....

Day 2 the IJN CV force stays about 200-250 miles back from Gili Gili but starts moving that way. MY TFs move north (still unspotted) with my surface TF in front by about 100-150 miles.

Day 3 IJN moves east toward Gili Gili and is still easily tracked by PM scouts as well as my carriers now...but in front of it are 1-2 IJN TF with troops about to land at Gili Gili... I continue to close the distance with my forces and order my surface TF to move INTO Gili Gili to engage the enemy landing forces and keep my CVs back a bit BUT well within range of the enemy CVs next turn... MY Port Moresby planes are very busy now with many TF to choose from. SOMETIMES they pick the CVs, but many times they do not...

(THIS is where it kills me)
Day 4 the IJN CV TF moves to the north of Gili Gili. The IJN invasion TFs move in to Gili Gili (sometimes one seems to hang back though—odd). My surface combat TF meets them in Gili Gili and they wave at each other as they pass...nothing more. My CVs are happy though they can now spot ALL of the enemy TFs and they are eager to engage the enemy’s best so they attack the enemy invasion forces and ignore the enemy CVs.... :-(

NOW, of course about this time the IJN CV’s ‘finally’ see my flat tops and my surface fleet and they pound the crap out of my CVs (of course). And if there is anything left of my CVs they pursue me and sink them...if not they happily turn on my surface combat fleet. BTW I have had my surface combat fleet spend THREE days in the same hex with an enemy landing forces and NEVER engage (what is up with that!)

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 25
- 12/22/2002 3:46:04 AM   
CommC

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline 		GG:
If you put your surface TF on patrol/do not retire and give them a hex destination, the regular surface TF interception rules come into play.. . which aren't very good, ie the chance of an interception occuring is small.

What you should do, is set your surface TF on Retirement allowed/react to enemy, and give it the Gili Gili destination hex, then it will go in at night, pound the enemy transport TF and get out by daylight to avoid IJN carrier air.

I do this all the time in the Coral Sea scenario to great effect.

I digress a little here, but what is even more fun is to set a submarine trap for the IJN carrier TF a couple hexes off Gili, then lure them into it with your carriers southwest of Gili. Be sure to keep your carriers out of range (9 hexes) of the IJN carriers. Best to let your subs, surface TFs (at night) and land based air from PM do the dirty work.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 26
Naval Attacks. - 12/22/2002 5:49:24 PM   
gamer1958

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/19/2002
Status: offline 		Well, I've only been playing this game for a week, but I do see the frustrations regarding "Select Target" as not being an option for Naval Attack. Too many games I've had a good number of level bombers and aviation support at Port Moresby waiting to pounce on any Jap task force that comes down to Buna or GG, only to watch my bombers fly off and get slaughtered over Rabaul or Shortland Island ....

I did monkey around with the settings, Altitude, Naval Search Levels, etc. Mixed results. I guess I want the bombers to follow my commands to the letter and destroy shipping, not worry about some islands that I have no hope of taking, especially in the 1st Scenario.

Another thing. The literature mentions about how "sharp" the AI is; however, when I give the computer control of all my sub forces, I noticed that they all make a beeline for Truk. With the Jap TFs obviously underway long before the subs could ever hope to catch them coming out of home port, wouldn't the "sharp" AI position the subs on CP or Mine-laying missions in the access channels??? I guess that's what the Human Control button is for...

Its been an enjoyable game regardless so far....

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 27
- 12/22/2002 8:48:11 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Interesting set of comments here (based on a quick skim...)
- my base attacked CA TF, when I wanted it to attack APs
- my base attacked AP TF and got slaughtered by CVs
- my planes never attack naval targets (althought this is probably a settings problem)

You are trying to play the game UV isn't;) .
As I implied above, stranger things have happened in RL than some of the complaints here (random samples):
- channel dash - 2 heavy Ge warships transit the English channel in broad daylight, only one ineffectual strike (unco-ordinated), gets slaughtered by LORCAP
- Halsey chases IJN CV and leaves CVEs exposed (despite orders to the contrary IIRC)
- IJN cocks up resulting CVE massacre
- Ark Royal strike on Bismark puts in a passable attack on HMS Sheffield (don't get that in UV - now there's a request;) ...)
- Beatty at Jutland doesn't manage to tell the 5th BS that the reason his battle cruisers have just reversed coarse is that the High Seas Fleet (all o f it) is just behind him - the 5th BS only found out when it appeared out of the mist, and they had to reverse coarse under fire! And Beatty passed only a few hundred yards away from the 5th BS - extend this sort of thing to air warfare!
- postion of Bismark passed to Home Fleet and plotted on the wrong grid, causing Home Fleet to head off in completely the wrong direction.

I stongly suspect that the majority of us would make the same 'mistakes' as the AI, if not worse, if we were the commander on the spot. I have learnt from my reading and games that all these 'bad' commanders in history were usually just average people, without having that exceptional flair, luck, whatever that the great commanders have. Usually, if they were actually stupid, they wouldn't have got the post in the first place. Sometimes, they were good, but were just unlucky!. You need to read some detailed stuff to see the sort of complete foul ups that were routine. If we were in local command, and Nimitz could see the events as we can during the game, I suspect he would be bursting blood vessels and screaming at us!

I keep saying, play the game it is, not the tactical version (which is unrealistic given all the info you have that the man on the ground doesn't). If you want to have control of what you base commanders do, (and still want a realistic simulation/wargame), you had better throw the main screen away, and substitute a paper map, a teleprinter, and a lot of guesswork...when you've done OK under these conditions (oh yes, add heat, insects, boredom, getting woken in the night, supply officers telling you that they have torpedoes, but no fuses, 250Lb GP, but no SAP, oh, and 1000s of red berets but no small arms ammo - happened at Arnhem! etc.), then complain about the AI.

I think a lot of what you complain about is possibly the game hindering the AI (random events stopping the AI doing what it 'should'. (Matrix?)
In other words, it IS the game... learn to play (and win) with these constraints and issues...it's what the game is about!

Just my 2p worth (but since it's Christmas, you get about £1 in length!)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 28
- 12/22/2002 9:49:14 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]Interesting set of comments here (based on a quick skim...)
- my base attacked CA TF, when I wanted it to attack APs
- my base attacked AP TF and got slaughtered by CVs
- my planes never attack naval targets (althought this is probably a settings problem)

You are trying to play the game UV isn't;) .
As I implied above, stranger things have happened in RL than some of the complaints here (random samples):
- channel dash - 2 heavy Ge warships transit the English channel in broad daylight, only one ineffectual strike (unco-ordinated), gets slaughtered by LORCAP
- Halsey chases IJN CV and leaves CVEs exposed (despite orders to the contrary IIRC)
- IJN cocks up resulting CVE massacre
- Ark Royal strike on Bismark puts in a passable attack on HMS Sheffield (don't get that in UV - now there's a request;) ...)
- Beatty at Jutland doesn't manage to tell the 5th BS that the reason his battle cruisers have just reversed coarse is that the High Seas Fleet (all o f it) is just behind him - the 5th BS only found out when it appeared out of the mist, and they had to reverse coarse under fire! And Beatty passed only a few hundred yards away from the 5th BS - extend this sort of thing to air warfare!
- postion of Bismark passed to Home Fleet and plotted on the wrong grid, causing Home Fleet to head off in completely the wrong direction.

I stongly suspect that the majority of us would make the same 'mistakes' as the AI, if not worse, if we were the commander on the spot. I have learnt from my reading and games that all these 'bad' commanders in history were usually just average people, without having that exceptional flair, luck, whatever that the great commanders have. Usually, if they were actually stupid, they wouldn't have got the post in the first place. Sometimes, they were good, but were just unlucky!. You need to read some detailed stuff to see the sort of complete foul ups that were routine. If we were in local command, and Nimitz could see the events as we can during the game, I suspect he would be bursting blood vessels and screaming at us!

I keep saying, play the game it is, not the tactical version (which is unrealistic given all the info you have that the man on the ground doesn't). If you want to have control of what you base commanders do, (and still want a realistic simulation/wargame), you had better throw the main screen away, and substitute a paper map, a teleprinter, and a lot of guesswork...when you've done OK under these conditions (oh yes, add heat, insects, boredom, getting woken in the night, supply officers telling you that they have torpedoes, but no fuses, 250Lb GP, but no SAP, oh, and 1000s of red berets but no small arms ammo - happened at Arnhem! etc.), then complain about the AI.

I think a lot of what you complain about is possibly the game hindering the AI (random events stopping the AI doing what it 'should'. (Matrix?)
In other words, it IS the game... learn to play (and win) with these constraints and issues...it's what the game is about!

Just my 2p worth (but since it's Christmas, you get about £1 in length!) [/B][/QUOTE]

Could,nt agree more, pity more didnt realise this when they bought the game.

Btw Warspite, I too reside near Bristol, what part you from? I live in Thornbury and work near Avonmouth.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 29
- 12/22/2002 10:35:13 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		It is a game and it plays out in a certain sort of way. Some of the people who feel disappointed with the system don’t actually know how it plays out and feel bad when things don’t go their way.

I do know how the game plays out. I do know about the foul ups, bad decisions, bad target choices and incompetence. I like it in the game. It is realistic, it should be modelled and UV is doing a good job with it.

However, the current system leaves the experience of being an operational commander to the level of: “I send my forces to this an area, but I don’t tell them what to do there. Let them figure out themselves what I am after and what is my greater plan”.

What I’m advocating is the experience should be: “I send my forces to an area with a set of command such as: Block invasion, Hinder supply, Search and destroy enemy CV TF or search and destroy enemy surface combat forces”. After giving these commands the TF goes away and acts accordingly. If it then makes a complete mess of things, fine. It happened and it should happen in the game. At least I would know in my heart that the proper orders were given to the commander and the fault was his, not mine.

Currently, I send my forces to action; they all sail to an area and do what they please, because they don’t know what my greater scheme is and for what purpose I deploy them. They always sail with the same orders and priorities, regardless do I want them to defend a vulnerable base from invasion, or do I want to go and hunt enemy carriers in preparation of my own invasion. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn’t, but most of the frustration for players is created by not knowing why things went wrong: Was it bad luck, didn’t I set my TF on right place with right orders, was the commander incompetent, doesn’t the game allow me to do x, is there a bug in the game?

I propose that when assigning CV TF on Air combat it should have at least two choises: Normal target prioritisation (as it is now) and Defend from invasion. The latter would change the prioritisation from CVs to troop ships. Of course target acquisition will have screw ups and of course wrong targets do get attacked, but at least I would know that I gave the right type of role to my TF. Furthermore, a surface combat TF should have two options as well, the normal and a pursuit, in which the Surface TF would attempt to pursuit and engage any surface TF within its range.

Such commands would greatly reduce my frustration and deepen the experience of being an operational level commander.

Ps. the argument about being an operational level commander is not valid in regard to target selection. An operational level commander would brief very accurately his immediate subordinates about the upcoming mission. Nobody with the authority to create a TF sends it out to the sea with only orders being: "Go conduct air missions at your discretion", or "go to the area and don't come back before you run out of fuel". To make such a claim is just plain silly. TF commanders know very well what they are supposed to do and what are their target priorities. Currently this cannot be done and sometimes it takes the fun out of planning straegic moves which collapse when subordinates don't know why they are out on their mission. Regardless of this lack, UV is still the best wargame I have ever played. I just wish WITP will be even better and lessons learned from UV will help to build better WITP.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Naval air attacks-Why can we not set the target area? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.594