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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 12/22/2002 11:46:32 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Regarding Frustration, Some still dont seem to get it that "frustration" is a major part of the game. I mean come on dont you think Yamamoto was frustrated that Hara sent a full strike at a unconfirmed siting that turned out to be just an oiler and DD? Dont you think Nimitz was frustrated that Fletcher sent his full strike against what only turned out to be a light covering force? A move that may have been disasterous if Hara hadnt already made his mistake. Dont you think Yamamoto was frustrated that the Hiryu 2nd strike at midway went after the already stricken Yorktown instead of the Hornet or Enterprise?

Dealing with unexpected mistakes and frustration is what makes this game so great. Without it most of us would master this game in no time and it would be collecting dust on the shelf.

RE:WitP; If anything, given the scale, you should have even less control in WitP not more.

(in reply to iceboy)

Post #: 31

- 12/23/2002 1:39:57 AM

HawaiiFive-O

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline

I am happy with the level of control as it exists currently.

Sure it drives me crazy when the enemy's CV taskforce is only 5 hexes away and expended itself bombing the crapola out of Lunga and my CVs have the perfect opportunity to launch a crippling blow to Japanese naval power- but such a strike was not launched. In fact, near as I can tell, no strike was launched, at all.

Such things happened IRL, such things should happen in the game.

I got some satisfaction out of the situation when the enemy CVs retired and the crazy AI still attempted amphibious landings. My CVs had no problems blowing those APs out of the water.

Perhaps they were scared of the amount of CAP a 6 CV + 2 CVL IJN taskforce is capable of putting up?

(in reply to iceboy)

Post #: 32

- 12/23/2002 6:11:29 AM

Piiska

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

I don�t think I made myself clear enough. I state again. I like that UV models bad decisions, wrong targets and all the rest of it that comes with the fog of war. I like it, because it is realistic.

But, frustration caused by the feeling of not being able to execute out your strategic plans is a totally different thing.

What I�m saying is that I feel that I can�t plan my strategic decisions because I can�t set particular roles for my TF.

The Task Forces always have the same set of orders and target priorities, regardless do I want them to defend a friendly base or act as spearhead of my invasion fleet. There is a world of difference between these two roles.

I give you an example. If I want to defend a base of mine and I have plenty of assets at my disposal I�m likely to create a couple of TF, all with slightly different function in my operational plan.

It could be that one, a stronger Air combat TF is ordered to hunt enemy CV,s while another, a weaker one is ordered to attack enemy troop ships. These would be operational decisions and in the case of UV should be decided by the player in one form or another.

If during the battle both TF attack the same (wrong) target, fair enough. That would be a mistake well within the realistic scope. But to claim that an operational commander only orders his TF to sail to an area without any further orders than just �Do some air combat� is simply not reasonable.

I would be perfectly happy with a choice between defensive/offensive role assigned for both air and surface combat groups. It doesn�t have to do anything else except to change hard coded target prioritisation: One targets warships the other targets supply ships. After such a prioritisation, the TF can make all the bad decisions on the tactical level they want, as they did in real life. But I want at least be able to give them right orders which reflect my operational/strategic thinking the best.

The fact that that the commanders attack wrong targets regardless of the given orders is one issue, the ability for the commander issue such order is another. They are not excluding each other out. They should BOTH be in the game. If not in UV, then perhaps in WITP.

(in reply to iceboy)

Post #: 33

- 12/23/2002 6:14:13 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock
[B]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. [/B][/QUOTE]

There's a coincidence. I live in Bishopston, and work in Filton.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to iceboy)

Post #: 34

- 12/23/2002 6:25:08 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Piiska
[B]I don�t think I made myself clear enough. I state again. I like that UV models bad decisions, wrong targets and all the rest of it that comes with the fog of war. I like it, because it is realistic....

I give you an example. If I want to defend a base of mine and I have plenty of assets at my disposal I�m likely to create a couple of TF, all with slightly different function in my operational plan.

It could be that one, a stronger Air combat TF is ordered to hunt enemy CV,s while another, a weaker one is ordered to attack enemy troop ships. These would be operational decisions and in the case of UV should be decided by the player in one form or another.

If during the battle both TF attack the same (wrong) target, fair enough. That would be a mistake well within the realistic scope. But to claim that an operational commander only orders his TF to sail to an area without any further orders than just �Do some air combat� is simply not reasonable.

I would be perfectly happy with a choice between defensive/offensive role assigned for both air and surface combat groups. It doesn�t have to do anything else except to change hard coded target prioritisation: One targets warships the other targets supply ships. After such a prioritisation, the TF can make all the bad decisions on the tactical level they want, as they did in real life. But I want at least be able to give them right orders which reflect my operational/strategic thinking the best.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Now this I like - the missing elemnent is indeed the ability to assign general standing to a TF, or base. For a TF, historical missions might include:
- decoy (get youself spotted then high tail it out of there (IJN CV at Philipenes)
- 'normal mission' (as today)
- anti invasion(up the priority of AP etc, but most CV will still chase CV if they see one - ref Halsey)
- cautious - main priority is to avoid getting sunk, pass up opportunities if any danger
- cover - protect TF XXX from attack, all other missions secondary
I am sure there are more, but this would enable a basic strategic plan to be enacted. I am sure the coding task would be considerable however.
Land bases could have similar range - self defence, air superiority, interdiction, invasion cover, etc.

I suspect this is beyond UV at present (or for good). Nice idea though.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to iceboy)

Post #: 35

- 12/23/2002 6:35:12 AM

Piiska

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]Now this I like - the missing elemnent is indeed the ability to assign general standing to a TF, or base. For a TF, historical missions might include:
- decoy (get youself spotted then high tail it out of there (IJN CV at Philipenes)
- 'normal mission' (as today)
- anti invasion(up the priority of AP etc, but most CV will still chase CV if they see one - ref Halsey)
- cautious - main priority is to avoid getting sunk, pass up opportunities if any danger
- cover - protect TF XXX from attack, all other missions secondary
I am sure there are more, but this would enable a basic strategic plan to be enacted. I am sure the coding task would be considerable however.
Land bases could have similar range - self defence, air superiority, interdiction, invasion cover, etc.

I suspect this is beyond UV at present (or for good). Nice idea though. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bingo!! Your plan is cunning indeed my dear Baldrick.

I like UV at the present as well, but why not strive for something even better? Should UV remain the top peak of wargame developement, after which nothing is going to come out? I doubt it, and if WITP would have this possibility to set different operational roles for Task Forces, it would most likely far exceed the greatness of UV.

(in reply to iceboy)

Post #: 36

- 12/23/2002 8:59:22 AM

HawaiiFive-O

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline

OK, let me restate my position :)

I am happy with the current level of control.

But what Piiska is talking about sounds wonderful! It would be much better to be able to assign "roles" to each TF.

(in reply to iceboy)

Post #: 37