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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 3/4/2003 12:00:11 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Admittedly, diverting in the evening and attacking the following morning is not exactly the complaint, but it is close enough that a 100% fatigue rating given upon landing would prevent the attack from happening (after all, it was the next daytime phase after the diversion).

To enforce a situation where no a/c can attack after transferring would prevent the historical move where bombers based in Australia would land at and stage their attacks on Rabaul and Kavieng from Dobadura.

Rather I would like to see the extra fatigue given not to all a/c that transfer (they do receive quite a bit already, dependant upon how distant the transfer is), but rather a penalty assessed to carrier based a/c whose carrier has been knocked out of action. This should prevent the same morning/afternoon attacks that concern us without preventing the historic use of transfers.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 31
- 3/4/2003 1:43:06 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Based on what you just described, would not a morale hit make more sense then a fatigue hit?

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 32
- 3/4/2003 2:08:30 AM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
[B]Admittedly, diverting in the evening and attacking the following morning is not exactly the complaint, but it is close enough that a 100% fatigue rating given upon landing would prevent the attack from happening (after all, it was the next daytime phase after the diversion).

To enforce a situation where no a/c can attack after transferring would prevent the historical move where bombers based in Australia would land at and stage their attacks on Rabaul and Kavieng from Dobadura.

Rather I would like to see the extra fatigue given not to all a/c that transfer (they do receive quite a bit already, dependant upon how distant the transfer is), but rather a penalty assessed to carrier based a/c whose carrier has been knocked out of action. This should prevent the same morning/afternoon attacks that concern us without preventing the historic use of transfers. [/B][/QUOTE]

While the thread may have digressed, I don't think the fatigue/morale model for transfers needs a change.
Just that planes which [SIZE=3] diverted [/SIZE] off a sinking carrier should not be allowed to launch strikes (CAP is fine) untill the following day.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 33
- 3/4/2003 2:48:39 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Veer
[B]While the thread may have digressed, I don't think the fatigue/morale model for transfers needs a change.
Just that planes which [SIZE=3] diverted [/SIZE] off a sinking carrier should not be allowed to launch strikes (CAP is fine) untill the following day. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey Veer,

No need to [SIZE=3]SHOUT[/SIZE], I hear you :)

I am trying to point out the root cause of the issue, not simply hi-jacking the thread. The reason that I do not focus on the diversion issue is that it is only one piece of the transfer issue as a whole, the only distinction between a diversion and a transfer is that for the former the decision to switch to an alternate base is made by the local commander not the user. So if the larger transfer issue is resolved then you should get the diversion issue solution for free as well.

I think some very fine points have already been made that the CV diversion routines need tweaking and I am in agreement. I just think it would be in everyone's best interest to fix the problem at its source rather than treat each symptom seperately.

Cheers

Gus

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 34
- 3/4/2003 4:25:51 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I just think it would be in everyone's best interest to fix the problem at its source rather than treat each symptom seperately[/QUOTE]

You'll never make it in management with that kind of attitude :p

Symptom: Someone got creamed and lost their CV due to this. :(

Solution: Take away all their CV's and it will never happen again! :D

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 35
- 3/4/2003 11:36:17 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Gus, the regular air transfers already come with a significant fatigue penalty (how much is dependant upon the distance transferred), as others have mentioned in this thread. While I agree that the transfer should happen during the air phase as opposed to being a teleport action, I'd like to be sure that any time penalties given to model this do not prevent the historical type of forward base staging for a/c missions.

My thoughts are that if there is any time penalty given on top of the existing fatigue penalty it should be for no more than one air phase. This would model the B25s flying from Cairns to Dobadura in the morning and then flying a mission in the afternoon. This action will incur severe fatigue penalties, but is something that occurred on a fairly regular basis through the campaign and so should not be prevented by the game system.

Transferring the planes immediately and sending a mission in the morning is too much a stretch on reality in my book, and there is where I agree with you. My worry is about a reactionary overcorrection of the problem which would prevent use of a/c in a historical manner.

Mr. Frag, Yes a morale hit would make better sense if it is enough to prevent immediate strikes and yet can wear off fast enough to allow them the next day. My experience in UV is that morale is regained slowly while fatigue comes back much more quickly, thus my suggestion for the fatigue hit to model the situation a little more accurately (even though it sounds less accurate, I think that the result would be more realistic).

this is just one man's opinion.... no better, nor worse than any other...

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 36
- 3/4/2003 12:46:09 PM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		Hey bradfordk

I agree with everything you say in principal and believe me I do not want to eliminate the 3 legged bombing runs as I think that not only are they historically accurate but they are an effective tactic in UV when used sparingly as well. To be frank I don’t know what the best solution to this issue would be from a developers stand point. There is certainly a fatigue issue, there is an a/c damage issue and there is a morale issue that is already reflected in the UV game engine ( whether or not it is accurate is up for debate). I have suggested that a time element be added and that appears to be acceptable to you as well.

The remaining issue is that there is no real way to reflect the administrative and logistical aspects of staging raids of this sorts at present in the game, forward staging of aircrews and munitons is not a trivial exercise! The only compromise solution I can come up with is that the air group in question must be in the C&C radius of an air HQ at its base of origin to be capable of flying a three legged mission without incurring severe penalties to fatigue, morale and/or a/c damage on each leg of its route.

This would not eliminate this tactic but would make you pay a very severe price if you used it in a cavalier fashion, i.e you used it outside of HQ C&C range. It would also mitigate the CV diversion issue as their transfer would be unplanned and so would not be ‘protected’ by the air HQ rule above so they would receive significant penalties to fatigue, morale and a/c damage that would reduce the size of any counter strike they try to assemble during the next phase or turn.

Cheers

Gus

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 37
- 3/5/2003 12:49:14 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Supplies or not, diverted aircraft in any of number would not have the ground support that they usually work with (treading water) and even a well supported base would have to piece together ground crew to service the aircraft. Could be done but not so easily or fast. This of course would be different if the base was expecting the air groups as in a transfer situation.

I think heavy fatigue and morale penalties would suffice without having to alter the game greatly.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

1.905