when the 1.2 level bomber patch changes take effect...

[doomonyou]

with longer repairs, more AA/Flak/CAP trouble, morale hits etc....has anyone taken into account the terifying tactic the AI almost always chooses for naval attack of discovering ships in Rabaul or Kavieg and sending in planes to attack them, flying through the bases big caps? Such attacks will now lead to severe losses in the bombers groups or just keeping them out for days on end.

that is quite realistic and fair.

But will I be able to explain to the ai that I want ships attacked in the open seas and not under the cap of the largest Jap airbase south of Okinawa? Or will this change, because of that risk, stop you from being effectively able to attack with the naval attack command whenver your aircraft have the range and can decide to jump into the hornet's nest?

[bradfordkay]

Good point!!

It would be nice if the Naval Attack option did not include attacks on ships in port. At least there should be an option to preclude or allow this. This could end up being very costly to the allies, since the Japanese rarely using their a/c in level bombing attacks (**** those Betties and their torpedos!).

[Didz]

I think this leads back to an earlier question.

Why can't we decide which naval units to target with our naval air attacks?

I know we are not supposed to be able to control such things but it would make life much easier for all concerned.

In the Battle of Britian game the map displays all the targets identified and allows the player to select which units within range are to try and attack which targets. Such attacks are not always successful but at least your planes don't go charging off doing something stupid instead.

[strollen]

Although there are times I wish I had target control I see two problems.

First, I am not sure it is appropriate for a operational game, and second it would add another phase for PBEM games (i.e plot orders, than select targets.)

[Fred98]

If an aircraft squadron is land based we can direct it to a target.

If however the squadron is ship based, say 2 hexes away, we cannot direct it to target.

Makes no sense to me.

At the end of the day this is a game and therefore we should be able to direct every squadron.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Joe 98
If an aircraft squadron is land based we can direct it to a target.

If however the squadron is ship based, say 2 hexes away, we cannot direct it to target.

Makes no sense to me.

At the end of the day this is a game and therefore we should be able to direct every squadron.

AFAIK, there is no difference at that level between land-based squadrons & ship-based squadrons. You can specify land targets ... because they don't move while you cannot target naval objectives because they MOVE !!!!

So IRL your orders as the C-in-C for instance could be "if the morning recons spot any TF, react in order to bomb it ! and rather bomb a CV TF rather than a Transport TF"

And it is exactly what is in the game

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Spooky


AFAIK, there is no difference at that level between land-based squadrons & ship-based squadrons. You can specify land targets ... because they don't move while you cannot target naval objectives because they MOVE !!!!

So IRL your orders as the C-in-C for instance could be "if the morning recons spot any TF, react in order to bomb it ! and rather bomb a CV TF rather than a Transport TF"

And it is exactly what is in the game

Not really. My Hudsons fly up near Rabaul (from PM) to attack an AP convoy when 6 or 7 hexes away a bombardment group sits unmolested (by the Hudsons).

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Sonny


Not really. My Hudsons fly up near Rabaul (from PM) to attack an AP convoy when 6 or 7 hexes away a bombardment group sits unmolested (by the Hudsons).

And so what ... An AP convoy is an easier target (slow ships, weak AA, ...) than bombardment groups (fast ships & heavy AA) for LBA planes such as the Hudson.

Moreover, you can invade a base with APs but not with BB & CA so the Transport TF is maybe considered as more dangerous than a Bombardment TF

[bradfordkay]

I am certainly happy with the present targeting choices, except for the propensity for bomber groups set on naval attack to fly into heavily protected ports to attack task forces there. This was a problem before the new adjustments take place, and will be much worse after.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Sonny


Not really. My Hudsons fly up near Rabaul (from PM) to attack an AP convoy when 6 or 7 hexes away a bombardment group sits unmolested (by the Hudsons).

The 250lb firecrackers that the Hudsons carry just bounce off of warships. Much more effective against AP/AK ships.

[Didz]

Must admit I'm getting a little bit tired of this arguement that because UV is an 'operational level' game we the players have to sit and the the AI play with itself.

Lets face it if UV was an accurate simulation of the problems of operational command we wouldn't be able to see anything of what was going on beyond the walls of our office and probably the first we would hear of the sinking of our best CV would be when some stress out staffer rushed in with a telex.

(No simulated bomb sounds, or torpedo's - nothing but the urgent clacking of telex machines)

The game would consist of an endless stream of requisitions and orders for our simulated digital signature with regular visits to the ops room where we could study a lots of coloured pins stuck in maps.

What I'm saying is that what we the players get to do or don't get to do isn't dictated by the fact that this is an 'Operational Level' game. Its determined by what the designers decided to allow us to do. And that in some cases I think they made life for uneccessarilty complicated both for themselves and the players.

In this case allowing players to choose the targets for their air strikes would have avoided no end of complicated coding trying to get the AI to make sensible choices whilst at the same time enhanced the game play for the player.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
The basic rule of system design.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Didz
Must admit I'm getting a little bit tired of this arguement that because UV is an 'operational level' game we the players have to sit and the the AI play with itself.

Lets face it if UV was an accurate simulation of the problems of operational command we wouldn't be able to see anything of what was going on beyond the walls of our office and probably the first we would hear of the sinking of our best CV would be when some stress out staffer rushed in with a telex.

(No simulated bomb sounds, or torpedo's - nothing but the urgent clacking of telex machines)

The game would consist of an endless stream of requisitions and orders for our simulated digital signature with regular visits to the ops room where we could study a lots of coloured pins stuck in maps.

What I'm saying is that what we the players get to do or don't get to do isn't dictated by the fact that this is an 'Operational Level' game. Its determined by what the designers decided to allow us to do. And that in some cases I think they made life for uneccessarilty complicated both for themselves and the players.

In this case allowing players to choose the targets for their air strikes would have avoided no end of complicated coding trying to get the AI to make sensible choices whilst at the same time enhanced the game play for the player.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)
The basic rule of system design.

But we are receiving some kind of telex ... with only some more fancy animations

However - you CAN choose the targets for your air strikes except again naval targets ... But there are big differences between a land target and a naval target : naval targets move !!!

Since TF are spotted in the morning, no player input can be taken in account if you want PBEM games to be possible.

Spooky

[NorthStar]

Originally posted by Didz

What I'm saying is that what we the players get to do or don't get to do isn't dictated by the fact that this is an 'Operational Level' game. Its determined by what the designers decided to allow us to do. And that in some cases I think they made life for uneccessarilty complicated both for themselves and the players.

Of course correct, but the designers (I assume, not being one) base their decisions on what to allow on an overal game design philosophy. The philosophy for UV is of "Operation Control", and I have yet to see an example of allowable or not allowable action which is not consistent with this.

Consider that in a groud based Operational game (say TOAW) you issue orders to large units (say Regiments) which then carry out your orders. You have no control of what the individual vehicles and squads actually do in order to carry out the orders (exactly where in the hex they take up positions, who they attack, etc.) because these events are too small for the time/space scale and are abstracted to some degree.

UV is essentially the same except that time scale is the primary limiting factor (how fast things have to happen) and (unfortunately in some ways, because of these discussions) we have a better window onto the action then most games would allow. Basically, our actions are locked on "Operational Level", while we can see events on a "Tactical Level". This in and of itself engenders a lot of frustrations, because we don't always agree with the Tactical descisions made by the AI subordinate commanders. To continue the above analogy, I'm sure that if TOAW showed the detailed action of each tank and squad, exactly the same comments and complaints would be made.

That being said, I wish the AI Subordinates were a bit sharper about certain things as well -- attacking TFs in heavily defended ports and moving Air Combat TFs into LBA range being notible examples. Sure, allowing the player to make all these decisions directly would have simplified the AI, but I think Matrix and 2by3 should be commended for the effort, not castigated for it. Operation control was what was advertised, and Operational control was what was delivered (IMHO).

Besides, the overall result is that the player who best understands how the AI subordinates will react (both the enemy's and his own) has the best chance of prevailing. Just like the real thing, no?

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Didz
........

In this case allowing players to choose the targets for their air strikes would have avoided no end of complicated coding trying to get the AI to make sensible choices whilst at the same time enhanced the game play for the player.

..

But it would have made the game even more unbalanced in favor of the player as he could execute attacks unhistorically.

Remember playing those other carrier games where you would (ahistorically) not go after some targets and pile everything against one task force because it had such and such a ship or ships? As much as I get pissed by my commanders squandering resources to send some planes to attack that AP instead of adding it to the force attacking the CV TF, I realize that is the way things were really done.

[strollen]

Let me ask the question again. If we were allowed to select naval targets, how would that work in a PBEM game?

[Supervisor]

What you can't tell from the information that the game provides you is: what information did the TF/AG commander have at the time that the strike was sent, and when did he get it? What TFs were sighted by the commander? What level of reliability was there to what information that he did have?

The information that is displayed onscreen (to you) is the information that you possess at the end of the turn. This is a total compilation from all sources from that day. This information is what is known at "headquarters" not necessarily what is known at each separate command (and this is what is known at the end of the day). It doesn't list when during the day that the local commanders got this information, either.

It's hard to say what factors the AI is using to determine target selection (morale, sighting level, timing, etc.). So, I can't say that there is a problem when the squadrons attack one TF vs. another. Besides, it's not like mistakes like that didn't happen IRL. It's not like the Neosho and Sims were high priority targets for the Japanese. They thought they were launching against a carrier.

Whereas, you (the player) would be seeing your CV TF attack an enemy transport TF while the enemy carriers show up elsewhere. But to your CV TF, the second sighting reports of the enemy carriers apparently came too late, or were reported as something else. That's possible.

[Diealtekoenig]

Originally posted by strollen
Let me ask the question again. If we were allowed to select naval targets, how would that work in a PBEM game?

I would propose like this:

A choice (menu where you click on one choice):

"Prefered target:

CV
Capital Ship
Small Warship
AP/AK/AO/TK
Barge/PT/LST

You set one of those as the "prefered target" for your orders/doctrine and then that ship is weighted higher as a target choice (but the pilots still could choose a different ship due to screening, numbers present etc.)

Me, I would set the "APs and things of that ilk" as the highest priority. They are easier to sink and once the APs are gone all the other ships, planes and troops just sort of coast to a halt.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Spooky


But we are receiving some kind of telex ... with only some more fancy animations

Exactly so a design decision was made to make the game more interesting by adding these fancy animations which give us almost instant access to information which by rights we would have no access to in the imaginary role we are supposed to be playing.

I think that was a good call on the part of the design team as the game would have been a bit dry without it. But it was an arbitary design decision not one that was driven by a desire to accurately portray the problems on operational command.

Therefore it seems a bit perverse to accept the existence of such features whilst arguing against other similar improvements in game play on the grounds that they are inappropraite.

However - you CAN choose the targets for your air strikes except again naval targets ... But there are big differences between a land target and a naval target : naval targets move !!!

So what! Reports arrive from search planes, coast watchers, fishermen, mermaids or whatever warning of the presence of a large fleet of enemy capital ships and at least two CV's 300 miles from your base sailing due east. Whilst another reports a smaller task force with four tankers and a strong destroyer escort heading straight for you. Ok! perhaps the reports are 2 hours old but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't decide which target to launch a strike against in the hope of locating and attack it.

The strike might fail to find its target, it might even find a different fleet en-route and attack that one instead or it might get grounded by bad weather. It might discover that the two CV's are actually tankers and that the four tankers were actually the CV's but nevertheless a decision would have to be made to launch a strike and which squadrons to commit to it.

All I am saying is that it would have solved a lot of issues if the program let the player decide instead of trying to code judgement, hunches and guesswork into the AI routines and leaving us as mere spectators.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Sonny


But it would have made the game even more unbalanced in favor of the player as he could execute attacks unhistorically.

Remember playing those other carrier games where you would (ahistorically) not go after some targets and pile everything against one task force because it had such and such a ship or ships? As much as I get pissed by my commanders squandering resources to send some planes to attack that AP instead of adding it to the force attacking the CV TF, I realize that is the way things were really done.

Ok! I have to admit my knowledge of carrier warfare is largely based upon watching american war films which are notoriously inaccurate in historical detail.

But nevertheless the impression I get from these films is that that is exactly the sort of gamble that commanders of Carrier Forces had to take.

I can still remember the scene where Adm Nagumo has just launched the last of his bombers against Midway or whereever and then gets a report from Search Plane 4 (which was 30 minutes late taking off) that two enemy carriers are within strike range of his fleet.

And another where the main strike was launched at a false sighting which turned out to be a tanker leaving the CV's helpless against the enemies incoming strike planes.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Didz


Exactly so a design decision was made to make the game more interesting by adding these fancy animations which give us almost instant access to information which by rights we would have no access to in the imaginary role we are supposed to be playing.

I think that was a good call on the part of the design team as the game would have been a bit dry without it. But it was an arbitary design decision not one that was driven by a desire to accurately portray the problems on operational command.

Therefore it seems a bit perverse to accept the existence of such features whilst arguing against other similar improvements in game play on the grounds that they are inappropraite.

The fancy animations bring NO further informations than the "paper" report at the end - only some suspense . And so - according to you - the damage reports and losses are not given to a C-in-C

However, please tell me how your pilots will recognize the enemy TF you would like to target - since you do not know their position nor their exact composition

The only thing I think Matrix should add is some kind of "to be targeted first" option in naval attack choices. The standard option would be to strike the CV first but maybe in some cases you would rather like to strike Transport TF or Naval Combat/bombardement TF instead of CV TF