Bill vs Ron: Modified CHS 2.06

[wyrmmy]

It's not so much the strikes, as in my case, KB was on 0 react, follow invasion TF, and instead reacted to the carriers, but did not strike at them, but at merchants. If that were the case, they should have reacted to the merchants.

[ADM Halsey]

That is kind of the way I was looking at it when I lost my American CVs. Your Pilots are sent out on a course to the last known position of the enemy ships. What if the spotters made a mistake? What happens when your pilots get over the target and realize that there are no carriers to be hit? Do they continue to search the area and maybe not find anything? Do they return to the carriers with their bombs dropped on they way into the ocean? Do they attack the shipping then return to get off another strike before dark?

[denisonh]

Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models.

I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP.

[quote]ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

That is kind of the way I was looking at it when I lost my American CVs. Your Pilots are sent out on a course to the last known position of the enemy ships. What if the spotters made a mistake? What happens when your pilots get over the target and realize that there are no carriers to be hit? Do they continue to search the area and maybe not find anything? Do they return to the carriers with their bombs dropped on they way into the ocean? Do they attack the shipping then return to get off another strike before dark?
[/quot

[ADM Halsey]

Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models.

I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP.

What can be done to fix the problem?

[denisonh]

The only option available short of a patch are house rules and scenario mods.

Some of the problems would be improved with the inclusion of a better command and control model. The differentiation of computer controlled and human controlled actions overlap in a seemingly "haphazard" level, making the human at times a tactical commander and at other times an operational commander. Modeling the command and control properly to link player decisions to operations planning and subsequent execution at tactical level would go a long way in addressing this issue. Only problem is that would be a major programming change and not likely for WitP at this point.

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

Uncertainty is a big part of warfare, and it played a big part in the decision making and subesequent outcomes in WWII. It just needs to be a part of the model rather than an explanation for shortcomings in the models.

I am one who beleives that there should be a wide variance in outcomes to prevent a "chess" like feel for the game: it was about risk management rather than QxKn "I win". This is my major complaint with the uber effectiveness of CAP.

What can be done to fix the problem?

[Ron Saueracker]

Heyho. Well, it has been a month away from this latest frustrating one sided battle and I'm less stressed. Did not help that I was awaiting a response from the medics regarding a tumour biopsy in my head! Benign thankfully. I wonder if the tumour is WITPs fault...being so close to a monitor for years?! My big arse beef regarding this result is that yet again the Allied CVs get pounded without launching (every CV battle Bill and I've had in both our games have been one sided with the Japs launching over two air phases at extreme range and the Allied CVs never launching or reacting one hex to close the range).

This is not exactly sour grapes. For one thing, Bill and I are playing two games, one in 43 which I'm winning as Allies (no CVs lost on either side despite two CV exchanges where the USN was hit at extreme IJN range and unable to respond against IJN CVs) and this one in mid 42 which Bill is leading. I'm not throwing in the towel because of one bad result, we have had three consecutive one sided exchanges in two games (100% of the CV battles) which just does not wash IMO. Secondly, ust for the record, can anyone post an historical example of a CV exchange where one side had the range advantage in aircraft endurance and the opposing CVs could not reply during the same period due to shorter ranged aircraft? (The IJN strikes by Ozawa during Phillipine Sea can't be mentioned here as they launched well outside their own range and were to utilize Marianas airstrips between themselves and the USN TFs, which is one of the many things the game can't handle) The naval air model is not really capable of handling the range differences in aircraft because of its' inherent level of abstractness. Not only can't a Midway result happen with aircraft caught on a carriers deck when the enemy is within range of each other (unless of course the Allies get nailed at range extreme range[;)]...the only way a Midway result happens it seems, especially since the search model is so generous to the recon aircraft) but I've sat through three consecutive CV "battles" where the Allies get creamed at long range and don't respond, despite having friendly air bases between themselves and the enemy CVs (which would also permit a launch and safe recovery in lieu of the TFs themselves closing the range to allow recovery). The reaction rules fail to alleviate this because folks tend to set reaction to 0 or 1 to reign in the uncontrollable urge of CVs to close vastly superior forces regardless of a setting of zero reaction, damage, LBA, cautious COs and lastly the inability of TFs set to follow to do just that if the lead TF reacts (basically each TF reacts and does not remain cohesive resulting in your TFs being spread out over multiple haexes and open to destruction in detail).

In lieu of any programming modifications the only thing I can think of to make this acceptable is to equalize the ranges of naval aircraft to ensure mutual exchanges within this very abstract model. Hard to handle playing for a year only to have something totally unrealistic and strategically decisive happen such as CVs not launching because of the limitations of the model whereas in real life every CV battle we experienced with the IJN pounding the Allies at extreme range with impunity would have seen mutual air group launchings instead.

I still have the games and saves on my PC Bill. If there was a way we could fix this so that both our CVs launched then I'd be happy to continue. Longer term fixes outside of database adjustments or reprogramming might be as simple as limiting the max launch range for Jap CV aircraft to the max of the Allied CV aircraft.

[ADM Halsey]

I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.

PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc?

[ADM Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.

PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc?

I will adjust the range from 5 to 4 for IJN carrier planes. Then lets see what happens after that.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: ADM Halsey

I have been waiting on your return to the forums Ron. I wanted to contact you but I thought I would give you some time.

I have been wondering about your medical problem and hoping you received a good report.

Take care and hope to talk to you soon.

PMed you. So, you think that limiting max ranges of IJN aircraft to the max Allied strike range is a solution to the problem of having tactical level differences like minor range variances in game without having any equally functionable abstract compensation like shuttle missions, strike mission TF closure etc?

I will adjust the range from 5 to 4 for IJN carrier planes. Then lets see what happens after that.

OK. I'll resend the turn. Interesting to see what, if anything, happens. I dislike redos but this is a serious flaw IMO.

[Ron Saueracker]

Wow. I'm in such serious withdrawl I looked this AAR up today. We replayed the turn and if I remember correctly the CVs did not react to each other but an Allied surface combat TF reacted to a Japanese invasion TF and ended up in one of the Fiji base hexes, stopped, and got ponded by KB. Why it reacted I have no idea as the Japanese Transport TF did not even move towards Fiji. If one is to have a reaction feature, one also needs a proper withdrawl feature, preferably a more user's intention orders feature with a multitude of player selected "conditions" from which to chose from so units react with more variation yet reasonably within a player's intent. Also what is needed is some sort of UI capability which facilitates friendly TF interaction. Right now all we have is the "follow" order which fails once the reaction routines are triggered.

I'm really curious as to what the big announcement is on Pearl Harbor Day. Maybe something has been implemented to alleviate these and many other issues and make the game mechanics less frustrating. I've always enjoyed a tough challenge and play through adversity through play of the game (nothing like getting pounded by a good player like Bill and weathering the result), I just find it difficult to play through mechanics issues.

How's it going Bill, by the way?

[ADM Halsey]

I tried to respond to your IM but it said you in box is full.