Heh, our interpretations of "open ocean" must be different.Originally posted by Wilhammer
http://www.combinedfleet.com/map.htm
Notice how almost NOTHING happened in the open ocean.
Paul;
I figured that was the line of reasoning in the game and understand. Even though the one day turns are far less clunky than the old PacWar system, some compromises and design challenges remain since an easy way must be found to resolve 24 hours of movement, counter-movement etc etc, and tie it all in too air and undersea ops as well. All of which falls below the spectrum of what an operational commander has to deal with.
I would still profer one suggestion though in regards to Transport and supply TF's (non-fast ones) such as the one at the beginning of the grand campaign/MO operation.
In such circumstances, the only reason to create surface TF's would be to (hopefully) intercept such a ripe target. The game should allow some form of limited 'reaction' allowing a surface combat TF "in close proximity" (say 2-4 hexes) to be given a chance to make a run at it. Similar to the "follow TF" routine. (and perhaps thats where it could be worked in?)
Otherwise the player's only option is to guess/track the destination hex for a spotted TF on a per turn basis, or station surface TF's right at the base most likely threatened which presents two problems to the defender.
1) it gives the attacker more time to adjust his gameplan
2) provides a convenient opportunity to pound it with LBA and/or carrier aircraft.
Before i get jumped on by opposing viewers i will admit that in the scope covered by UV, this is a minor issue, if it can even be called an issue as the majority of the fighting will revolve around the solomons chain where the "Tokyo Express"/short-distanced objective nature of that conflict will make bases the obvious magnets which will produce all the surface combat a grognard can desire.
As always though, i am also thinking of the "Big Picture" in my own way too
What that means is that i'm thinking of the upcoming WitP which will share essentially the same engine as UV. In that grand scale game, limiting surface warships to base support vessels would become more of an issue and i hope that will be considered as that much anticipated game is developed further.
Limiting surface combat to bases only after all, was a necessary limitation of PacWar. Here (and in WitP) the player for the first time is allowed to plot detailed paths for their TF's. As such, just as with the subs (and the carriers) there should be a range of action for all types of TF's involved. Obviously that for a surface TF would be much more limited in scale but the ability to react should be there.
Especially if WitP allows the type of hypothetical campaign envisioned in the defunct "Pacific Tide" where carrier development and involvement was speculated as "arrested" in favor of battleship development (i.e. no "washington Treaty")
Same destination hex open ocean (i.e. non "base" hexes) combat remains possible in UV, but this is a hard thing to arrange, even when tracking a slow transport group as even an error of one 30 mile hex can allow that slow fat target to escape your grasp.
