Naval Air Attack-Targeting

[hbrsvl]

Hi-I know this should be in the AE Air forum, but didn't see how to get a new thread going.

My biggest gripe with WITP is the inability to target air units to specific naval TFs. Example-There are 2 japanese TFs around an Allied base, one Air Combat, the other Transport. Assume base has gobs of supplies, air support. etc.

Almost 100% of the time, air units will strike the transport TF, leaving the AC TF alone. Also assume they both are an equal distance from Allied base.

Will/can AE address this problem?

Now for my mea culpa. If there is a way to target individual TFs in WITP-please, someone tell me how & forget the subject of this post.

Thanks, Hugh Browne

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: hbrsvl

Hi-I know this should be in the AE Air forum, but didn't see how to get a new thread going.

My biggest gripe with WITP is the inability to target air units to specific naval TFs. Example-There are 2 japanese TFs around an Allied base, one Air Combat, the other Transport. Assume base has gobs of supplies, air support. etc.

Almost 100% of the time, air units will strike the transport TF, leaving the AC TF alone. Also assume they both are an equal distance from Allied base.

Will/can AE address this problem?

Now for my mea culpa. If there is a way to target individual TFs in WITP-please, someone tell me how & forget the subject of this post.

Thanks, Hugh Browne

Nope, not in UV, WITP, WPO or AE.

[Dili]

Well you should read about war and how many times units fail to do what the boss wants.

[bradfordkay]

What I always wanted was to be able to set priorities for the naval attacks between :supply, troop, air combat, surface combat, auxiliary TFs.

It's a way of saying, "Guys, I know that there's a lot of targets out there, but what we really need for you to do is HIT THE TRANSPORTS! If they can't put the troops ashore, we won't get shoved off this island."


NOTE: I know that there are no new features being put into AE, I'm just making a comment on how I wish it could have been done.

[Dili]

If there is no account of failures and sometimes the crew diverting to get the glory of attacking a bigger prize i dont want that at all. Hard pressed by fighters and usually only the extremes of a fleet are attacked usually escorts that cover the transports.
The first lesson of a commander is that everyone under you will somehow distort your strategy. I dont want a game where when i say attack X that happens. I want variability, mistakes, fog and the mess of war.

[m10bob]

In MANY prior threads this one particular "quirk" has been lamented on, and it has been pointed out that ship identification was a major problem encountered on both sides.

IMHO, a naval aviator, living on a flat-top, 24/7 should be able to identify another flat-top.
I believe exactly ONE instance can be found that this was not the case.
Land-based army pilots seem to have sincere problems,(Colin Kelly perhaps being cited as one of the earliest errors), but IMHO, perhaps in a later patch, or game, ship ID/targeting might give carrier-based pilots an edge?

An earlier Gary Grigsby game, (Carrier Strike) had this feature, and when the raiding planes located an enemy fleet, the game paused and as the pilots reported what they had located(with a degree of error), the gamer had the option of having the attack go in, or to have his planes "loiter", or even move to the next hex.
This (to me), was an ideal situation.

[bradfordkay]

Dili, my option doesn't preclude fog-of-war and mistargetting. It does, however, change the WITP priority system where the combat vessels are the first targets in any aerial attack. In fact, that priority system is the main reason I usually send Force Z to contest the Khota Bahru landings - in hopes of driving off the SCTF so that the Malayan air forces might actually get a chance to attack transports instead of bouncing their bombs off the BBs and CAs.

I'm not asking for it to always attack the target I want - just for a weighted die roll that gives a better chance to attack the type of TF prioritized...

[Dili]

I'm not asking for it to always attack the target I want - just for a weighted die roll that gives a better chance to attack the type of TF prioritized...

Okay then.

An earlier Gary Grigsby game, (Carrier Strike) had this feature, and when the raiding planes located an enemy fleet, the game paused and as the pilots reported what they had located(with a degree of error), the gamer had the option of having the attack go in, or to have his planes "loiter", or even move to the next hex.
This (to me), was an ideal situation.

Maybe it is the way i see the game but i like that the game allows for the combatant bits & bytes to make their decisions too. A degree of uncertainity and latitude. It needs to take in account also in what iniciative an Army allows their subordinates to have and also the changing circunstances. A pilot in combat sees a CV without fighter cover and thinks he can do a good attack but his orders are to take transports what he will do? i prefer that the die roll resolves that than to ask me to resolve it. I dont want to take the place of the pilot, the ship gunner , the torpedo director or be a tank commander not in this kind of game that seems to me pretend to simulate the commander. And the first thing a Commander gets is to be disapointed that their troops dont do what he wants.

[John 3rd]

I just went off about this very topic in my AAR!
 

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
An earlier Gary Grigsby game, (Carrier Strike) had this feature, and when the raiding planes located an enemy fleet, the game paused and as the pilots reported what they had located(with a degree of error), the gamer had the option of having the attack go in, or to have his planes "loiter", or even move to the next hex.
This (to me), was an ideal situation.

I don't think this was Carrier Strike. In that game the patrol planes would sight either part or all of a task force at either the correct location or somewhere else (up to about 102 miles in error). Multiple contacts would reduce the number of incorrect targets spotted.

The player could choose to launch a strike early at a particular reported task force, or wait for further recon reports to arrive to clarify the situation. I don't recall any options about whether a strike actually attacked a particular target. A player could leave a strike with no target assigned over the launching task force for 1 turn, or recall a strike which would then return to base (also breaking radio silence in the process).

There were further complexities to this, and some simplifications that made identification simpler. For example a light cruiser followed by a pair of destroyers followed by a pair of cruisers meant a Japanese 1 carrier task force, or a false report of a 1 carrier task force that was somewhere else.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Dili
I dont want to take the place of the pilot, the ship gunner , the torpedo director or be a tank commander not in this kind of game that seems to me pretend to simulate the commander. And the first thing a Commander gets is to be disapointed that their troops dont do what he wants.

Unfortunately, WITP is not consistent. We are the Theater commanders, but we are also the Squadron ops officers (deciding when to train and when to rest) and we are the LTs commanding a PT division and we are the Admirals running major surface forces and the LCDRs running one submarine.

The original designers - for some reason - decided the take the TF targeting decision away from the player and give it to the "AI". We can speculate as to why. I heard one of the folks who was on the forum before the game was released tell me the reason was to "make the player live within the same constraints as the AI". So maybe that was the reason.

Another factor, is that in at least some cases, the reason is because one or more of the non-targeted TFs may be much more heavily CAPPED than the TF which was struck - but this fact is not visible to the player. But that is the "excuse" I give my commanders who fail to strike the TF I want - they were smarter than I and avoided the massacre which would have occured had I been "in charge".
[:)]

[bradfordkay]

But that is the "excuse" I give my commanders who fail to strike the TF I want - they were smarter than I and avoided the massacre which would have occurred had I been "in charge".

"

You're being nicer than I have been. I've felt like slapping them across the face and calling them "yellow bellied sons-of-*******"!!

[Dili]

Unfortunately, WITP is not consistent. We are the Theater commanders, but we are also the Squadron ops officers (deciding when to train and when to rest) and we are the LTs commanding a PT division and we are the Admirals running major surface forces and the LCDRs running one submarine.

Yes, i like it how it is, they found a good equilibrium except for one thing: bomb type loads. Even if couldn't choose them the game should use a modifier to simulate an antiship bomb when in sea attack, anti-personnel against infantry, many small bombs against air base attacks etc.

I've felt like slapping them across the face and calling them "yellow bellied sons-of-*******"!!

You are start talking like a commander!

[DaveConn]

There is an obvious solution: put in a button to allow the player to prioritize targets, but make the button totally non-functional (that is, it actually has no effect and the AI does all the targetting). If the AI selects the target the player wants, they will feel vindicated; if not, they will blame it on the random factor!

In addition, it puts the player more in the role of a real-life commander: giving orders which don't have any effect on the guys actually doing the work!

(Tongue firmly in cheek).

[mbatch729]

ORIGINAL: DaveConn

In addition, it puts the player more in the role of a real-life commander: giving orders which don't have any effect on the guys actually doing the work!

(Tongue firmly in cheek).

Only below the rank of Lt-Commander. By that point, hopefully they've learned a few things (like not to give stupid orders). But a butter-bar, fresh outta college...Hopefully his Chief will keep him from making too big a fool out of himself.