Task Force Micromanagement Poll

Capt Cliff · Post by **Capt Cliff** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 2:21 am

I'd like to post a poll and see, and help Matrix see, if there is too much micromanagement for task forces.

I say yes! Especially the air combat TF's. Commands for air combat TF's should be; escort invasion TF, defend Lunga (aggresive or passive), raid shortlands, refuel, etc....going into TF201 and setting the Big E's F4F's to LRCAP and select who was something Halsey or Ghormley never did.

Let's not get too wordy a simple yes, no or just right may help the Matrix guy's out. They have helped us let's help them! This will impact WitP.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 8:26 am

Agreed.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 10:49 am

disagree.

As a former Pac-head (Pac-war.....not Pac-man!

), i love the additional level of detail and control that UV presents for carrier air ops.

Like all the other myriad of features, it can be daunting and fatiquing at times to track it all......but in the end i'm thankful to have the option at all.

mjk428 · Post by **mjk428** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 11:03 am

Disagree as far as UV is concerned. I would like to see continued improvements to the interface but the level of control satisfying.

Didz · Post by **Didz** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 12:36 pm

Personally I would like less micro-management of non-combat TF's and more control over combat TF's and aircraft.

Chris21wen · Post by **Chris21wen** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 1:04 pm

Disagree. I like to know what my fighters are doing.

von Murrin · Post by **von Murrin** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 1:48 pm

Disagree. The only thing I would like to see is the ability to have more than one CS convoy per base, and to have them more "rigid" (no troop loading and restricted to command area for Routine).

gts2096 · Post by **gts2096** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 3:21 pm

disagree

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 5:32 pm

Don't like the troop loading in auto TF's at all. Also would like to see FS split in 2 sub flights on carriers to allow better control of CAP assets.

svhrg · Post by **svhrg** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 5:38 pm

Disagree, I enjoy having this level of detail built into the game.

Buck Beach · Post by **Buck Beach** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 5:59 pm

Disagree. It is the detail that I have been waiting for since Pac-War. Matrix et al has delivered whereas Pac Tide and Victory in the South Pacific (may be wrong title) failed.

Thank's Matrix and gang.

dgaad · Post by **dgaad** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 6:19 pm

Originally posted by Capt Cliff

I say yes! Especially the air combat TF's. Commands for air combat TF's should be; escort invasion TF, defend Lunga (aggresive or passive), raid shortlands, refuel, etc....going into TF201 and setting the Big E's F4F's to LRCAP and select who was something Halsey or Ghormley never did.

Let's not get too wordy a simple yes, no or just right may help the Matrix guy's out. They have helped us let's help them! This will impact WitP.

As for setting Carrier TFs to LR Cap, sorry but you are wrong there, that was done many times, although not at this stage of the war. Instead, the carriers would simply deposit the air group on an airbase that was near what they needed to protect. The Naval airgroup usually didn't stick around too long, but they got the job done.

As for micromanagement, you are dealing with a crowd of micromanagers here, this is what the game is all about to them. I would like to see an additional behavior control : in addition to "React to enemy" and "Don't React to Enemy", for air combat TFs I would like to see a "React to enemy, stay out of normal enemy bomber range". I almost never use the "React to enemy" command, whether playing against human or AI, simply because the carrier group will react in a way that is totally ignorant of enemy LBA threats, something that NO carrier commander ever did (not even Japanese ones).

Bulldog61 · Post by **Bulldog61** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 7:06 pm

Disagree

Capt Cliff · Post by **Capt Cliff** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 7:40 pm

So far a good response guys! 9 to 3 for micromanagement or if it ain't broke don't fix it!! I assumed dgaad was a disagree. If he read's "The Big E" by Stafford, at book on the Enterprise, he'll see that LRCAP was provided by the offshore air combat TF for the invasion TF's! Ive noticed that the AI does not provide LRCAP to protect it's invasion TF's!

Keep responding to the poll.

Caltone · Post by **Caltone** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 8:58 pm

Disagree

Wilhammer · Post by **Wilhammer** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 9:02 pm

Disagree.

I want MORE micro-management.

AlvinS · Post by **AlvinS** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 11:07 pm

Disagree

I like the micro-management. In addition to telling my TF's where to go I would like to be able to set waypoints. That way if I send a transport TF to Buna from Noumea for example, it does not take the long way around.

Another reason I would like to set waypoints is to avoid the obvious submarine hideouts around Noumea. My subchasers can spot them, but I would like to guide my Air Combat TF around them. As it stands I do it manually.

RayM · Post by **RayM** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:33 am

Stealing a quip from business...less is more!

I would like to see the old PACWAR HQ full human, human operational control, or full computer control choices added. I also liked the SET TARGET function. I liked these features because it allowed me to concentrate on one or more specific AOs while leaving others to the computer (but you ceratinly had to keep an eye on it.)

Whoever said that UV was a click-fest was correct! I also wonder if at some point the micro-management "clicking" starts to overshadow the expressed purpose of UV, which is to recreate the air, land, and sea combat contest for the South Pacific.

As seen in UV, the micro-management of so many parameters is supposed to set the stage for this to happen, but how do you reconcile the micro-management of almost everything with the fact that the player is in theory, acting in a more detached "role" as the theather commander? It think PACWAR protrayed it somewhat better.

In the end, I think it comes down to personal preference, hence the two camps as described in this topic.

dgaad · Post by **dgaad** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 3:04 am

Originally posted by Capt Cliff
So far a good response guys! 9 to 3 for micromanagement or if it ain't broke don't fix it!! I assumed dgaad was a disagree. If he read's "The Big E" by Stafford, at book on the Enterprise, he'll see that LRCAP was provided by the offshore air combat TF for the invasion TF's! Ive noticed that the AI does not provide LRCAP to protect it's invasion TF's!

Keep responding to the poll.

My apologies. I thought your original quote said LR CAP was never a tactic used in this theater.

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 5:58 am

The grog player will by nature micromanage.

The ability to micromanage attracts grogs.

For the game to have a wider audience there needs to be automation.

More automation attracts the non-grog.

We need the occasional players / non-grogs to buy more copies to keep our hobby alive.
-

Task Force Micromanagement Poll

Task Force Micromanagement Poll

Re: Task Force Micromanagement Poll