something that must be fixed in CF:

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

Kingfisher
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:25 am

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by Kingfisher »

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Take Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Phillipine Seas then. Besides CarDiv 5 incorrectly identifying and whacking the Neosho, I can't think of another example where a sctf or other non-cvtf was incorrectly identified as a cvtf and attacked or, if a cvtf was correctly identified, the strike force failed to reach it.

Upon receipt of the search planes' report of contact with enemy carriers, Admiral Kinkaid ordered an attack group launched to strike the Shokaku and what was thought to be the Zuikaku, now steaming about 210 miles to the northwest of Task Force KING. Beginning at 0830, the Hornet launched two waves of planes. The first consisted of 15 SBD-3's of Bombing Squadron EIGHT and Scouting Squadron EIGHT, 6 TBF-1's of Torpedo Squadron SIX, and 8 F4F-4's of Fighting Squadron 72.

The second Hornet wave, which began taking off at 0915, was made up of 9 SBD-3's and 9 TBF-1's, with 7 F4F-4's as escorts. The Group Commander, Comdr. Walter F. Rodee, took off with this flight in a TBF....

....The second Hornet wave proceeded out to the end of its leg and observed "a group of enemy cruisers and destroyers." (One pilot described the enemy formation thus: "At 160 miles out an enemy DD was sighted, followed at a great distance by a CA and other forces all strung out heading toward our force.") This again was presumably the section of Enemy Task Force No. 2 which was perhaps screening the Zuikaku's retirement.

After scouting to the north and west beyond this line of ships and finding nothing, our planes concluded that the enemy carriers were out of range. The leader of the dive bombers, Lieut. John J. Lynch, thereupon called the Group Commander and stated that unless otherwise directed he would attack a heavy cruiser of the Tone class which was throwing up considerable antiaircraft fire.

Receiving no reply, Lieut. Lynch pushed over at 1040 and led an attack from 11,500 feet. Four certain and one probable 1,000-pound hits were made on the selected cruiser, which was later identified as the Chikuma. Flames and smoke blanketed the target, but she continued to steam at reduced speed. As the dive bombers retired to the east, the Chikuma was rocked by a heavy explosion.


The above narrative occured during the battle of Santa Cruz islands. Note that the enemy's carriers were already discovered, and Hornet launched two attack about 45 minutes apart. Both were launched on the same intel. The first finds and attacks the carriers, the second finds no carriers and attacks a SAG instead.

That being said, I do agree with the majority of those here. I can understand a portion of a carrier strike attacking minor units (as happened above), but 108? Had I been the TF commander I would have shot every group leader after he landed.
"splendid was their tactic of diving upon our force from the direction of the sun, taking advantage of intermittent clouds"

-Captain Takahisa Amagai, KAGA, June 4th 1942
fuelli
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:24 pm
Location: Germany

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by fuelli »

Maybe the probleme with the particulare incident described by the initial poster is that two things came together:1 The probabilitry that if more then one target is available it can happen that a suppossed minor target is choosen and 2. the coordination factor which for the japanese is already very hight at the beginning of the game. This then maybe lead to the unpleasant result for japanese players that if something goes wrong the whole thing goes wrong.
Basically I think these incidents should happen in the game. Of course the probability is argueable and maybe too high compared to the data we have from 42 to 45. Nevertheless for me it is exactly this uncertainty that in my opinion reflects the tension a commander has after giving is orders and waiting for the results. After sending my turn to my fellow opponent I sometimes can hardly sleep untill I get the combat report back and thats why I love this game. With a much lower probability I think everything would be too predictable as the game can not reflect all circumstances that can lead to failure. It has already widely discussed (here and for WiTP as well) that both games tend to be too bloody. Too much hits, too much action compared to history. I think it was done by purpose. And I think the probabilty of failed operations is also tweaked a littlebit too high by purpose to give the game more action and tension.
Of course all this should be reviewed and checked for CF and than maybe some adjustment could be done. But I do not think that it must be fixed as there is nothing wrong with the game mechanics just with some parameters. Maybe[;)]
fuelli
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:24 pm
Location: Germany

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by fuelli »

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher




The above narrative occured during the battle of Santa Cruz islands. Note that the enemy's carriers were already discovered, and Hornet launched two attack about 45 minutes apart. Both were launched on the same intel. The first finds and attacks the carriers, the second finds no carriers and attacks a SAG instead.

That being said, I do agree with the majority of those here. I can understand a portion of a carrier strike attacking minor units (as happened above), but 108? Had I been the TF commander I would have shot every group leader after he landed.

And now think of what could have happened if the attack would have been coordinated and both groups would have flown together. Then it could have happened that both find the target or the other way round. The propability for both groups together to miss the target is lower then for a single group but this does not mean its impossible or most impropable.
fuelli
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:24 pm
Location: Germany

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by fuelli »

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


The problem with UV is that there is too much too precise intel given to the player (but maybe not considdered by the code) that gives the player the impression that the strike should have hit the right target and that something is wrong with game.

Not knowing the code that's speculation at best. Even if correct, I don't count reports of "CVCVCACACA" or "CACACACACA", etc. given to the players as being particularly precise. Both sides were good at identifying carriers when and where they existed.


Basically I was talking about the game in general. But the particular example you are given is also belonging to the "too much intel" I was mentioning. This intel is not precise but I have observed that this intel is available when doing the turn but it is not gathered during the combat replay. The following happens very often: A scouting plane detects a ship and identifies it as a BB. Nothing more. When I open the turn there is a fleet icon where the BB was spotted and suddenly it says CVCVCVCACACACA. We all know now that the spotting of the BB is wrong and that we have to deal with a CV group for sure. But where is this intel coming from? Very often I see a single CA spotted. And then when I open the turn and look at it its a ML. And I know that it is a ML because of its location and the fact that I know that my enemy is mining the base that is just 10 hexes away from the ML. I also get messages when my enemy hits one of his own mines. Or my enemy gets messages about my sweeping of mines. Where are all these information coming from? This is what I mean with too much and to precise intel given by the game. I think the intel uncertainty is too low compared to the operational uncertainty
User avatar
RGIJN
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: far away from battlefield :-(
Contact:

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by RGIJN »

I agree to Fuelli. The "fog of War" and the shakiness inbuilt I consider still too weak and obvious. It seems okay to determine certain TFs, but I think that´s rather untrue compared to the RL. Often you will spot enemy TFs in enemy ports/bases pretty correct, very close to perfect.
But Of course I´m aware that it is quite difficult to make the game engine "thinking" soft in terms of transition of orders/dice rolls rather than to make just the usual (digital) "hard" 1 or 0 decision.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Take Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Phillipine Seas then. Besides CarDiv 5 incorrectly identifying and whacking the Neosho, I can't think of another example where a sctf or other non-cvtf was incorrectly identified as a cvtf and attacked or, if a cvtf was correctly identified, the strike force failed to reach it.

Upon receipt of the search planes' report of contact with enemy carriers, Admiral Kinkaid ordered an attack group launched to strike the Shokaku and what was thought to be the Zuikaku, now steaming about 210 miles to the northwest of Task Force KING. Beginning at 0830, the Hornet launched two waves of planes. The first consisted of 15 SBD-3's of Bombing Squadron EIGHT and Scouting Squadron EIGHT, 6 TBF-1's of Torpedo Squadron SIX, and 8 F4F-4's of Fighting Squadron 72.

The second Hornet wave, which began taking off at 0915, was made up of 9 SBD-3's and 9 TBF-1's, with 7 F4F-4's as escorts. The Group Commander, Comdr. Walter F. Rodee, took off with this flight in a TBF....

....The second Hornet wave proceeded out to the end of its leg and observed "a group of enemy cruisers and destroyers." (One pilot described the enemy formation thus: "At 160 miles out an enemy DD was sighted, followed at a great distance by a CA and other forces all strung out heading toward our force.") This again was presumably the section of Enemy Task Force No. 2 which was perhaps screening the Zuikaku's retirement.

After scouting to the north and west beyond this line of ships and finding nothing, our planes concluded that the enemy carriers were out of range. The leader of the dive bombers, Lieut. John J. Lynch, thereupon called the Group Commander and stated that unless otherwise directed he would attack a heavy cruiser of the Tone class which was throwing up considerable antiaircraft fire.

Receiving no reply, Lieut. Lynch pushed over at 1040 and led an attack from 11,500 feet. Four certain and one probable 1,000-pound hits were made on the selected cruiser, which was later identified as the Chikuma. Flames and smoke blanketed the target, but she continued to steam at reduced speed. As the dive bombers retired to the east, the Chikuma was rocked by a heavy explosion.


The above narrative occured during the battle of Santa Cruz islands. Note that the enemy's carriers were already discovered, and Hornet launched two attack about 45 minutes apart. Both were launched on the same intel. The first finds and attacks the carriers, the second finds no carriers and attacks a SAG instead.

That being said, I do agree with the majority of those here. I can understand a portion of a carrier strike attacking minor units (as happened above), but 108? Had I been the TF commander I would have shot every group leader after he landed.

Good one.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: fuelli
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The problem with UV is that there is too much too precise intel given to the player (but maybe not considdered by the code) that gives the player the impression that the strike should have hit the right target and that something is wrong with game.

Not knowing the code that's speculation at best. Even if correct, I don't count reports of "CVCVCACACA" or "CACACACACA", etc. given to the players as being particularly precise. Both sides were good at identifying carriers when and where they existed.

Basically I was talking about the game in general. But the particular example you are given is also belonging to the "too much intel" I was mentioning. This intel is not precise but I have observed that this intel is available when doing the turn but it is not gathered during the combat replay. The following happens very often: A scouting plane detects a ship and identifies it as a BB. Nothing more. When I open the turn there is a fleet icon where the BB was spotted and suddenly it says CVCVCVCACACACA. We all know now that the spotting of the BB is wrong and that we have to deal with a CV group for sure. But where is this intel coming from? Very often I see a single CA spotted. And then when I open the turn and look at it its a ML. And I know that it is a ML because of its location and the fact that I know that my enemy is mining the base that is just 10 hexes away from the ML. I also get messages when my enemy hits one of his own mines. Or my enemy gets messages about my sweeping of mines. Where are all these information coming from? This is what I mean with too much and to precise intel given by the game. I think the intel uncertainty is too low compared to the operational uncertainty


Never really noticed that, but now I understand what you're talking about. The recon by mining thing has been around forever. It's just an unfortunate mistake that was never fixed.
Kingfisher
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:25 am

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by Kingfisher »

ORIGINAL: fuelli

I also get messages when my enemy hits one of his own mines.

This I could accept as plausible as the allied player. It stands to reason a vessel hitting a mine in a harbor presumed to be safe would broadcast a warning to other ships, and the allies were constantly monitoring the Japanese code traffic for all kinds of data.

"splendid was their tactic of diving upon our force from the direction of the sun, taking advantage of intermittent clouds"

-Captain Takahisa Amagai, KAGA, June 4th 1942
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: DEB




Again, such a hypocrite. Discuss the point in question, read the points more carefully and more open mindedly and keep your "obnoxious" views to yourself. [:-]

My, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. [8|]

For some one who professes to be such an expert on the content of my posts you demonstarte little acuity with regard to powers of perception in failing to note that my level of obnoxiousness is in direct proportion to the level of obnoxiousness of those I am responding to.

I do, indeed, enjoy rubbing peoples noses in their ill considered choices to be obnoxious by giving them a dose of their own medicine. Some prove man enough to handle it....others, like yourself do not. How people respond to doses of their own medicine is decidely revealing with regard to their character or lack thereof..........[;)]

It's a shame you prove unable to grasp the manner in which you are being manipulated until someone draws a diagram of it for you......
Hans

User avatar
DEB
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol , England

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by DEB »

ORIGINAL: fuelli

And now think of what could have happened if the attack would have been coordinated and both groups would have flown together. Then it could have happened that both find the target or the other way round. The propability for both groups together to miss the target is lower then for a single group but this does not mean its impossible or most impropable.

Again, good point.
User avatar
DEB
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol , England

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by DEB »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

My, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. [8|]

For some one who professes to be such an expert on the content of my posts you demonstarte little acuity with regard to powers of perception in failing to note that my level of obnoxiousness is in direct proportion to the level of obnoxiousness of those I am responding to.

That's all I do. I had not insulted you in any form or manner when you sent your last set of remarks. You are therefore a snide liar.
I do, indeed, enjoy rubbing peoples noses in their ill considered choices to be obnoxious by giving them a dose of their own medicine. Some prove man enough to handle it....others, like yourself do not. How people respond to doses of their own medicine is decidely revealing with regard to their character or lack thereof..........[;)]

If it is weak to respond as I do, why do you copy me.
Again you are a gross hypocrite.

It's a shame you prove unable to grasp the manner in which you are being manipulated until someone draws a diagram of it for you......
[/quote]

I am aware of it. Are you?
You appear to be grossly deluded by your self importance.

Your remarks again revile me whilst my comments have been mild sarcasim. You appear to wish me to resort to abusive language so that I will be told off. Many forums ban such behaviour.
I can be just as much of a snide bastard as you when I put my mind to it. To date I have not been trying . I will do so ( with you ) from now on.

Really you are just a big baby. I have had to put up with worse than you since 1981 at work. Go suck your thumb. [>:]


User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: DEB



That's all I do. I had not insulted you in any form or manner when you sent your last set of remarks. You are therefore a snide liar.




How clueless can you possibly be?

Where, exactly, did I state that you had been obnoxious to ME?

Has it truly not occurred to you that all you had to do was chose to be obnoxious to some one else for me to step in and rub your nose it your choice to do so?

Nothing like fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

It's time to give you the green button treatment since you come to this forum to disect every sentence of every one else's posts simply to agitate.

Take a look at this link:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... butter.htm

you sir are the epitome of the Tireless Rebutter
Hans

User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by borner »

DEB - it seems you are prone to calling those that agree with you thoughtful, ect, and those that don't an array of other less flattering things. I think if you have to result to namecalling, it shows both your lack of maturity and ability to actually debate the points of your position. If you were not flying the English flag, I would say that reminds me of something else here in the USA currently.
 
Also, if my statement was so badly worded, then how did you feel so empowered to go off on such a detailed reply, not being physic as you yourself pointed out? Everyone is allowed to an opinion, even if it does not agree with yours. However, why don't you stick to the points and not insults before this thread gets shut down due to them, or you get a note from Matrix about proper forum conduct?
User avatar
DEB
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol , England

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by DEB »

ORIGINAL: borner

DEB - it seems you are prone to calling those that agree with you thoughtful, ect, and those that don't an array of other less flattering things. I think if you have to result to namecalling, it shows both your lack of maturity and ability to actually debate the points of your position. If you were not flying the English flag, I would say that reminds me of something else here in the USA currently.

Your memory of my previous posts it appears is tainted by your view of me. Go check it out if you disagree. Whilst I may call a Spade " a Spade" as many here are prone to do, I do not do so without cause.
My comments are prone to get worse if people take umbridge, particularly if I had not passed comment on them personally.
Nationality is never the cause of something or the reason behind a lack of it. Most people in this country would call that comment "politically incorrect". Most people in this country also abhor "political correctness!
Also, if my statement was so badly worded, then how did you feel so empowered to go off on such a detailed reply, not being physic as you yourself pointed out?


It may not have come out as you intended ( I not you do not disagree that is was so ), but it did read more or less as I interpreted it.
Everyone is allowed to an opinion, even if it does not agree with yours.


If someone told you that the world was flat or the moon was made of cheese would you simply accept that point of view? I think not.
However, why don't you stick to the points and not insults before this thread gets shut down due to them, or you get a note from Matrix about proper forum conduct?

98 to 100% of my comments are to the point or responding to comments such as the above, so I fail to see your logic here. If you & HansBolter want to keep the thread open ( I don't think he is bothered at all ), then keep to the point/s in question and stop having a go at me. It takes two to keep an argument going you know.
User avatar
DEB
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol , England

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by DEB »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: DEB

That's all I do. I had not insulted you in any form or manner when you sent your last set of remarks. You are therefore a snide liar.

How clueless can you possibly be?

Where, exactly, did I state that you had been obnoxious to ME?

Has it truly not occurred to you that all you had to do was chose to be obnoxious to some one else for me to step in and rub your nose it your choice to do so?

It had indeed occured to me. But I had not been small minded enough to consider you so small minded. Tell me off by all means, but "rub your nose in it" is truely insulting. Try using your mouth to speak and not your asshole.
Nothing like fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.


I am not unarmed, I am still here. You did not repudiate my statement that you were a snide liar I see or several other of my comments.
It's time to give you the green button treatment since you come to this forum to disect every sentence of every one else's posts simply to agitate.

If you wish to admit you have lost then by all means do so. No loss to me.
I only disect every sentence when every sentence is erronese or a lie.
It is you who agitate ( by your own admission ).
Take a look at this link:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... butter.htm

you sir are the epitome of the Tireless Rebutter

Pot, Kettle, Black. Go F**k yourself. [>:]
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by Ike99 »

You should change that last part before someone reports you to a moderator. I´ve been there you know.

[:D]
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by borner »

thanks for the comic relief DEB. Did your arguments get shot down so badly on the WITP threads you resorted to namecalling here?
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: DEB

Please try to keep things civil when you make a post.

This is not just for you DEB.

There is no excuse for personal attacks and the like from anybody.

This is supposed to be a place to discuss issues. I do not think personal attacks and/or insults are needed. If you can't express your yourself without them. Then don't post.

Edited after sleep for the childrens sake.
Flipper
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by borner »

amen!
User avatar
DEB
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol , England

RE: something that must be fixed in CF:

Post by DEB »

ORIGINAL: borner

thanks for the comic relief DEB. Did your arguments get shot down so badly on the WITP threads you resorted to namecalling here?

No they did not. Try reading the posts on the WitP forum before making such stupid remarks.
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”