Nice to have stuff...

[Sgt.Ghost]

I have found some things that could be "nice to have" in the next patch to
UV or in the next game: War in the Pacific.

# You have a TF on patrol under landbased/seabased aircover. Instead of
returning to a harbour, you should be able to send this TF out to intercept
enemy TF's within your TF "one night movement at full speed" range and
return to this "secure" hex and not a harbour.
An example: You have a 25 ship TF stationed at a specific "secure" sea-hex.
On-patrol/react to enemy, otherwise it would return to its destination
harbour. You split this TF into several small TF's, order those TF's to
return to his "secure" sea-hex and not a harbour. Change the orders to
retirement/react to enemy and send these TF's out within their "one night
movement at full speed" range to several different taget-hexes to intercept
and intercept and engage an enemy TF moving through a specific sea-area and
then return to the "secure" sea-hex.

# You need an "search and destroy" option for your TF's combined with
air-patrol.
An example: You have engaged the enemy TF either in defensive battle around
a harbour or at sea. The enemy TF is damaged and returning to its
destination hex/harbour. Because of the damaged ships the enemy TF splits
up into several smaller TF depending of the speed. It's bad weather, and
offensive airstrikes are grounded.
Now you need this "search and destroy" option. You should be able to form a
TF of undamaged/ less damaged ships, and order this TF to hunt and destroy
the enemies damaged TF's combined with air on navel search.
First you should be able to order NOT a hole air-group, but only some
(maybe half of the air group) to search for a specific enemy TF last seen
in this hex, the other half of the planes perform their normal duty.
The planes fly out to this "last seen hex" and perform a navel search for
this enemy TF. Your "search and destroy" TF will also move to same hex at
cruise speed, if/when the enemy TF is spotted by your specific air-patrol,
your TF will move at full speed to engage the spotted enemy TF. Your air
navel search will then follow this enemy TF and report the location, path
and speed to the pursuing TF.

This will give the game some more realistic options by combining both air
and naval units for a specific operation.

[Sgt.Ghost]

And I have found some "misjudgement" by the AI.

# You have a US 2 carrier TF cruising the south sea, and an aggressive
commander with Do Not React orders. This US TF then reacts to a spotted
Japanese 5 carrier TF ? NOWAY !! Even if then commander is aggressive, he
is not stupid. By this move he will put the whole TF at risk and properly
have most of the TF end their day at the bottom of the sea. And what did he
gain? nothing. Bad misjudgement !!

# You have a US 2 carrier TF with a "normal" commander, and then you spot a
Japanese 5 carrier TF. The US TF does not react to the enemy carrier TF,
but during the air phase it still launches an airstrike with a few escorts.
CAP level is at 70, but some of the escort's planes doesn't fly anyway.
Most of these planes in this airstrike are either shot down or damaged. Bad
misjudgement !!

The point is, that no matter what the situation is, you don't send either
planes, ships or men into a battle, that YOU CAN NOT WIN, unless you have
considered the all other options. Should I sacrifice some planes or ships
here and now in order to succeed in a battle to come, or should I cancel
every attack to preserve my strength and minimise my losses because I need
every single fighting unit in the next battle?
You're are the only one who knows what the Masterplan is, and not the AI.
So you should be able overrule every AI move, attack etc.
I've been in several situations where the AI moves has badly decreased my
options to succeed in an attack, because I had to send badly damaged
carriers home, lost many planes and ships even before the original attack
has started. And in situations where you would have considered each attack
to be suicide.

[Rob Brennan UK]

While i agree with most of what your saying, there is one vital factor i think you ignored. "most reports are erroneous" so that 5 CV task force could well be just 2 cv's and some av's or even CA or BB ships. I believe that the AI commander if aggressive might want to 'scout in force' i.e send a raid and see what happens.

Now i agree that this maybe stupid but if not spotted in return then its a valid tactic. IF it is 5 cvs then tough luck but it probably isn't. I think the basic tenet is that the AI commanders don't always believe spotting reports and anyway if you have carrier inferiority NEVER have react to enemy checked as an option . wait for land based confirmation i.e CV Kaga etc spotted. much safer that way

Good luck anyways

Rob

[Sgt.Ghost]

HI Bob

I know that "most reports are erroneous". But in this case, it actualy was a 5 carrier TF It's not about erroneous reports, the point is, that you should able to overrule any AI moves
if they dont match your plan or for what ever reason you have.

[Rob Brennan UK]

True but micromanagement isn't something that the game re-creates (intentionally). I guess its you being the theatre commander and having to trust your subordinates to act sensibly.

Charging 5 carriers isn't sensible ! .. but this happens with AI and convesely the AI will charge your 5 carrier task force someday:)

Whilst it would be good to set combat parameters i.e run away if outnembered by 2-1 or more or 'stay put' if unthreatened I think its out of the scope of the game, bear in mind that this is a first build for the main event next year. The entire pacific campaign ! trying to micro- manage that would be a pain in the backside.

Sorry i'm losing the plot here .. back on track, my reply was just a suggestion of how the game might be programmed not a statement of fact, and i do sympathise, sometimes the AI is daft, but the technology just isnt there to have a computer controlled move as competant as a human would be.

That about wraps it up for my 2 penny's worth.

[Sgt.Ghost]

When you look at the detailed level of this game, micromanagement (nice word:-) ) comes to your mind.

You can sack a commander, but you can't control your own ships - never mind.

It was a suggestion to make the game even better, for those who like micromanagement, and a bottom to turn it off, for those who don't.

[Rob Brennan UK]

nuff' said .. i do agree (to an extent) and the option might be nice as well, but ultimately we are given a like it or lump it game by the programming and design team. Personally i like it.

there will always be niggles and gripes and some event or other but if it irks you that bad follow my motto

anyway, anjoy the game for what it is, not what you think it should have been

Have fun

Rob

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Sgt.Ghost
HI Bob

I know that "most reports are erroneous". But in this case, it actualy was a 5 carrier TF It's not about erroneous reports, the point is, that you should able to overrule any AI moves
if they dont match your plan or for what ever reason you have.

The game is designed to be played with 24 hours turns without player inputs ... because otherwise PBEM play would be impossible !

If you want a tactic-oriented game with ships/airplanes micromanagement, you should rather check the SSG's game Carrier at war

[NorthStar]

I guess being able to override the AI Commanders decision with a switch setting would be OK, but if you select it, there should be a significant decrease in combat efficiency.

"Admiral Fletcher, we have sighted an enemy Carrier Group at 150 miles!"

"OK. Radio, HQ and get permission to attack."

"Sir, they say the Admiral is in the head!"

"**** . . . . " BOOM!

[The Gnome]

I wouldn't so much want to override what the tactical commander would do so much as change how the commander decides what he does.

Yes, the report of 5 enemy carriers may have been a phantom report, but that is the data the commander must make his decision on. You can't assume it's incorrect in that situation or your fleet will end up at the bottom post-haste.

Heck I've seen commanders send alpha-strikes at a handful of AP's over top of a major surface action group 2 hexes away (including BBs!). Again this report might have been false, but unless the tac commander has some info that I don't he better strike at the much higher priority target.

Which as I'm typing this, gives me an idea. Maybe a customizable target priority list. It's not issuing orders to the field like "Strike this TF" but "I'd like you to hit CV's first, then surface action groups that are within steaming range, then airfields, then transports".

Somewhere this decision tree must be coded into the AI, modifying the hierarchy might be nice.

[NorthStar]

Originally posted by The Gnome


... SNIP ...

Which as I'm typing this, gives me an idea. Maybe a customizable target priority list. It's not issuing orders to the field like "Strike this TF" but "I'd like you to hit CV's first, then surface action groups that are within steaming range, then airfields, then transports".

Somewhere this decision tree must be coded into the AI, modifying the hierarchy might be nice.

This I agree with wholehartedly. I would LOVE to be able to give customized target priority list to TF and Base Commanders. Not that there should be any guarantee they will follow it, but it would be nice to influence it.

On a related note, I get the impression from some postings that while we see all sighting reports in a turn, the AI Commanders do not necessarily receive them all -- at least not at the same time we do. Effectively, we have more information than any given TF or Base Commander, which also explains some of the dumb decisions they make. Can anyone confirm or deny this?