Yes, it would also be great to be able to determine search areas when in a "manual" mode which could be an option for each base.I understand that these options would be against the
"theater operations" idea of the game but anyway it would make a much better game.
Naval air attacks-Why can we not set the target area?
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Originally posted by caine
Yes, it would also be great to be able to determine search areas when in a "manual" mode which could be an option for each base.I understand that these options would be against the
"theater operations" idea of the game but anyway it would make a much better game.
Yesyes...
I wouldn't mind if AI could make such decisions... But in order to succesfully to do decisions like this AI should be able to 'see' whole picture as players do. But AI can't, no such AI is done yet(as far as I know
. I think that decisions like this should be possible to do in order to make game better.What I don't like at all is setting altitudes and checking fatigues etc. Setting these is MUCH less operational level decision than setting targets or targets(&search) areas would be... Instead of these I'd like better if there would some way to give more general commands to Bases and groups. Commands like "Put Base ZZZ's and GGG's airfields unoperational as soon as possible at all costs" sounds to me more operational level command than "Group X Attack at 6000 feet with escorts from Groups Y at altitude 8 000 to Lae Lae airfield". So "thats not operational level command" -comment ain't to good here...
Would be great if we had more options to guide AI with in operating AC's. Expecially in offencive operations which are at the moment worst donwfall in UV presently in my opinion.
Perhaps the simplest solution to avoid player frustration would be to allow the targeting of a spotted task force.
This should have the disadvantage of missing the whole day’s air-action if the TF set as target is not found again. This would mean that the attack planes wait on standby when the search planes take off early in the morning to relocate the contact lost during the night. If the contact is found again, a strike is initiated. If the targeted TF is not found, the attack planes stand on the field and wait even if there are other targets in the area.
This could also incorporate the target prioritisation as well. When setting a TF as a target, there could be a pop up screen asking whether the planes attack freely, do they target particular ships types, or do they avoid certain ships. Specific ship type prioritisations should not be allowed generally, but they should be allowed when targeting a particular TF. I think that could give the player a better operational feeling to the game when things heat up a bit and as such could prevent some player frustration.
So in game terms most of the time planes would be set on just naval attack without targets and everything would be as it is now. However, occasionally the player could set an air group to attack particular ships in particular TF with the risk of losing the day’s air-action, if the spotted target has moved out of strike range, or if the contact was false in the first place.
With the secondary mission the player could control the time how long the strike planes wait on the field. If no secondary mission is set the planes wait the whole day for opportunity to launch their strike on the set TF. If secondary mission set for naval strike as well, the planes will attack (if still possible) any targets of opportunity with the same prioritisation given for the primary mission. Ie, if they cannot attack the set APs they will attack any APs in the area and if there is no APs at all they attack whatever they feel like. If the secondary is set for airfield then they attack the airfield just as the system is now.
I’m not claiming that anything is ‘broken’ as such. I’m just saying that while UV is a brilliant game, it can be improved in some regards.
This should have the disadvantage of missing the whole day’s air-action if the TF set as target is not found again. This would mean that the attack planes wait on standby when the search planes take off early in the morning to relocate the contact lost during the night. If the contact is found again, a strike is initiated. If the targeted TF is not found, the attack planes stand on the field and wait even if there are other targets in the area.
This could also incorporate the target prioritisation as well. When setting a TF as a target, there could be a pop up screen asking whether the planes attack freely, do they target particular ships types, or do they avoid certain ships. Specific ship type prioritisations should not be allowed generally, but they should be allowed when targeting a particular TF. I think that could give the player a better operational feeling to the game when things heat up a bit and as such could prevent some player frustration.
So in game terms most of the time planes would be set on just naval attack without targets and everything would be as it is now. However, occasionally the player could set an air group to attack particular ships in particular TF with the risk of losing the day’s air-action, if the spotted target has moved out of strike range, or if the contact was false in the first place.
With the secondary mission the player could control the time how long the strike planes wait on the field. If no secondary mission is set the planes wait the whole day for opportunity to launch their strike on the set TF. If secondary mission set for naval strike as well, the planes will attack (if still possible) any targets of opportunity with the same prioritisation given for the primary mission. Ie, if they cannot attack the set APs they will attack any APs in the area and if there is no APs at all they attack whatever they feel like. If the secondary is set for airfield then they attack the airfield just as the system is now.
I’m not claiming that anything is ‘broken’ as such. I’m just saying that while UV is a brilliant game, it can be improved in some regards.
-
HMSWarspite
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
I think the biggest problem with this game is that the players do not think at the correct level. You are simulating the area commander, at his desk, not the 'guy on the ground' (less still the all seeing eye in the sky). Try approaching the game differently. In RL, you do not get real time reports of the action, you get day end summaries, and copies of signals (reading the combat reports). There are already things that you control that you ought not to really (altitude, %of pilots on training etc.). The last thing this game wants are more options to control.
Someone said it when they said the game lets you see too much and not enough at the same time.
Why dont you try playing the game at the strategic level, not as a tactical one? Build up the base, maximise it's benefits (supply, support, quality of aircrew), minimse the hazards (TF on station with orders to react etc), AND LET THEM GET ON WITH IT. Sure, they will do some odd things, but the guy on the ground would not see what you can see. He, poor Sap, has to make sense of a sting of odd sighting reports, planes going u/s at the wrong moment etc. weather etc.
If you want an example of 'crazy' things that shouldn't happen, just look at reality: Midway, CAP pulled down after TB, DB get in untouched. One search plane delayed with engine trouble, happens to have the interesting search sector. At Leyte, INJ has CVEs on a plate, and pulls off. If you were playing the game where these happen, wouldn't you all be screaming 'lousy AI', I want proper control.... I thing you will find that Nimitz, Yamamoto et al were doing something similar!
Final note: Gen Custer - bit of an cock up on his last outing, split his force, got surrounded, defeated in detail yes? If done by AI, big scream of 'oh no, stupid AI, why cant it be sensible'?
I had a really interesting replay of this action once. Disguised (obviously, no one is going to make any mistakes playing 'Custer's last stand'), fed the same info as Custer had, and given the objective of a quick easy victory, guess what, the players split their force, got surrounded, and defeated in detail....Lousy AI!?
Someone said it when they said the game lets you see too much and not enough at the same time.
Why dont you try playing the game at the strategic level, not as a tactical one? Build up the base, maximise it's benefits (supply, support, quality of aircrew), minimse the hazards (TF on station with orders to react etc), AND LET THEM GET ON WITH IT. Sure, they will do some odd things, but the guy on the ground would not see what you can see. He, poor Sap, has to make sense of a sting of odd sighting reports, planes going u/s at the wrong moment etc. weather etc.
If you want an example of 'crazy' things that shouldn't happen, just look at reality: Midway, CAP pulled down after TB, DB get in untouched. One search plane delayed with engine trouble, happens to have the interesting search sector. At Leyte, INJ has CVEs on a plate, and pulls off. If you were playing the game where these happen, wouldn't you all be screaming 'lousy AI', I want proper control.... I thing you will find that Nimitz, Yamamoto et al were doing something similar!
Final note: Gen Custer - bit of an cock up on his last outing, split his force, got surrounded, defeated in detail yes? If done by AI, big scream of 'oh no, stupid AI, why cant it be sensible'?
I had a really interesting replay of this action once. Disguised (obviously, no one is going to make any mistakes playing 'Custer's last stand'), fed the same info as Custer had, and given the objective of a quick easy victory, guess what, the players split their force, got surrounded, and defeated in detail....Lousy AI!?
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
I shall add my voice to the chorus:
I have only played two full scenarios but the situation I am about to describe happened in BOTH games almost exactly the same way (both scenarios were #1).
Port Moresby is stocked to the gills with fighters and PBYs and even a few B17s...
PM scouts spot the IJN CV forces off the north coast of New Guinea and 1-3 invasion TFs with troops (we will call this Day 1). My CV’s are far to the south of Gili Gili with my surface combat group in front of them....
Day 2 the IJN CV force stays about 200-250 miles back from Gili Gili but starts moving that way. MY TFs move north (still unspotted) with my surface TF in front by about 100-150 miles.
Day 3 IJN moves east toward Gili Gili and is still easily tracked by PM scouts as well as my carriers now...but in front of it are 1-2 IJN TF with troops about to land at Gili Gili... I continue to close the distance with my forces and order my surface TF to move INTO Gili Gili to engage the enemy landing forces and keep my CVs back a bit BUT well within range of the enemy CVs next turn... MY Port Moresby planes are very busy now with many TF to choose from. SOMETIMES they pick the CVs, but many times they do not...
(THIS is where it kills me)
Day 4 the IJN CV TF moves to the north of Gili Gili. The IJN invasion TFs move in to Gili Gili (sometimes one seems to hang back though—odd). My surface combat TF meets them in Gili Gili and they wave at each other as they pass...nothing more. My CVs are happy though they can now spot ALL of the enemy TFs and they are eager to engage the enemy’s best so they attack the enemy invasion forces and ignore the enemy CVs....
NOW, of course about this time the IJN CV’s ‘finally’ see my flat tops and my surface fleet and they pound the crap out of my CVs (of course). And if there is anything left of my CVs they pursue me and sink them...if not they happily turn on my surface combat fleet. BTW I have had my surface combat fleet spend THREE days in the same hex with an enemy landing forces and NEVER engage (what is up with that!)
I have only played two full scenarios but the situation I am about to describe happened in BOTH games almost exactly the same way (both scenarios were #1).
Port Moresby is stocked to the gills with fighters and PBYs and even a few B17s...
PM scouts spot the IJN CV forces off the north coast of New Guinea and 1-3 invasion TFs with troops (we will call this Day 1). My CV’s are far to the south of Gili Gili with my surface combat group in front of them....
Day 2 the IJN CV force stays about 200-250 miles back from Gili Gili but starts moving that way. MY TFs move north (still unspotted) with my surface TF in front by about 100-150 miles.
Day 3 IJN moves east toward Gili Gili and is still easily tracked by PM scouts as well as my carriers now...but in front of it are 1-2 IJN TF with troops about to land at Gili Gili... I continue to close the distance with my forces and order my surface TF to move INTO Gili Gili to engage the enemy landing forces and keep my CVs back a bit BUT well within range of the enemy CVs next turn... MY Port Moresby planes are very busy now with many TF to choose from. SOMETIMES they pick the CVs, but many times they do not...
(THIS is where it kills me)
Day 4 the IJN CV TF moves to the north of Gili Gili. The IJN invasion TFs move in to Gili Gili (sometimes one seems to hang back though—odd). My surface combat TF meets them in Gili Gili and they wave at each other as they pass...nothing more. My CVs are happy though they can now spot ALL of the enemy TFs and they are eager to engage the enemy’s best so they attack the enemy invasion forces and ignore the enemy CVs....
NOW, of course about this time the IJN CV’s ‘finally’ see my flat tops and my surface fleet and they pound the crap out of my CVs (of course). And if there is anything left of my CVs they pursue me and sink them...if not they happily turn on my surface combat fleet. BTW I have had my surface combat fleet spend THREE days in the same hex with an enemy landing forces and NEVER engage (what is up with that!)
The Grumbling Grognard
GG:
If you put your surface TF on patrol/do not retire and give them a hex destination, the regular surface TF interception rules come into play.. . which aren't very good, ie the chance of an interception occuring is small.
What you should do, is set your surface TF on Retirement allowed/react to enemy, and give it the Gili Gili destination hex, then it will go in at night, pound the enemy transport TF and get out by daylight to avoid IJN carrier air.
I do this all the time in the Coral Sea scenario to great effect.
I digress a little here, but what is even more fun is to set a submarine trap for the IJN carrier TF a couple hexes off Gili, then lure them into it with your carriers southwest of Gili. Be sure to keep your carriers out of range (9 hexes) of the IJN carriers. Best to let your subs, surface TFs (at night) and land based air from PM do the dirty work.
If you put your surface TF on patrol/do not retire and give them a hex destination, the regular surface TF interception rules come into play.. . which aren't very good, ie the chance of an interception occuring is small.
What you should do, is set your surface TF on Retirement allowed/react to enemy, and give it the Gili Gili destination hex, then it will go in at night, pound the enemy transport TF and get out by daylight to avoid IJN carrier air.
I do this all the time in the Coral Sea scenario to great effect.
I digress a little here, but what is even more fun is to set a submarine trap for the IJN carrier TF a couple hexes off Gili, then lure them into it with your carriers southwest of Gili. Be sure to keep your carriers out of range (9 hexes) of the IJN carriers. Best to let your subs, surface TFs (at night) and land based air from PM do the dirty work.
Naval Attacks.
Well, I've only been playing this game for a week, but I do see the frustrations regarding "Select Target" as not being an option for Naval Attack. Too many games I've had a good number of level bombers and aviation support at Port Moresby waiting to pounce on any Jap task force that comes down to Buna or GG, only to watch my bombers fly off and get slaughtered over Rabaul or Shortland Island ....
I did monkey around with the settings, Altitude, Naval Search Levels, etc. Mixed results. I guess I want the bombers to follow my commands to the letter and destroy shipping, not worry about some islands that I have no hope of taking, especially in the 1st Scenario.
Another thing. The literature mentions about how "sharp" the AI is; however, when I give the computer control of all my sub forces, I noticed that they all make a beeline for Truk. With the Jap TFs obviously underway long before the subs could ever hope to catch them coming out of home port, wouldn't the "sharp" AI position the subs on CP or Mine-laying missions in the access channels??? I guess that's what the Human Control button is for...
Its been an enjoyable game regardless so far....
I did monkey around with the settings, Altitude, Naval Search Levels, etc. Mixed results. I guess I want the bombers to follow my commands to the letter and destroy shipping, not worry about some islands that I have no hope of taking, especially in the 1st Scenario.
Another thing. The literature mentions about how "sharp" the AI is; however, when I give the computer control of all my sub forces, I noticed that they all make a beeline for Truk. With the Jap TFs obviously underway long before the subs could ever hope to catch them coming out of home port, wouldn't the "sharp" AI position the subs on CP or Mine-laying missions in the access channels??? I guess that's what the Human Control button is for...
Its been an enjoyable game regardless so far....
-
HMSWarspite
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
Interesting set of comments here (based on a quick skim...)
- my base attacked CA TF, when I wanted it to attack APs
- my base attacked AP TF and got slaughtered by CVs
- my planes never attack naval targets (althought this is probably a settings problem)
You are trying to play the game UV isn't;) .
As I implied above, stranger things have happened in RL than some of the complaints here (random samples):
- channel dash - 2 heavy Ge warships transit the English channel in broad daylight, only one ineffectual strike (unco-ordinated), gets slaughtered by LORCAP
- Halsey chases IJN CV and leaves CVEs exposed (despite orders to the contrary IIRC)
- IJN cocks up resulting CVE massacre
- Ark Royal strike on Bismark puts in a passable attack on HMS Sheffield (don't get that in UV - now there's a request;) ...)
- Beatty at Jutland doesn't manage to tell the 5th BS that the reason his battle cruisers have just reversed coarse is that the High Seas Fleet (all o f it) is just behind him - the 5th BS only found out when it appeared out of the mist, and they had to reverse coarse under fire! And Beatty passed only a few hundred yards away from the 5th BS - extend this sort of thing to air warfare!
- postion of Bismark passed to Home Fleet and plotted on the wrong grid, causing Home Fleet to head off in completely the wrong direction.
I stongly suspect that the majority of us would make the same 'mistakes' as the AI, if not worse, if we were the commander on the spot. I have learnt from my reading and games that all these 'bad' commanders in history were usually just average people, without having that exceptional flair, luck, whatever that the great commanders have. Usually, if they were actually stupid, they wouldn't have got the post in the first place. Sometimes, they were good, but were just unlucky!. You need to read some detailed stuff to see the sort of complete foul ups that were routine. If we were in local command, and Nimitz could see the events as we can during the game, I suspect he would be bursting blood vessels and screaming at us!
I keep saying, play the game it is, not the tactical version (which is unrealistic given all the info you have that the man on the ground doesn't). If you want to have control of what you base commanders do, (and still want a realistic simulation/wargame), you had better throw the main screen away, and substitute a paper map, a teleprinter, and a lot of guesswork...when you've done OK under these conditions (oh yes, add heat, insects, boredom, getting woken in the night, supply officers telling you that they have torpedoes, but no fuses, 250Lb GP, but no SAP, oh, and 1000s of red berets but no small arms ammo - happened at Arnhem! etc.), then complain about the AI.
I think a lot of what you complain about is possibly the game hindering the AI (random events stopping the AI doing what it 'should'. (Matrix?)
In other words, it IS the game... learn to play (and win) with these constraints and issues...it's what the game is about!
Just my 2p worth (but since it's Christmas, you get about £1 in length!)
- my base attacked CA TF, when I wanted it to attack APs
- my base attacked AP TF and got slaughtered by CVs
- my planes never attack naval targets (althought this is probably a settings problem)
You are trying to play the game UV isn't;) .
As I implied above, stranger things have happened in RL than some of the complaints here (random samples):
- channel dash - 2 heavy Ge warships transit the English channel in broad daylight, only one ineffectual strike (unco-ordinated), gets slaughtered by LORCAP
- Halsey chases IJN CV and leaves CVEs exposed (despite orders to the contrary IIRC)
- IJN cocks up resulting CVE massacre
- Ark Royal strike on Bismark puts in a passable attack on HMS Sheffield (don't get that in UV - now there's a request;) ...)
- Beatty at Jutland doesn't manage to tell the 5th BS that the reason his battle cruisers have just reversed coarse is that the High Seas Fleet (all o f it) is just behind him - the 5th BS only found out when it appeared out of the mist, and they had to reverse coarse under fire! And Beatty passed only a few hundred yards away from the 5th BS - extend this sort of thing to air warfare!
- postion of Bismark passed to Home Fleet and plotted on the wrong grid, causing Home Fleet to head off in completely the wrong direction.
I stongly suspect that the majority of us would make the same 'mistakes' as the AI, if not worse, if we were the commander on the spot. I have learnt from my reading and games that all these 'bad' commanders in history were usually just average people, without having that exceptional flair, luck, whatever that the great commanders have. Usually, if they were actually stupid, they wouldn't have got the post in the first place. Sometimes, they were good, but were just unlucky!. You need to read some detailed stuff to see the sort of complete foul ups that were routine. If we were in local command, and Nimitz could see the events as we can during the game, I suspect he would be bursting blood vessels and screaming at us!
I keep saying, play the game it is, not the tactical version (which is unrealistic given all the info you have that the man on the ground doesn't). If you want to have control of what you base commanders do, (and still want a realistic simulation/wargame), you had better throw the main screen away, and substitute a paper map, a teleprinter, and a lot of guesswork...when you've done OK under these conditions (oh yes, add heat, insects, boredom, getting woken in the night, supply officers telling you that they have torpedoes, but no fuses, 250Lb GP, but no SAP, oh, and 1000s of red berets but no small arms ammo - happened at Arnhem! etc.), then complain about the AI.
I think a lot of what you complain about is possibly the game hindering the AI (random events stopping the AI doing what it 'should'. (Matrix?)
In other words, it IS the game... learn to play (and win) with these constraints and issues...it's what the game is about!
Just my 2p worth (but since it's Christmas, you get about £1 in length!)
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
Originally posted by HMSWarspite
Interesting set of comments here (based on a quick skim...)
- my base attacked CA TF, when I wanted it to attack APs
- my base attacked AP TF and got slaughtered by CVs
- my planes never attack naval targets (althought this is probably a settings problem)
You are trying to play the game UV isn't;) .
As I implied above, stranger things have happened in RL than some of the complaints here (random samples):
- channel dash - 2 heavy Ge warships transit the English channel in broad daylight, only one ineffectual strike (unco-ordinated), gets slaughtered by LORCAP
- Halsey chases IJN CV and leaves CVEs exposed (despite orders to the contrary IIRC)
- IJN cocks up resulting CVE massacre
- Ark Royal strike on Bismark puts in a passable attack on HMS Sheffield (don't get that in UV - now there's a request;) ...)
- Beatty at Jutland doesn't manage to tell the 5th BS that the reason his battle cruisers have just reversed coarse is that the High Seas Fleet (all o f it) is just behind him - the 5th BS only found out when it appeared out of the mist, and they had to reverse coarse under fire! And Beatty passed only a few hundred yards away from the 5th BS - extend this sort of thing to air warfare!
- postion of Bismark passed to Home Fleet and plotted on the wrong grid, causing Home Fleet to head off in completely the wrong direction.
I stongly suspect that the majority of us would make the same 'mistakes' as the AI, if not worse, if we were the commander on the spot. I have learnt from my reading and games that all these 'bad' commanders in history were usually just average people, without having that exceptional flair, luck, whatever that the great commanders have. Usually, if they were actually stupid, they wouldn't have got the post in the first place. Sometimes, they were good, but were just unlucky!. You need to read some detailed stuff to see the sort of complete foul ups that were routine. If we were in local command, and Nimitz could see the events as we can during the game, I suspect he would be bursting blood vessels and screaming at us!
I keep saying, play the game it is, not the tactical version (which is unrealistic given all the info you have that the man on the ground doesn't). If you want to have control of what you base commanders do, (and still want a realistic simulation/wargame), you had better throw the main screen away, and substitute a paper map, a teleprinter, and a lot of guesswork...when you've done OK under these conditions (oh yes, add heat, insects, boredom, getting woken in the night, supply officers telling you that they have torpedoes, but no fuses, 250Lb GP, but no SAP, oh, and 1000s of red berets but no small arms ammo - happened at Arnhem! etc.), then complain about the AI.
I think a lot of what you complain about is possibly the game hindering the AI (random events stopping the AI doing what it 'should'. (Matrix?)
In other words, it IS the game... learn to play (and win) with these constraints and issues...it's what the game is about!
Just my 2p worth (but since it's Christmas, you get about £1 in length!)
Could,nt agree more, pity more didnt realise this when they bought the game.
Btw Warspite, I too reside near Bristol, what part you from? I live in Thornbury and work near Avonmouth.
It is a game and it plays out in a certain sort of way. Some of the people who feel disappointed with the system don’t actually know how it plays out and feel bad when things don’t go their way.
I do know how the game plays out. I do know about the foul ups, bad decisions, bad target choices and incompetence. I like it in the game. It is realistic, it should be modelled and UV is doing a good job with it.
However, the current system leaves the experience of being an operational commander to the level of: “I send my forces to this an area, but I don’t tell them what to do there. Let them figure out themselves what I am after and what is my greater plan”.
What I’m advocating is the experience should be: “I send my forces to an area with a set of command such as: Block invasion, Hinder supply, Search and destroy enemy CV TF or search and destroy enemy surface combat forces”. After giving these commands the TF goes away and acts accordingly. If it then makes a complete mess of things, fine. It happened and it should happen in the game. At least I would know in my heart that the proper orders were given to the commander and the fault was his, not mine.
Currently, I send my forces to action; they all sail to an area and do what they please, because they don’t know what my greater scheme is and for what purpose I deploy them. They always sail with the same orders and priorities, regardless do I want them to defend a vulnerable base from invasion, or do I want to go and hunt enemy carriers in preparation of my own invasion. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn’t, but most of the frustration for players is created by not knowing why things went wrong: Was it bad luck, didn’t I set my TF on right place with right orders, was the commander incompetent, doesn’t the game allow me to do x, is there a bug in the game?
I propose that when assigning CV TF on Air combat it should have at least two choises: Normal target prioritisation (as it is now) and Defend from invasion. The latter would change the prioritisation from CVs to troop ships. Of course target acquisition will have screw ups and of course wrong targets do get attacked, but at least I would know that I gave the right type of role to my TF. Furthermore, a surface combat TF should have two options as well, the normal and a pursuit, in which the Surface TF would attempt to pursuit and engage any surface TF within its range.
Such commands would greatly reduce my frustration and deepen the experience of being an operational level commander.
Ps. the argument about being an operational level commander is not valid in regard to target selection. An operational level commander would brief very accurately his immediate subordinates about the upcoming mission. Nobody with the authority to create a TF sends it out to the sea with only orders being: "Go conduct air missions at your discretion", or "go to the area and don't come back before you run out of fuel". To make such a claim is just plain silly. TF commanders know very well what they are supposed to do and what are their target priorities. Currently this cannot be done and sometimes it takes the fun out of planning straegic moves which collapse when subordinates don't know why they are out on their mission. Regardless of this lack, UV is still the best wargame I have ever played. I just wish WITP will be even better and lessons learned from UV will help to build better WITP.
I do know how the game plays out. I do know about the foul ups, bad decisions, bad target choices and incompetence. I like it in the game. It is realistic, it should be modelled and UV is doing a good job with it.
However, the current system leaves the experience of being an operational commander to the level of: “I send my forces to this an area, but I don’t tell them what to do there. Let them figure out themselves what I am after and what is my greater plan”.
What I’m advocating is the experience should be: “I send my forces to an area with a set of command such as: Block invasion, Hinder supply, Search and destroy enemy CV TF or search and destroy enemy surface combat forces”. After giving these commands the TF goes away and acts accordingly. If it then makes a complete mess of things, fine. It happened and it should happen in the game. At least I would know in my heart that the proper orders were given to the commander and the fault was his, not mine.
Currently, I send my forces to action; they all sail to an area and do what they please, because they don’t know what my greater scheme is and for what purpose I deploy them. They always sail with the same orders and priorities, regardless do I want them to defend a vulnerable base from invasion, or do I want to go and hunt enemy carriers in preparation of my own invasion. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn’t, but most of the frustration for players is created by not knowing why things went wrong: Was it bad luck, didn’t I set my TF on right place with right orders, was the commander incompetent, doesn’t the game allow me to do x, is there a bug in the game?
I propose that when assigning CV TF on Air combat it should have at least two choises: Normal target prioritisation (as it is now) and Defend from invasion. The latter would change the prioritisation from CVs to troop ships. Of course target acquisition will have screw ups and of course wrong targets do get attacked, but at least I would know that I gave the right type of role to my TF. Furthermore, a surface combat TF should have two options as well, the normal and a pursuit, in which the Surface TF would attempt to pursuit and engage any surface TF within its range.
Such commands would greatly reduce my frustration and deepen the experience of being an operational level commander.
Ps. the argument about being an operational level commander is not valid in regard to target selection. An operational level commander would brief very accurately his immediate subordinates about the upcoming mission. Nobody with the authority to create a TF sends it out to the sea with only orders being: "Go conduct air missions at your discretion", or "go to the area and don't come back before you run out of fuel". To make such a claim is just plain silly. TF commanders know very well what they are supposed to do and what are their target priorities. Currently this cannot be done and sometimes it takes the fun out of planning straegic moves which collapse when subordinates don't know why they are out on their mission. Regardless of this lack, UV is still the best wargame I have ever played. I just wish WITP will be even better and lessons learned from UV will help to build better WITP.
Regarding Frustration, Some still dont seem to get it that "frustration" is a major part of the game. I mean come on dont you think Yamamoto was frustrated that Hara sent a full strike at a unconfirmed siting that turned out to be just an oiler and DD? Dont you think Nimitz was frustrated that Fletcher sent his full strike against what only turned out to be a light covering force? A move that may have been disasterous if Hara hadnt already made his mistake. Dont you think Yamamoto was frustrated that the Hiryu 2nd strike at midway went after the already stricken Yorktown instead of the Hornet or Enterprise?
Dealing with unexpected mistakes and frustration is what makes this game so great. Without it most of us would master this game in no time and it would be collecting dust on the shelf.
RE:WitP; If anything, given the scale, you should have even less control in WitP not more.
Dealing with unexpected mistakes and frustration is what makes this game so great. Without it most of us would master this game in no time and it would be collecting dust on the shelf.
RE:WitP; If anything, given the scale, you should have even less control in WitP not more.
-
HawaiiFive-O
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:21 pm
- Location: USA
I am happy with the level of control as it exists currently.
Sure it drives me crazy when the enemy's CV taskforce is only 5 hexes away and expended itself bombing the crapola out of Lunga and my CVs have the perfect opportunity to launch a crippling blow to Japanese naval power- but such a strike was not launched. In fact, near as I can tell, no strike was launched, at all.
Such things happened IRL, such things should happen in the game.
I got some satisfaction out of the situation when the enemy CVs retired and the crazy AI still attempted amphibious landings. My CVs had no problems blowing those APs out of the water.
Perhaps they were scared of the amount of CAP a 6 CV + 2 CVL IJN taskforce is capable of putting up?
Sure it drives me crazy when the enemy's CV taskforce is only 5 hexes away and expended itself bombing the crapola out of Lunga and my CVs have the perfect opportunity to launch a crippling blow to Japanese naval power- but such a strike was not launched. In fact, near as I can tell, no strike was launched, at all.
Such things happened IRL, such things should happen in the game.
I got some satisfaction out of the situation when the enemy CVs retired and the crazy AI still attempted amphibious landings. My CVs had no problems blowing those APs out of the water.
Perhaps they were scared of the amount of CAP a 6 CV + 2 CVL IJN taskforce is capable of putting up?
I don’t think I made myself clear enough. I state again. I like that UV models bad decisions, wrong targets and all the rest of it that comes with the fog of war. I like it, because it is realistic.
But, frustration caused by the feeling of not being able to execute out your strategic plans is a totally different thing.
What I’m saying is that I feel that I can’t plan my strategic decisions because I can’t set particular roles for my TF.
The Task Forces always have the same set of orders and target priorities, regardless do I want them to defend a friendly base or act as spearhead of my invasion fleet. There is a world of difference between these two roles.
I give you an example. If I want to defend a base of mine and I have plenty of assets at my disposal I’m likely to create a couple of TF, all with slightly different function in my operational plan.
It could be that one, a stronger Air combat TF is ordered to hunt enemy CV,s while another, a weaker one is ordered to attack enemy troop ships. These would be operational decisions and in the case of UV should be decided by the player in one form or another.
If during the battle both TF attack the same (wrong) target, fair enough. That would be a mistake well within the realistic scope. But to claim that an operational commander only orders his TF to sail to an area without any further orders than just “Do some air combat” is simply not reasonable.
I would be perfectly happy with a choice between defensive/offensive role assigned for both air and surface combat groups. It doesn’t have to do anything else except to change hard coded target prioritisation: One targets warships the other targets supply ships. After such a prioritisation, the TF can make all the bad decisions on the tactical level they want, as they did in real life. But I want at least be able to give them right orders which reflect my operational/strategic thinking the best.
The fact that that the commanders attack wrong targets regardless of the given orders is one issue, the ability for the commander issue such order is another. They are not excluding each other out. They should BOTH be in the game. If not in UV, then perhaps in WITP.
But, frustration caused by the feeling of not being able to execute out your strategic plans is a totally different thing.
What I’m saying is that I feel that I can’t plan my strategic decisions because I can’t set particular roles for my TF.
The Task Forces always have the same set of orders and target priorities, regardless do I want them to defend a friendly base or act as spearhead of my invasion fleet. There is a world of difference between these two roles.
I give you an example. If I want to defend a base of mine and I have plenty of assets at my disposal I’m likely to create a couple of TF, all with slightly different function in my operational plan.
It could be that one, a stronger Air combat TF is ordered to hunt enemy CV,s while another, a weaker one is ordered to attack enemy troop ships. These would be operational decisions and in the case of UV should be decided by the player in one form or another.
If during the battle both TF attack the same (wrong) target, fair enough. That would be a mistake well within the realistic scope. But to claim that an operational commander only orders his TF to sail to an area without any further orders than just “Do some air combat” is simply not reasonable.
I would be perfectly happy with a choice between defensive/offensive role assigned for both air and surface combat groups. It doesn’t have to do anything else except to change hard coded target prioritisation: One targets warships the other targets supply ships. After such a prioritisation, the TF can make all the bad decisions on the tactical level they want, as they did in real life. But I want at least be able to give them right orders which reflect my operational/strategic thinking the best.
The fact that that the commanders attack wrong targets regardless of the given orders is one issue, the ability for the commander issue such order is another. They are not excluding each other out. They should BOTH be in the game. If not in UV, then perhaps in WITP.
-
HMSWarspite
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
Originally posted by Pawlock
Could,nt agree more, pity more didnt realise this when they bought the game.
Btw Warspite, I too reside near Bristol, what part you from? I live in Thornbury and work near Avonmouth.
There's a coincidence. I live in Bishopston, and work in Filton.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
-
HMSWarspite
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
Originally posted by Piiska
I don’t think I made myself clear enough. I state again. I like that UV models bad decisions, wrong targets and all the rest of it that comes with the fog of war. I like it, because it is realistic....
I give you an example. If I want to defend a base of mine and I have plenty of assets at my disposal I’m likely to create a couple of TF, all with slightly different function in my operational plan.
It could be that one, a stronger Air combat TF is ordered to hunt enemy CV,s while another, a weaker one is ordered to attack enemy troop ships. These would be operational decisions and in the case of UV should be decided by the player in one form or another.
If during the battle both TF attack the same (wrong) target, fair enough. That would be a mistake well within the realistic scope. But to claim that an operational commander only orders his TF to sail to an area without any further orders than just “Do some air combat” is simply not reasonable.
I would be perfectly happy with a choice between defensive/offensive role assigned for both air and surface combat groups. It doesn’t have to do anything else except to change hard coded target prioritisation: One targets warships the other targets supply ships. After such a prioritisation, the TF can make all the bad decisions on the tactical level they want, as they did in real life. But I want at least be able to give them right orders which reflect my operational/strategic thinking the best.
Now this I like - the missing elemnent is indeed the ability to assign general standing to a TF, or base. For a TF, historical missions might include:
- decoy (get youself spotted then high tail it out of there (IJN CV at Philipenes)
- 'normal mission' (as today)
- anti invasion(up the priority of AP etc, but most CV will still chase CV if they see one - ref Halsey)
- cautious - main priority is to avoid getting sunk, pass up opportunities if any danger
- cover - protect TF XXX from attack, all other missions secondary
I am sure there are more, but this would enable a basic strategic plan to be enacted. I am sure the coding task would be considerable however.
Land bases could have similar range - self defence, air superiority, interdiction, invasion cover, etc.
I suspect this is beyond UV at present (or for good). Nice idea though.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
Originally posted by HMSWarspite
Now this I like - the missing elemnent is indeed the ability to assign general standing to a TF, or base. For a TF, historical missions might include:
- decoy (get youself spotted then high tail it out of there (IJN CV at Philipenes)
- 'normal mission' (as today)
- anti invasion(up the priority of AP etc, but most CV will still chase CV if they see one - ref Halsey)
- cautious - main priority is to avoid getting sunk, pass up opportunities if any danger
- cover - protect TF XXX from attack, all other missions secondary
I am sure there are more, but this would enable a basic strategic plan to be enacted. I am sure the coding task would be considerable however.
Land bases could have similar range - self defence, air superiority, interdiction, invasion cover, etc.
I suspect this is beyond UV at present (or for good). Nice idea though.
Bingo!! Your plan is cunning indeed my dear Baldrick.
I like UV at the present as well, but why not strive for something even better? Should UV remain the top peak of wargame developement, after which nothing is going to come out? I doubt it, and if WITP would have this possibility to set different operational roles for Task Forces, it would most likely far exceed the greatness of UV.
-
HawaiiFive-O
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:21 pm
- Location: USA
