Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves.

[iceboy105]

I sent my Jap CV task force to attack a worn down AI CV force who had plenty of fighters but few bombers. We both had several fleets in the area but the only one I cared about was the AI CV force. So I set my planes on naval attack and my fighters to escort and what does the wonderful computer choose for my planes to do. It sends all my bombers straight into the AI CV cap without any escort and they are promptly massacred. And it sends all my escorts with about 8 vals to attack a few cruisers. So instead of being able to destroy the AI carriers I lose my entire bomber groups. Yay for not being able to do anything logical that any simple minded commander would know to do!!!!!! And I dont want to hear anything about thats how it could have happened in history because no commander would send all his escorts with a few bombers and then send almost all his bombers with no escorts at all. Please please fix this for WITP!!!!!

[Admiral Scott]

I have to agree with you iceboy. The fighter escort should have gone with the group where it would be needed.

[pasternakski]

So you lost and you're pissed. Welcome to the club.

Game on.

Ain't nothin' to be fixed. Your subordinates are idiots and your command control network is gibberish. Reality is a b*tch.

[Matt Erickson]

Originally posted by iceboy
I sent my Jap CV task force to attack a worn down AI CV force who had plenty of fighters but few bombers. We both had several fleets in the area but the only one I cared about was the AI CV force. So I set my planes on naval attack and my fighters to escort and what does the wonderful computer choose for my planes to do. It sends all my bombers straight into the AI CV cap without any escort and they are promptly massacred. And it sends all my escorts with about 8 vals to attack a few cruisers. So instead of being able to destroy the AI carriers I lose my entire bomber groups. Yay for not being able to do anything logical that any simple minded commander would know to do!!!!!! And I dont want to hear anything about thats how it could have happened in history because no commander would send all his escorts with a few bombers and then send almost all his bombers with no escorts at all. Please please fix this for WITP!!!!!

This is precisly what does NOT NEED TO BE DONE....plotting ones move to the decimal point has long be the bane of many a wargame matrix has eliminated most of this...TO WHINE AND CRY THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to beat the algorithim sends the wrong message to matrix....please do not make any changes regarding this.:p

[David Heath]

We will not be changing this for this game. Remeber you are not directing things from the front but a rear office.

[iceboy105]

Originally posted by David Heath
We will not be changing this for this game. Remeber you are not directing things from the front but a rear office.

Can we at least get the escorts to go with the majority of the bombers and not just a little group of 3 or 4? I need my main attack force protected not a few planes that go off on their own little mission. Im sorry I just dont see this actually happening no matter who is commanding. I love the game its the best Ive ever played Im just looking for perfection

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Ain't nothin' to be fixed. Your subordinates are idiots and your command control network is gibberish. Reality is a b*tch.
------------
Originally posted by Matt Erickson
This is precisly what does NOT NEED TO BE DONE....plotting ones move to the decimal point has long be the bane of many a wargame matrix has eliminated most of this...TO WHINE AND CRY THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to beat the algorithim sends the wrong message to matrix....please do not make any changes regarding this.:p

LOL You guys have got to be kidding. Captain of that carrier is supposed to have an IQ over 50. And one would expect him to be able to plan rudimentary air operations.

But in the example given this is NOT the case. To send ALL of your fighters to "protect" 8 bombers from the awesome CAP that those cruisers can put up and decide that the bulk of bombers attacking the enemy aircraft carrier does not need any escort is plain stupid. :rolleyes:

Directing from the rear is all fine... and I like that. THAT is why I bought the game. But, when this happens then give me the ability to have the man responsible brought up on charges and hung.

Seriously, if I am to be "...directing things from the...rear office.” only then the game developers have to provide adequate AI <period>. Anything less in a game that can take (literally) months to play out turns it into an exercise in frustration.

And if I spend several weeks swapping turns via email and a game/plan/battle is blow by some stupid AI move like this... yeah I will be a bit pissed off because NO CARRIER CAPT IN THE WOULD BE SO STUPID AS TO DO THIS <period>

And if it happens over and over I put the game away, don’t play it, sell it and frankly think twice about buying again (just being blunt/honest). I expect enjoyment from my games, not frustration.

At this point I have enjoyed the TWO games I have played. But posts like this have me worried...

[Matt Erickson]

three words....."torpedo squadron eight"...these arguments have been played over and over again...maybe you should consult the japanese commander and ask him why he sent all his planes to attack and oiler an some destroyers at coral sea.

[mogami]

Hi, Often the strike is launched with fighter escort, The strike breaks up into smaller groups enroute and you see
50 fighters escorting 18 divebombers
followed by a strike of 40 divebombers
followed by a strike of 20 torpedo planes
followed by 15 fighters 30 divebombers 15 torpedo planes

It's not the carriers launching strikes unescorted or in clumps, it's just the way they arrive. After the early "broken" strikes you will see 65 fighters escorting 88 divebombers 35 torpedo planes


(The USN strikes at Midway were largely unescorted as a result of this "breaking up")

[DSandberg]

Yes! Finally someone has pointed out the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the original post. Namely, the possibility that the fighters got separated from the bombers they were supposed to be escorting, and then managed to visually pick up the smaller bomber group and escorted them instead, either not realizing it was the wrong group or else not having any other options besides turning back and not escorting anyone at all. And it makes sense for them to escort somebody in any event ... for example, what if the enemy carrier TF changed course unexpectedly, and those handful of bombers happen to be the only ones who actually find the enemy carriers?

This type of thing happened many times during the war. An assumption that the stupid fleet commander must have planned it the way that it happened is suggestive of someone who bases too much of their WWII knowledge on wargames (where in most cases perfect micromanagement is available), rather than on the kind of things that actually happened historically. UV is one of the few games that gives us the latter experience, and I want it to stay that way, even after I've finished cursing my own squadron commanders for not always going exactly where I wanted and hitting the exact targets I wanted. ("Why are you idiots attacking the destroyer when there's a fleet carrier right there? Argh!") Welcome to simulated reality.

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by iceboy
Can we at least get the escorts to go with the majority of the bombers and not just a little group of 3 or 4? I need my main attack force protected not a few planes that go off on their own little mission. Im sorry I just dont see this actually happening no matter who is commanding. I love the game its the best Ive ever played Im just looking for perfection

But why should you get perfection? Nimitz didn't get perfection. All too often, he instead got fleet commanders who went on goose chases while forgetting their assigned mission, cloud layers between escorts and bombers that caused them to lose track of each other almost immediately, squadrons commanders who led their bombers off in totally unplanned directions because they thought they knew better than the strike planner where the enemy would be (and once in a blue moon they actually did!), etc. etc. etc.

You may not "see this actually happening no matter who is commanding", but real world commanders in WWII saw it on a regular basis.

[pasternakski]

Yep. Frustration is part of the game. Dealing with the sh1t sandwich you got handed today as theater commander is part of what makes this game so good (although that sounds a little too much like my day job ...).

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by DSandberg
Yes! Finally someone has pointed out the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the original post. Namely, the possibility that the fighters got separated from the bombers they were supposed to be escorting, and then managed to visually pick up the smaller bomber group and escorted them instead, either not realizing it was the wrong group or else not having any other options besides turning back and not escorting anyone at all. And it makes sense for them to escort somebody in any event ... for example, what if the enemy carrier TF changed course unexpectedly, and those handful of bombers happen to be the only ones who actually find the enemy carriers?

This type of thing happened many times during the war. An assumption that the stupid fleet commander must have planned it the way that it happened is suggestive of someone who bases too much of their WWII knowledge on wargames (where in most cases perfect micromanagement is available), rather than on the kind of things that actually happened historically. UV is one of the few games that gives us the latter experience, and I want it to stay that way, even after I've finished cursing my own squadron commanders for not always going exactly where I wanted and hitting the exact targets I wanted. ("Why are you idiots attacking the destroyer when there's a fleet carrier right there? Argh!") Welcome to simulated reality.

Exactly Dsanberg. Nicely put

Iceboy, are you even sure that ALL your fighters were sent with the 8 vals? Did you count them? Maybe your other strike's escort just got seperated. Also are you aware that multiple strikes happen at different times of the day. Example; your first strike lagainst CVs launched in the morning, escort gets losts your bombers find target. Second strike against CA's is luanched in the afternoon, escort doesnt get lost.

Like it or not things like this did happen historically.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Mistakes like escorts becoming seperated or scouts misidentifying ships and thus bombers attacking 'wrong' targets etc. did happen historically - and they also happen in UV, which is nice and okay.
I think the main problem is REALLY STUPID target selection, like the "3 Hudsons sent to attack MSW vessels in Rabaul harbor only to be shot down by CAP - and my commander at PM sends three more Hudsons the next day, and the next, and so on - although there are easier, more important and more rewarding targets nearby en masse".
So, the AI-driven subordinates should be better in their target selection and should avoid pointless attacks. The 'abort'-function for aircraft during combat resolution is a step too late to remedy the situation.
Btw, being able to set player-controlled air missions targets in UV does not necessarily have to lead to 'perfection' - although the AI commanders should try to carry out orders to attack a specific TF or specific types of ships or leave certain areas alone, the above mentioned mistakes could still happen.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Yes I agree

And I grow very, very tired of hearing people continue to point out the exceptionally stupid/bad/silly things that happend in real life try to use them to justify things I have seen in 100% of the games I have played (abit that is only three games now).

The point is they were exceptions in real life. I have seen these insane "choices" in every single major fleet action now in three games. Some by my AI commanders...some by the IJN commanders. Both weaken the game.

If someone can point me to where escorts attacked CAs 100% of the time in real life while ignoring the divebombers attacking the CV's I will stand corrected (for instance). :rolleyes:

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
If someone can point me to where escorts attacked CAs 100% of the time in real life while ignoring the divebombers attacking the CV's I will stand corrected (for instance). :rolleyes:

Will you settle for me informing you that fighters escorting attacks on surface combat fleets rather than air combat fleets is an exception rather than a rule when I play UV? And based upon my UV experience, I have a very hard time believing that you've had this happening 100% of the time. You're taking your hyperbole in rather too large of doses, I suspect. :p

[CapAndGown]

Time to revive a poll I see.

This has been hashed out before and there was even a poll on this subject. As it turned out, 50% of the players wanted no change to the system while 50% wanted to set their own priorities.

I am one of the ones who voted to keep the system unchanged. Learn to laugh when these things happen and your playing experience will be much more enjoyable. Drongo has taught me the value of laughing at the many stupid things that happen in UV. And now I have come to like some of these small entertainments in sheer stupidity.

So leave the system alone!

[bilbow]

Agreed. Leave the system alone. The unpredictability is part of the fun.

[TIMJOT]

Grumbling grog,

You stand corrected, becuase it hasnt happen to me 100% of the time. In fact I have been playing for 7 months and its never happen to me. Either you are incredibly unlucky or you are replaying the same saved turn over and over. In which case you will get the same result over in over.

[pasternakski]

You've got to remember that even the most experienced of us are still rookies at UV. The game is just now emerging from its shakedown cruise with the issuance of patch 2.20.

A perfect example of how we need to improve our game play before we criticize the system is found in an earlier post:

"I think the main problem is REALLY STUPID target selection, like the "3 Hudsons sent to attack MSW vessels in Rabaul harbor only to be shot down by CAP - and my commander at PM sends three more Hudsons the next day, and the next, and so on - although there are easier, more important and more rewarding targets nearby en masse".

You have the tools to stop this from happening, and there's no reason it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Obviously, there's a squadron of Hudsons out there within range of Rabaul. Obviously, there are no long-range fighters available for escort. Obviously, the squadron is set for naval attack. Obviously, this Hudson squadron is launching only three aircraft for a reason, possibly lack of supply, lack of air support, lack of an air HQ nearby, lack of morale, lack of rest, or some other lack. So three Hudsons were lost on the first day. Before the second day dawned, it was time to make a change. I don't have all the facts here, but it looks to me like this poor bunch of suckers needed to be taken off of naval attack before more of 'em got their butts shot off. I find that Hudsons are much better used as search or ASW aircraft than as naval strike planes, anyway. What gets 'em into trouble here, apparently, is their range. So put 'em to work doing something they won't get murdered at.

The point is that we are all learning, and we don't know it all yet. We certainly don't know enough at this point to be clamoring for wholesale changes in the game's approach to its subject.

I say we should refine our own skills and then revisit these topics. Every PBEM game I have played and am playing teaches me more about how to play UV, often the hard way. I am grateful to the game system for its richness, and I am grateful to my opponents (yes, even the decrepit old AI) for kicking my @$$ and giving me the opportunity to learn.

As old Lodge Skins said in his death talk in Little Big Man, "Thank you for my victories. Thank you for my defeats."

Let's go get defeated for awhile, eh?