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

[Krec]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I think I just recognized something.
It's not airgroups hitting Rabaul or what. It's the Airgroup target priority that bothers people.
Rather then go by ship value, you would prefer threat assessment and have airgroups attack in that manner.
CV TF far away is less threat then Transport TF unloading on your base.
Kind of like a "react to enemy" only for airgroups.

yes, thats it !! Call it ATP "Airgroup Target Priority" thats whats missing. we should be able to set what type of targets we want to engage. (could be maybe 6-10 differnt threat assessments . pick your top 2 or pick 1 and only 1) its basically that simple. some of these missions are insane. i mean come on naval attack? way to vague. when you see a wounded CV group , i want to be able to move in for the kill , not have half my pilots mistake my order for killing that group with going hundreds of miles in the wrong direction and getting creamed. should be easy enough , i dont think its asking too much. i do believe its the missing link to greatness.
the game is good but this willy nilly naval strke command is just not the best imo. my 2cents. if we lobby hard enough ?

[Mike Scholl]

I'd like to start with the example someone brought up earlier
of the situation at Pt. Moresby on May 1. The Hudson Sqdrn.
there is the reccon asset. That was their primary mission in
historical terms in the RAAF. To keep an eye out for whatever
the Japanese were getting up to between Rabaul and New
Guinea. So here we sit a few turns into the game when the
Hudsons spot an IJN TF bringing troops into Buna. It's what
navies refer to as an "all hands to the pumps" situation. So
the Hudsons get switched to naval attack to meet the threat.

.....And the AI sends them to bomb an oiler in Rabaul!!! At
extended range... Threatening no-one... Over and over
again.... I'm sorry, but this is idiotic. Always was idiotic, and
always will be idiotic. At the VERY LEAST the game has to
give the player better control than that!

Bombing the wrong target should be part of the game. I have
no quarrel with that.., it happened a lot. But it happened
when there were multiple targets IN THE SAME AREA! Not
hundreds of miles apart in different directions. If you ordered
a ground unit to march from Townsville to Cooktown, and it
wandered off towards Brisbane everyone would scream the
game was screwed up. But people defend it when the AI does
it with their air units. The results are TOO random to be
believable as an historical re-creation. "Wrong-way Corrigan"went the wrong way---but he did it on purpose!
The AI seems to feel that half or more of all naval strikes should
do it every time. Give us some means of indicating at least the
general direction of the enemy we'd like them to hit so that the
players can feel like they ARE in command. Right now many of
the most critical moments of a long game seem to be crap
shoots in the dark. Please.., at least turn on the lights.

[Bc2of5]

And a strike should use it's escorts when they are available;) ,it would be reeeeally nice when some messages would tell the theater commander in the execution phase what is going on his airfields....like airfield commander depatch raid containg 37 bombers and 50 escorts towrds hex...to engage suspected naval force there.An futher message when the raid arrives to tell the theather commander if all boys are there,or what unsuspecting things had happen underway.

I am not sure,but I think that fighter pilots on training mission might(should) scramble to met the threat when the airfield is under attack.

[TIMJOT]

It seems to me that one of THE major complaints people are having is when bombers set to "naval attack", attack ships in ports instead of ones at sea. Rabaul in particular seems to pose problems for SOME players. Although I personally cant say I have accountered this phenomenmom very often, perhaps a simple remedy would be to make it so planes can only attack ships in port, when set to "port attack" . When planes are set at "naval attack" they would only attack ships at sea. This would solve unwanted port attacks without fiddleing too much with the AI and the operational flavor of the game.

As far as targeting specific TFs I just dont get what all the fuss is about. Im sorry but I just dont seem to have any problems getting my CV strikes to do what I want them to do. Sure the AI makes some mistakes occasionally, but people are makeing it seem like the AI does nothing right all the time.

It seems to me all some people want is some extra chrome/text explaining what happened. Something like "Strike launched at CA TF"...... "Ememy CV TF sighted unable to divert strike". or " Lost contact with ememy CV TF...... strike diverted to CA TF.

If that what it takes to make players feel better. Its fine with me, but personally I dont need text to confirm what can be easily infered as reasonable explanations.

[CommC]

For long-range bombers on Naval attack, we at least need to be able to set strike zones and/or exclusion zones. The strike zones would be hexes where an attack would be launched if an enemy TF was spotted. Exclusion zones (these are also used in Harpoon) are areas of known enemy threat where the air group would not be allowed to operate in, to fly through or launch attacks in.

[Nikademus]

A simple modification here would be to add a "max range" button for land bases when 'naval attack' is selected. Carrier TF's dont suffer this issue given the limited range of their aircraft and therefore dont really need it. People seem to be complaining most about the occaisonal to rare penny packet type raid at extreme long range against TF's in a port hex protected by a CAP.

I can see the value and logic of such an addition as it seems reasonable to order a certain base, or set of bases to patrol and attack an established area or "kill zone" More so since the base's location is static. I do admit to the occaisional frustration when i see an important convoy sailing unopposed to Buna while a two AP TF at Rabaul gets attacked instead.

More than that though i cant see in a game of this scale. Given that UV puts you in the role of Strategic commander, the player is already given a huge amount of control over their tactical groups....control far superior to PacWar. If your Carrier TF attacks the wrong target on occasion, fortunes and fog of war I say.

Dont see it as a major issue though. Yes occasionally a few isolated bombers attack at long range against a well defended base but not enough for me to consider it a game-buster. A better case can be made for the IJN player though, given the long range of some of their bombers. The AI lost some valuable planes to me attacking Lunga at extreme range (against mass CAP forces) in order to also be able to attack less well defended Port Morosby which i was also supplying via naval transport. Historically, the commanders 'did' shift priority from the New Guniea theater to the Solomons at the strategic/tactical level

[Grotius]

Playing the IJN vs the AI in Scenario 17, I just had a situation where I was *glad* I was able to designate "Naval Attack" without more specificity. I had spotted a couple of USN TFs in the Gili Gili and PM areas, but nothing near Lunga. (Due to my almost comical incompetence, it's early June and the USN still holds both Lunga and Gili.) In fact I'd flown recon several turns over Lunga, air search missions out of Shortland, etc., and saw nothing around Guadalcanal. So I sent in a Bombardment TF to wake up the Yanks on Guadalcanal.

Well, the TFs near PM/Gili turned out to be routine convoys, and I'm very glad my pilots didn't attack them, because my Bombardment TF encountered an opposing USN surface fleet at Lunga. (It was quite a fight. Almost no ship emerged unscathed.) After the surface battle, my pilots wisely ignored the transports I'd planned to attack and instead nailed the remnants of the surface TF at Lunga. Yessss!

I'm not opposed to having somewhat greater control over which TFs we target, but I wanted to point out that there is (sometimes) a "fun" upside to the current system. My pilots turned out to be smarter than I am. <grin>

[dcoop]

I think what most people are looking for is an AI that is consistant with the theater commander's(player's) strategic goals. It seems that the only way to accomplish this is to either trick the system (by not puting LRB's in range of unwanted targets) or by giving the player a little more control over target designation. I'm not one who wants a complete make-over as to micro-manage my "commanders", but I don't think that it is too much to ask that either 1) AI commanders not make ridiculous decisions, or 2) Theater Commanders are given more input as to what is considered a target of opportunity.
I want to trust my commanders, but sometimes CDR's and LCDR's are making SN mistakes.

Coop

[mholmgren]

I don't have time to pick targets for airstrikes, because I'm too busy concentrating on which troops get on which transport. :rolleyes:

I agree with the Grumbling Grognard's comments on this matter. It should be changed. This game plays just like SSI's old Guadalcanal Campaign.

[denisonh]

Maybe if there was something akin to the "doctrine" settings that were in TOH_BOTR for the Axis aircraft, where you set global targeting and attack methods by type of aircfraft, but still had the ability to change the settings by squadron.

It is the obvious do's and dont's for the squadron commanders that are the source of frustration. There should be some mechanisms to help reduce these serious miscues. Not neccesarily eliminate them, as the conduct of warfare at this period of time is rife with mistakes and miscommunications.

I think that a better way to provide guidance without micromanaging would seem to be the best approach.

[Mike Scholl]

Something that in the end the designers are going to need to
face up to is that at least 50% of the people who bought UNCOMMON VALOR are upset to some extant over the control
(or lack of it) they have over naval air strikes. In a market as
small as "Historical Wargamers", that's a big section of your market for any additional games using this system to be telling
to "kiss off". Whatever the designers feelings on the matter, if
they want to SELL games, then customers have to want to buy
and play them. Real success is in being able to use the same
basic "engine" to drive several games on the general subject.
That eliminates a large portion of the design budget which can
hopelully show up as profits.

UNCOMMON VALOR is without a doubt the most uncommonly
ellegant system yet for dealing with the kind of "Air-Land-Sea"
Campaigns that made up a significant portion of the Second
World War. It cries out for additional titles, both in the Pacific
and the Med. But if half of the purchassers are totally frustraited
by the "naval strike" results (or lack thereof), then the designers
need to address those concerns (whether they agree with them or not) or face the very real possibility that they have reduced
the market for any future titles by HALF. Frustration people can
get in daily life---they don't need to go out and buy it.

2x3's "extra efforts" in putting out patches and commenting in the forumns shows a solid commitment to satisfying their customers, so it's hard for me to believe they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot over this one issue. Players want to feel
like THEY are playing the game---and the naval strike section
currently feels too much like the game playing them. Give them
something like a 12 point directional compass and a maximum
strike range control. Strikes can still hit the Neosho and Sims by
mistake---but at least they won't charge off to Pt. Moresby. There has to be a compromise that 95% of the players can live with out there if you look for it. This is too good a system to be
lost over something this small---but as the poet said, "For want of a nail....

[Inigo Montoya]

Your argument would be a good one if you had any evidence of the hypothetical 50% figure you use. Otherwise, it's weak.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Something that in the end the designers are going to need to face up to is that at least 50% of the people who bought UNCOMMON VALOR are upset to some extant over the control (or lack of it) they have over naval air strikes.

I respect your opinion, but IMHO this point (quoted above) is without real merit.

NOBODY is asking for more control over for naval strike mission than we already have over other air missions (CAP, escort, etc.)

There already are several mission types that allow the player to manage the % and exact location of the mission and yet with (easily) the most critical mission type in a wargame depicting WWII in the South Pacific we are not allowed this level of detail/control. No, this level of detail/control is reserved for Air Resupply Missions :rolleyes:

I am sorry guys, but I simply fail to see the logic that it is okay for the player to adjust these same details for CAP, LRCAP, Escort, Sweep and Air Resupply missions but if Matrix allows me to prioritize which TF to attack for my Naval Strike missions it will somehow "opens the floodgates" or will ruin the scale of the game.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
Your argument would be a good one if you had any evidence of the hypothetical 50% figure you use. Otherwise, it's weak.

I was basing it on the fact that about half of the notes in this thread are complaining about it. Scientific..., of course not. But
I have no way of polling everyone who bought the game any more than you do. If I go by the 4 gamers I know who bought
it, 100% of buyers really dislike the naval strike controls. But you
and your playing friends seem to find it acceptable. The actual
percentage can never be mor than a WAG. But a 6 page thread
suggests some strong feelings on the subject....

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
I was basing it on the fact that about half of the notes in this thread are complaining about it. Scientific..., of course not. But
I have no way of polling everyone who bought the game any more than you do. If I go by the 4 gamers I know who bought
it, 100% of buyers really dislike the naval strike controls. But you
and your playing friends seem to find it acceptable. The actual
percentage can never be mor than a WAG. But a 6 page thread
suggests some strong feelings on the subject....

But you can poll the people on the forum:) .

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
... The actual percentage can never be mor than a WAG.

You made my point exactly, so don't use your 50% guess anymore. You say Matrix will lose half of it's potential market by not making a change to the naval attack system. You say >50% of people are upset. You have no idea if these statements are true. You point out that I don't know the percentages either. You are absolutely correct, and that is why you don't see me throwing around any percentages.

[dtx]

If we increase the potency of the air arms by giving the player more control over naval attacks, what do we need to adjust to increase the survival of ships? Even without the change, air power is already extremely potent at sinking ships (even B-17s!), hence increasing the power of air by letting the player pick targets will reduce the lifespan of ships even further.

1. Should we decrease accuracy of bombs? (an option)
2. Increase effectiveness of CAP? - (it's so strong already, this doesn't seem to be a good option)
3. Reduce effectiveness of reconnaissance?
4. Increase the number of missed strikes (i.e., unable to locate Tf)

The latter 2 options would be the most realistic. One problem now is that task force detection is almost 100% and players get frustrated because they can't target TFs with 100% control. In war, TF detection was very much hit or miss. Maybe if players were given 100% control over targeting TFs, but reconnaissance detection was greatly degraded and the # of missed strikes increased, play the balance between air-sea-land forces would remain.

I'm putting this out for discussion: My vote is to keep the game the way it is. However, for those wishing for increased control - recognize the need for looking at the issue from multiple perspectives. Ships are already sitting ducks for air attacks and greatly enhancing air ability by allowing targetting would increase their rate of being sunk (in campaigns against AI, I find most important enemy ships are sunk within 3-4 months).

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by dtx
If we increase the potency of the air arms by giving the player more control over naval attacks, what do we need to adjust to increase the survival of ships?

Huh?

NOBODY is talking about making the attacks more powerful. All we are talking about is allowing the player to have more operational control over what the air units target (i.e. the same level of control already in the game for CAP, LRCAP, Sweeps, Escorts, etc :rolleyes: ).

This in no way, shape or form would alter the "balance" of the game. Air units and their attacks would not suddenly become more effective. Instead the units under your command would instead attack the areas you prioritize more readily (and in general act more realistically).

I am still completely dumbfounded by anyone that "wants to keep it the way it is". How in the world can you play a game that allows you to set CAP, Sweep, escort, recon, etc targets and set % of aircraft flow down to the nearest 10%, plot the movement of every freaking supply transport and sub and yet when the real action starts between CVs you would rather not have the ability to set targeting priorities. Instead you are okay when your planes fly off 250 miles in the wrong direction to bomb supply transports instead of that enemy TF bearing down on you! I just don't understand it...

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Huh?

NOBODY is talking about making the attacks more powerful. All we are talking about is allowing the player to have more operational control over what the air units target (i.e. the same level of control already in the game for CAP, LRCAP, Sweeps, Escorts, etc :rolleyes: ).

This in no way, shape or form would alter the "balance" of the game. Air units and their attacks would not suddenly become more effective. Instead the units under your command would instead attack the areas you prioritize more readily (and in general act more realistically).

I am still completely dumbfounded by anyone that "wants to keep it the way it is". How in the world can you play a game that allows you to set CAP, Sweep, escort, recon, etc targets and set % of aircraft flow down to the nearest 10%, plot the movement of every freaking supply transport and sub and yet when the real action starts between CVs you would rather not have the ability to set targeting priorities. Instead you are okay when your planes fly off 250 miles in the wrong direction to bomb supply transports instead of that enemy TF bearing down on you! I just don't understand it...

Current from the poll I placed on the forum, 30% disagree.
They got it right, don't change it. 23 30.67%
Total: 75 votes 100%

Although I would like to see some minor adjustments to allow some prioritization, I do not see wholescale changes as necessary.

Also realize that the cause for some of these problems are a function of other things, such as naval search and weather. Not having adequate assets on naval search limits the ability to spot and adequately track targets. Weather can obscure targets that have been previously spotted.

There is a great deal of abstraction of causes for the results you see. The frustration is not having an adequate explanation.
Aggregate models are great for producing results that are realistic or believable, but do not necessarily generate the specific reason.

My question is does this provide a distinct advantage to either the Allies of the Japanese? I do not believe so.

And once again, I do not believe that major coding changes will make it better, it will just change the nature of the complaints.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Although I would like to see some minor adjustments to allow some prioritization, I do not see wholescale changes as necessary.

I agree.

Also realize that the cause for some of these problems are a function of other things, such as naval search and weather. Not having adequate assets on naval search limits the ability to spot and adequately track targets. Weather can obscure targets that have been previously spotted.

Sure, but this is not the issue. AI foul ups, miscues etc. should still be in the game.

There is a great deal of abstraction of causes for the results you see. The frustration is not having an adequate explanation.

I disagree. How do you know this? You are assuming that because your flight of dive bombers flew 200 miles in the wrong direction to nail a ship in a heavily defended port while the enemy bombardment fleet bears down on your airstrip it was done by the AI intentionally as a simulated SNAFU. This is a bad assumption regarding the current state of AI in PC gaming (IMHO). Add on top of this the extreme nature of this occurrence (200+ miles in the wrong direction?!) and the frequency with which it happens (this exact thing has happened to me at least three times in three games) and I find it very hard to believe that it was programmed to conduct SNAFU missions in this way.

Aggregate models are great for producing results that are realistic or believable, but do not necessarily generate the specific reason.

I agree, and more messages would help the game system on several levels. I just don't think it is a simple matter of more messages telling us that yes the AI did "roll" a SNAFU event and your mission is screwed up again.

And once again, I do not believe that major coding changes will make it better, it will just change the nature of the complaints.

The changes I have outlined are far, far from major. The vast majority of the functionality for everything I have mentioned is already in the game for other air mission types. LRCAP can already target TF, so why not add it to naval strike missions? Port attack missions can already target specific ports, so why not add it to naval strike missions? There already exists a multitude of mission types, why increase the total by one so that Naval strikes can be split into "Strike Ships at Sea" and "Strike Ships in Port"?