Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"

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

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25218
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,

With many threads discussing the player's need for better command & control
over our "little guys" I got one interesting idea.


IMHO, it is, possibly, revolutionary way of how to "fix" the "Naval Search"
and "Naval Attack" for UV and WitP...


Currently our squadrons on "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack" cover full circle
(i.e. 360 degrees) of area and they will recon and attack anything in their
circle coverage.

Sometimes this is good - sometimes it is not.


Instead of this I suggest something completely different...


Leo's proposal for "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack" coverage

What would you say if squadrons on "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack" could
cover user selected arc area?

Instead of default full circle (i.e. 360 degrees) the user would have option
to select arc area for each of his squadrons.

This arc would stretch from very thin "pie" (let's say 30 degrees) to maximum
coverage area of full circle (360 degrees).

Also the arc would enable player to "draw" how much of range he wishes to
cover (and therefore maximum range would be just one option).

NOTE:
We now have two circles for every squadron - black and red (Normal and
Extended Range).

Additionally I propose that two (2) arcs are drawn with mouse by player to
depict the area he/she wishes particular squadron to cover for "Naval Search"
(yellow arc) and "Naval Attack" (green arc).


Image


Obvious gains with this principle implemented

#1
With this implemented every player would have total control over each of his
squadrons tasked with "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack" and he/she would be
able to direct them in areas he/she (as player) thinks are the most important.

Also if player wants the full circle coverage (360 degrees) like it is now in
current UV - he/she can do that as well (since arc can be "transformed" into
full circle).

#2
With this implemented there would no longer be suicide attack at MAX range
against impossible odds (like attacking Rabaul from Port Moresby) unless
player specifically wants it.

#3
With this implemented the player would be able to make his "Naval Search"
concentrate on selected area.

This would increase possibility of detecting enemy (instead of wide 360 deg
search the arc would give total control) and, of course, the increased number
of aircraft over given area would do much better at search.


Possible problems with this principle implemented

#1
Hard to implement for AI

In that case I propose that AI would have to retain the full circle (360
degrees) and max range coverage. This would mean that AI would do as it is
doing right now.

#2
Bigger demand on player (micromanagement) although with default setting of the
full circle (360 degrees) and max range coverage the effect would be 100% the
same as it is now (with no work required).

#3
Possible problems with "forgetful" player's forgetting what squadron covers
what.



What do you think gentleman?



Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Of course, as realist, I know that this proposal have very little chance of
implementation but still I felt I have to write it down and share it with you.

P.P.S.
In edit I just changed the path toward the pic.
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Grumbling Grogn
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
Location: Texas!
Contact:

Post by Grumbling Grogn »

This looks like a method similar to the one used in Carriers at War. While I liked this method of seaching/assigning aircraft in that game I think WiTP and UV are games where the scale makes it the wrong method to use (just IMO) I think the scale of this game is to vast for the player to have to assign mudane details to searches like direction (or even % and alt if you want to really know ;) ).

I still think allowing the PC to click and assign TFs priority for naval strikes and allowing the player to prioritize naval strik missions to either "Ships at sea" or "Ships in Port" is the best method. And a majority of the interface and a much of the code for these methods would seem to already in place in UV.
The Grumbling Grognard
User avatar
Piiska
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Piiska »

I love this idea!

The scale in UV is actually screaming for this kind of a system but, like Grumbling Grognard said, in WITP it might prove to be too much of micromanagement. However, just like Apollo suggested,you don’t have to fiddle with the arcs if you don’t want to.

I most cases they are the default 360, but if player runs into trouble with his planes attacking the wrong areas, he can direct them to areas where he actually needs them –which would be not only realistic, but beautiful and exiting as well.

If this would be tested in UV for WITP, I would be thrilled.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

Post by Mr.Frag »

It's a nice add but I would be happy with all naval attack/seach missions simply not flying into base hexes as a solution to the current suicide runs.

Use the port attack command if you want to attack shipping INSIDE a base/port hex. If the air unit is not set with a port option, it will NOT overfly bases at all.

This should be fairly simple to fix quickly, while the above option is a major piece of code to be developed.
User avatar
Piiska
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Piiska »

Its not just about ships in ports or the sad 'Rabaul effect'.

Sometimes the planes just simply attack in a completely wrong area, which is plainly ridiculous.

There is no justification for airplanes from PM to attack ships at their extended range near Rabaul, when there are other ships right under their nose and has been so for quite awhile. Yet this happens in the game so consistently that it just can't be one off "bad tactical decision made by a humanely errondeous subordinate".

With this, or similar, system the player can actually fullfill his strategic goals on an operational level.

Setting up strategically important areas and focusing the material effort to there, while excluding areas considered less significant, is the exact job of an operational/strategic commander.

With this proposed system I could actually feel like being the strategist, istead of simple economist sharing the assest around the theatre to be used in random manner.
OG_Gleep
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:45 pm

Post by OG_Gleep »

Or, give ME the computer AI, and let the comptuer have mine. They ALWAYS stirke my lone AK/AP trying to supply a forward base, but if they are unloading at LAE, I have to buy lapdances for every single Airman on base to get them to go out and kill someone =P
User avatar
Piiska
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"

Post by Piiska »

Originally posted by Apollo11

#3
Possible problems with "forgetful" player's forgetting what squadron covers
what.
Oh forgot to say... I think Apollo covered all the practical solutions for the downsides except for this, so I thought I can cover this one.

To keep in mind what base is ordered where, you would need a command that shows up all the current naval search and Naval attack areas for all the bases at once. Not too hard to implement at all, as similar system was in place in Pac War showing the operational ranges for squadrons...

Ps. I think it was a great idea to post this one, because WIPT is in production and still 10 months away.

In that time they might be able to implement this improvement, which would push UV and WITP to the next level in the pursuit of the ultimate war game. UV, as it is now, is close, but few more things added and it would be something that would be very hard indeed to surpass and this system would be one such major improvement.
User avatar
Piiska
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Piiska »

Setting up areas of exclusion and areas concentrated effort based on a hunch where enemy might strike next, or based on making preparations for your next offensive is micromanagement?!!

I call it the meat, the essence, the uttermost importance and the paramount peak of operational and strategic planning.

What I call micromanagement is setting up troop carrying TFs by choosing individual ships so that troops get loaded correctly.

I call setting up CAP percentages and rest/operational cycles for individual bases and TF micromanagement.

If avoidance of micromanagement is an issue, I would much more prefer to set up the operational borders for my assests, rather than trying to control their rest/CAP efforts.

I really don't think AI or micromanagement would be a problem here.

AI can continue as it is now. No problems there.

Humans would not be managing every frigging base in UV or WITP. They would be managing the only the bases that are crucial to them at the given time. Just as it is now. Giving this sort of tool, that management would just be easier, more realistic and would reflcet more strategic/operational decicion making than anything else.
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25218
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,

Thanks all (and especially "Piiska") for your thoughts and
comments.

Let's hope Matrix/2By3 read this (and other related threads)...
only they can answer whether something like this is possible
to do for UV and WitP...


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

Post by pasternakski »

Well, it's pretty, but my guess is it ain't gonna happen. The extent of redesign and re-coding would be prohibitive.

We may be able to get something like what grumblin' grog favors, if we are good little boys and squirrels. The occasional extra button, option, or text information has been graciously granted by Matrix/2by3 if, after due consideration, it seems warranted. Changes this drastic? Elements of a game UV (and, for that matter, WITP) ain't.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Point Luck
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 6:24 pm
Location: East Coast-US

Post by Point Luck »

What would you say if squadrons on "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack" could
cover user selected arc area?

Instead of default full circle (i.e. 360 degrees) the user would have option
to select arc area for each of his squadrons.

I think this is just what the game needs. Another factor that could be added to the equation would set the search area based on the number of aircraft set to search (i.e 10% search planes = 15 degrees of the circle, 20%=30 etc.) Targeting then could be tied to the search results for a given search arc. or something to that effect.
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

Post by pasternakski »

If it's not beyond the "or something to that effect" stage, it's in trouble, I think.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
ftwarrior
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Springfield, VA

Post by ftwarrior »

Overall, I love the idea of the suggestion and would favor its implementation should Matrix, in their infinite patience with us (salute !), choose to pursue it.

Some points (some of which reiterate others already made - and all of which are caveated with the ubiquitous "IMHO"):

- UV scope is operational, not engagement-level. *However*, I don't think this suggestion tramples on that (especially considering the points already made about managing individual squadron's CAP levels, transports, etc.). Hence, I also feel that this does *not* result in micromanagement.

- However, given the more aggregated nature of WITP, I *don't* think it would be as appropriate for that game.

- In the name of play balance, I think this should *only* be done if it's also allowed for the AI, which leads to a problem. Being a professional coder working in such an area myself, I realize that depending on how the AI is implemented, it can open up an enitirely new dimension of decision making, and complexity, for the computer AI. Alot of work, debugging, testing.....a whole new can of worms.

- It's very meaty indeed.....adds the dimension of search management which is a critical element!
RayM
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Marlton, NJ USA

Post by RayM »

GNB had this feature too. IIRC, the number of aircraft selected for recon influenced the coverage of the arc...lots of aircraft, a larger arc.
User avatar
tanjman
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Griffin, GA

Staff work

Post by tanjman »

Originally posted by Piiska
Setting up areas of exclusion and areas concentrated effort based on a hunch where enemy might strike next, or based on making preparations for your next offensive is micromanagement?!!

I call it the meat, the essence, the uttermost importance and the paramount peak of operational and strategic planning.

What I call micromanagement is setting up troop carrying TFs by choosing individual ships so that troops get loaded correctly.

I call setting up CAP percentages and rest/operational cycles for individual bases and TF micromanagement.

If avoidance of micromanagement is an issue, I would much more prefer to set up the operational borders for my assests, rather than trying to control their rest/CAP efforts.

I really don't think AI or micromanagement would be a problem here.

AI can continue as it is now. No problems there.

Humans would not be managing every frigging base in UV or WITP. They would be managing the only the bases that are crucial to them at the given time. Just as it is now. Giving this sort of tool, that management would just be easier, more realistic and would reflcet more strategic/operational decicion making than anything else.


Piiska,

Its not micromanagement. A typical operational order (the one for Okinawa ran for over 1,000 pages IIRC) for an amphibious operation from a fleet HQ would tell which units to load which units and what cargo on which ships as well as thousands of other details. That is why the staffs were so large and also why Nimitz used both a 3rd & 5th Fleet (using the same ships) in the Central Pacific. While 3rd Fleet was doing an operation 5th Fleet was planning the next.

BTW I like Apollo 11's idea. I too wouldn't mind seeing it implemented, but I have to agree with pasternakski & ftwarrior on the likelyhood of ever seeing it implemented. I just don't think it would be cost effective. If (big if) Matrix/2by3 ever implements it for WitP they might (big might) back fit it to UV.
Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.
User avatar
Raverdave
Posts: 4882
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Melb. Australia

Wondering

Post by Raverdave »

What are Matrixs' thoughts on this matter?
Image


Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25218
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: Wondering

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
Originally posted by Raverdave
What are Matrixs' thoughts on this matter?
I am also wondering... :-)


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
tanjman
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Griffin, GA

Re: Wondering

Post by tanjman »

Originally posted by Raverdave
What are Matrixs' thoughts on this matter?


Probabely wishing we would all spend more time playing UV and less time posting on this forum ;)
Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7177
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

Post by Feinder »

While I think it is a "nice" idea, and certainly pretty, I also think that the assignment of search arcs is somewhat beyond (or would it be "beneath") the scope of UV. UV is considered an operational level game, search arcs are appropriate for a more tactical level system.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea, but not necessarily that should be integreated with the UV system. The game is already very complex (esp for the new player who may never have even played a strategic wargame in their life).

While I think the system is fine the way is, I think they might be more able to integrate a player initiated "target priority" list most easily (that might at least appease some of the grumblers). There already is a target priority list that has been set, and allowing players make they own target priorities (subject to FoW variance) might help. A flaw in this is that somebody could conievably set some "trivial" ship to max priorty, say MineSweepers, and after a month one side is completely bereft of these small but indespensible units (as long as you have at least a couple of them).

-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
User avatar
Piiska
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Piiska »

Please stop using the "this is operational game not a tactical game" argument. It is bad.

The issue of airgroups attacking targets in wrong AREAS in relation to overall strategic/operational situation can not be justified with any silly comments about SNAFUs, tactical mistakes, divine interventions or bad flukes.


I hate repeating, but even more I hate misconceptions about terms. Therefore, to illustrate my point I walk you through the basic flow of military decicion making. I have been part of it and I have a very good grasp how the system works (or at least it should work in theory).

Unless the consepts: "tactical", "operational" and "strategic" have not changed since I checked the last time, the following should be true to any military organisation that has any coherence.

So here we go:

The high command decides which is the broad strategic plan.

For Allied in the Pacific it could be to hold on and defend Australia untill more assets are available. This level would also think how it is best to defend Australia.

They might decide that for Australia's defence, holding on to Port Moresby is a vital key. Based on their intelligence, they might learn that enemy is gathering forces in Rabaul. They might guess the invasion fleet is headed for PM in a timeframe of 2 months. They would choose to launch an operation defend PM, gather the assets, choose an operational commander(s) and allocate the assets for him or them.

The operational commander X then receives 10 ships and three airgroups. He is told that defence of Australia is the strategic goal at the moment and in that plan the defece of PM is crucial.

Operational commander X then uses the assets in the best possible way to defend PM. He might put the airgroups to PM and ships to Cairs. Then again he might try to hide his ships in Gili Gili in hope to make a surprise attack on enemy. He might even decide to leave the whole PM empty and concentrate all his forces in Guadalcanal. This, however, would be a very bad operational decicion and result in loss of PM very easily in which case he would be fired. After he has deviced an operational plan he then gets the seal of approval from his superiors, who would make appropriate changes to it. Such as ordering him not to commit he's defence force to Guadalcanal.

It does't matter where he commits his forces, what matters is that he is the one who chooses where to commit what sort of forces, where to stirike and with what assets. His job is just to get the defence job done.

For his assets, such as airgroups, he would tell who is responsible of what area and how to react if enemy is spotted. For example he would brief his squadron leader followingly: "We expect enemy to attempt invasion from Rabaul". Do not attempt to engage the heavily protected CV, instead strike enemy troopships regardless your losses. If, however, opportunity arises, attack any targets of opportunity, but conserve all the possible assest for a strike against the troop carriers".

(These two steps should be the much talked operational scope of the game, but currently the operational/strategic commander cant tell his subordinates what are the key areas for operations.)

"Acknowledged", says the Squadron leader and off he goes to his base to brief his squadron.

He would be the one to conduct the operations within the boundaries given by his superior (operational commander). He would be responsible of making sure that once those troopships arrive, he has enough rested men and operational planes at his disposal to strike the troopships. He would choose at what time to launch the strike and from what altitude using which ordnance. He would make sure the base has enough CAP. He would know when his men are tired.

(These are tactical decisions, yet we do them. Actually in the game you make all the other calls, except the most important operational ones. Funny that people scream about operational game eh?)

Is there anyone here who wants to dispute this?

So how does my rant relate to UV?

Well. If you insist, I say it once more and pray to powers that I get my point across without pissing off all you guys:

To claim that its ok for the player to adjust CAP levels and flying altitudes for individual squadrons, while not being able to set up operational areas and target priorities for the same squadrons is simply too much.

That argument is exactly as dead as one famous parrot in one silly scetch of Monty Python.

Why am I so passinate about this? Why can't I simply enjoy UV?

But I do!!! I love it!! Its the best wargame I have ever played!

If it wasn't I wouldn't be this passionate.

I wish that the player input based on our experiences with UV can affect the future shape of WITP and I wish that when it is finally released it is THE wargame.

Never have I been this close of having the game of my dreams. It only is a matter of removing one inconsistency and now that Apollo presented his suggestion I just felt YES! THATS it! Finally a solution for that itch that I have been trying scratch all along, but not quite knowing where the scab is.

Hopefully Matrix listens to this and gives it a deep consideration.

Based on the poll in the other thread One thing is for sure: Something is not quite right with the system. Its close, but not quite right.

Hopefully Apollo's solution is implemented.
Post Reply

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