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

[Grumbling Grogn]

Anyone that posts paragraphs about "Battle Rhythm" need never point the finger at anyone and say "Mirco Manager" <period>

PC games should never, never need "Battle Rhythm".

The fact a PC game requires "Battle Rythm" should tell you something about the level of micro management already required in this game. :rolleyes:

[Inigo Montoya]

Greetings!

As a current U.S. military field grade officer and a longtime enthusiast of indepth board games (WiF, play-tester for Advanced Third Reich, WWII ETO/PTO), I want to thank Matrix for creating Uncommon Valor. The PBEM's I am involved in are quite satisfying. I love this game and do not feel dramatic changes are necessary. To me, the most convincing arguments for change are adjusting the port attack/naval attack setting effects. Mogami pointed out some helpful tips for us to avoid the "Rabaul" effect and his suggestions work well for me.

I have developed my own battle rhythm and resonate with Mr. Vebber's comments. In WiF I developed a similar systematic approach to my turn and it was essential to follow this approach in upper level play. Now I am falling into the same habits with UV, and I imagine some of the more experienced players (of which I am not included) also have their battle rhythyms. But far from being a detriment, I find I am having a great deal of fun with UV! I readily admit it may not be everyone's cup of tea. There are many games out there which might have greater appeal for the masses, but for the pinnacle of hardcore gamers, there are very few fine selections. Uncommon Valor is one of those uncommon gems!

[Grumbling Grogn]

The list of items I made still stands. EVERY freaking one of those things as addressed in the game (not the hyperbole that was vainly refuted) is well, well below the operational level some seem to hold up as the model for this game system.

It is just odd that people are telling me when a surface combat TF and a transport TF round Gili Gili that I have been tracking for two days, I can not tell my land based air at PM which TF to target/prioritize. But I can tell that same base commander how many planes to put on CAP and at what altitude?

You want specifics? This situation happened last night...

Turn 1: Weather is partly cloudy and I see a surface combat TF (it has BBs & CAs) and a transport TF heading toward Lae from the north. Still well out of bomber range but I see them coming...

Turn 2: Weather overcast and I still see the TFs. Now they are turning east past Lae, past Buna (which I hold). It must be heading to Gili Gili. It is now coming to within bomber range.

I set EVERYTHING that can carry a bomb at PM (including P39s/P400s) on naval attack and my P40s on escort with minimal CAP (10%? 20%? IIRCC). Set bombers with exper. of >75 on altitude of 100' everyone else set to 6,000' except the US Army dauntless unit it is set to 15,000 (tying to split his CAP, if any). All air crews in PM are < 20 fatigue, all bombers are <10 fatigue. The ones in question are based at PM with loads of supply and a nice fat, long airstrip with zero damage, all PBYs are on 100% search (anything I am missing so that it can not be claimed my fault?).

Okay, this is the sitrep on Gili Gili. It has loads of supplies, is fortified to a 1-2 and is almost up to a level 2 airstrip. I have a PBY unit and two units of P39/P400s there. But, most importantly I have the entire freakin Australian 7th Division in Gili Gili with HQ and a base support unit (engineer unit with vehicles/dozers is inbound too <g>). These stouthearted Aussies are not disrupted or fatigued much at all (they have been here well over two weeks by now). Thus you can see I am not really that concerned with the Japanese being able to take Gili Gili with the few troops in those two transports coming in. Poor AI did not use recon.

IOW it would be freakin' nice if I could get some payback for the Australian CA that the Japanese sank off Luga last week. Hell, let the Japanese landing force come ashore. PLEASE! The ENTIRE 7th DIVISION can wipe them out on the beaches!

NOW, is it too much to expect that my area commander in PM would be well aware of the strength of Gili Gili? Is it too much to expect that my area commander would be aware of the small size of the Japanese transport convoy (2 transports and one MSW) we have been tracking for two days? Would it be too much to ask that they follow orders and concentrate on the Japanese BB and CA fleet in an effort to slow them down as ordered?

Well what happened you ask?

Turn 3: Weather turns clear (yea!).

...but we all know what happened right? (I am working from memory here)

1. One flight of B17s flys to Rabaul against the CAP with no escort.
2. One flight of B17s (the one set to skip bomb at 100') flys to Shortland (!) with no escort.
3. Several flights of mediums, my dauntless unit and about half of my escorts fly to pester a SINGLE transport that moves into Lae harbor.
4. About 1/4 of my mediums strike the transport fleet
5. About 1/4 of my mediums strike the Japanese CAs.
   [/list=1]
   How is that for a coordinated attack. Why it's not like I had TWO FREAKING DAYS to plan for it or anything. This is ridiculous!
   
   If this had been a SNAFU that would be fine. Flights get lost, turn back, flights go for the CAs but hit the transport instead but the runs to Shortland, Rabaul and Lae are in direct violation of what the battle plan was! Heck, if this just happened once in awhile it would be a fine result for a Royal SNAFU. But this is not the case (and we all know it).
   
   It was, quite simply, and literally scatterbrained AI not able to recognize priority threats. So, instead it throws a little bit at each valid target in range.
   
   ...And woe unto the player that posts asking for the ability to tell his air assets where/who to prioritize on naval strikes. No, that ability is reserved for every other air/naval mission strike type. But when it comes to the minor detail of attacking shipping with aircraft, well that was a "tactical thing" and just not important enough in WWII in the SW Pacific to allow the player to "micro manage" the details in a game of this scale. :rolleyes:
   
   I find it astonishing that anyone would defend this type of "AI behavior" as correct/historical in any shape form or fashion.

[Mr.Frag]

Thats why I posted that all Naval Attack/Search missions should be ruled out of entering Base Hexes. That removes 3 out of the 5 attacks that happened to you, and would have added those 3 silly base attacks worth of aircraft back into the pool of aircraft attacking the two TF's resulting in a much more realistic Operational result.

Attacking Bases is Operational Not Tactical. Planes should keep out of base hexes unless operationally ordered to go there!

It is such a simple fix to disallow base hexes during the resolution to naval search/attack that I don't see how anyone can disagree with it as the solution. If you want to attack the base, you are going to plan an operational attack against the base, not randomly toss resources into the base AA/CAP shredder...

[Paul Vebber]

Don't feel bad GG, its about impossible to get real life operational commanders heads out of the tactical details and to understand thier role as operational commanders. Especially in the Navy.

If your "operational planning" revolves around sinking two transports and a minesweeper, then its not your area commnader at PM that needs replacing...

This line of reasoning is akin to reading the "loss reports" in a TOAW game and seeing that only 2 out 12 AT guns was killed by artillery and 12 or 60 squads of infantry were. The next bombardment kills no AT guns and 6 more infantry squads.

"**** it I have 2 tank battalions that are supposed to attack that hex, why are my artillery commanders so stupid that they don't concentrate on those AT guns!!!" This is totally unrealistic and I refuse to play this game until I can tell my artillery commanders to priority target AT guns when they attack !!! Sack all my FO's, Cashier the arty commanders, this is totally unrealistc! In real life knowing I was making a tank assault they would concentrate on the AT guns".

Why, I wonder is it readily accepted in a ground game that the tactical situation is too changable to have details mucked with by the operational commander, yet in Naval games, where the time distance dynamics are at least an order of magnitude higher, that somehow a sample of information, acquired at unknown intervals and using assumptions about how "the game works" to know the things the AI does and doesn't do, to make this kind of "prioritization" is neccesary?.


The "my bombers on naval attack fly unescorted to Rabaul" argument I can sympathize with. My bombers atacked a single transport over there instead of 2 transports and a destroyer over here, I have a lot less sympathy for. The weather, lack of timely search reports, any number of TACTICAL DETAILS YOUARE NOT PRIVY TO (and can't be without turning the game into a tactical game) could have caused the division of resources you report.

We said we would look into the prioritization issue, but that is for WitP. What exactly do you want us to do GG? Create a private patch for each potential minority group that does not like a certain design decision?

Heck, if this just happened once in awhile it would be a fine result for a Royal SNAFU. But this is not the case (and we all know it).

Seems to me from playing and reading AAR's that those who seem to understand operational level planning and roles seem to consistently do much better in this area. They seem to complain less on this issue (1/3 of players being so bold as to saying "we got it right"). While for some unknown reason than those who focus their attention around killing individual "tactical targets of opportunity". THey seem to consistantly have "Royal SNAFU's"

Hmmm, must be a serious flaw in an operational game's design...

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Thats why I posted that all Naval Attack/Search missions should be ruled out of entering Base Hexes. That removes 3 out of the 5 attacks that happened to you, and would have added those 3 silly base attacks worth of aircraft back into the pool of aircraft attacking the two TF's resulting in a much more realistic Operational result.

Attacking Bases is Operational Not Tactical. Planes should keep out of base hexes unless operationally ordered to go there!

It is such a simple fix to disallow base hexes during the resolution to naval search/attack that I don't see how anyone can disagree with it as the solution. If you want to attack the base, you are going to plan an operational attack against the base, not randomly toss resources into the base AA/CAP shredder...

Well obviously I tend to agree...

But, I am still of the opinion that given the incredible level of detailed planning/micro managing (whatever you want to call it) that the player needs to do in this game to get the best results from the AI it is a very small thing to allow the player the same level of control for the single most important air mission type in the game that he has over all the other air mission types.

If I want to concentrate on the Transport TF or the Surface TF in a situation like I had last night I can not do that now and your idea will not be enough to allow me to communicate such a simple priority to the AI.

And it is simply insane to suggest that setting such a priority is too "tactical" for me to make in this game or to raise lame arguements that TFs move (no kidding! ...so what?)

[Paul Vebber]

And it is simply insane to suggest that setting such a priority is too "tactical" for me to make in this game or to raise lame arguements that TFs move (no kidding! ...so what?)

I give up...some people are untrainable I guess...

[Reiryc]

These 2 statement are really all that's needed imho...

I did talk with both Gary and Joel and that [no player control of naval attacks] was the design choice they made. I fully understand both points of view and stand behind them on their choice.

And then:

We are listening and do play the game ourselves and do understand the situation. But at his point the game is pretty much what it is. WitP is the focus of attention now, and when that is ready, we will see what from it is appropriate to backfit into UV.

What more can be asked of them?

They heard the issues raised, some they take into consideration based on level of feedback and some they will stick with. If they can backfit some of these concerns into UV then they will try to do so.

My feeling is, this game is great regardless of the issue(s) raised in this thread.

I ordered the game upon its release and havent stopped playing it since. Best game on my computer....

Reiryc

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

You want specifics? This situation happened last night...

Turn 1: Weather is partly cloudy and I see a surface combat TF (it has BBs & CAs) and a transport TF heading toward Lae from the north. Still well out of bomber range but I see them coming...

Turn 2: Weather overcast and I still see the TFs. Now they are turning east past Lae, past Buna (which I hold). It must be heading to Gili Gili. It is now coming to within bomber range.

I set EVERYTHING that can carry a bomb at PM (including P39s/P400s) on naval attack and my P40s on escort with minimal CAP (10%? 20%? IIRCC). Set bombers with exper. of >75 on altitude of 100' everyone else set to 6,000' except the US Army dauntless unit it is set to 15,000 (tying to split his CAP, if any). All air crews in PM are < 20 fatigue, all bombers are <10 fatigue. The ones in question are based at PM with loads of supply and a nice fat, long airstrip with zero damage, all PBYs are on 100% search (anything I am missing so that it can not be claimed my fault?).

Okay, this is the sitrep on Gili Gili. It has loads of supplies, is fortified to a 1-2 and is almost up to a level 2 airstrip. I have a PBY unit and two units of P39/P400s there. But, most importantly I have the entire freakin Australian 7th Division in Gili Gili with HQ and a base support unit (engineer unit with vehicles/dozers is inbound too <g>). These stouthearted Aussies are not disrupted or fatigued much at all (they have been here well over two weeks by now). Thus you can see I am not really that concerned with the Japanese being able to take Gili Gili with the few troops in those two transports coming in. Poor AI did not use recon.

IOW it would be freakin' nice if I could get some payback for the Australian CA that the Japanese sank off Luga last week. Hell, let the Japanese landing force come ashore. PLEASE! The ENTIRE 7th DIVISION can wipe them out on the beaches!

NOW, is it too much to expect that my area commander in PM would be well aware of the strength of Gili Gili? Is it too much to expect that my area commander would be aware of the small size of the Japanese transport convoy (2 transports and one MSW) we have been tracking for two days? Would it be too much to ask that they follow orders and concentrate on the Japanese BB and CA fleet in an effort to slow them down as ordered?

Well what happened you ask?

Turn 3: Weather turns clear (yea!).

...but we all know what happened right? (I am working from memory here)

1. One flight of B17s flys to Rabaul against the CAP with no escort.
2. One flight of B17s (the one set to skip bomb at 100') flys to Shortland (!) with no escort.
3. Several flights of mediums, my dauntless unit and about half of my escorts fly to pester a SINGLE transport that moves into Lae harbor.
4. About 1/4 of my mediums strike the transport fleet
5. About 1/4 of my mediums strike the Japanese CAs.
   [/list=1]
   How is that for a coordinated attack. Why it's not like I had TWO FREAKING DAYS to plan for it or anything. This is ridiculous!
   

You have told us what YOU saw. What was the information available to the commander on the ground?
Hypothetical I know, but....
"Oh ****, I've got 2, maybe more TF with transports? And CinC thinks there is a BB/CA force around. Oh ****...
Tell you what, bomb Rabaul with the '17s. Yes all of them...What? There's a sighting at Shortland? Oh, send 1 sqd there. Right, now what? Confirmed ship sighting at Lae..How many...what do you mean you don't know...well a bird in the hand...Bomb Lae. Right, what about the other TF's, what ya got? Two Transport TF? Half each, yep, go for it.

Later

Oh ****, that report must be those BB/CA the top brass was on about, ..."

Before you flame me, I know that bombing missions were not planned by a harassed idiot with a blindfold and drawing pin, but neither are they planned by an all seeing eye in the sky with instant comms, and perfect strategic insight!

I've a suggestion (well 2 in fact!)...play the game as it is and see if you can win (some of us do you know). Or go play any better game you know (and tell the rest of us!)

[dtx]

Grumbling G - Air power will become much more effective if the player is given more control over target priorities. While the planes won't become stronger, they will be spending more of their time attacking high value targets and won't be getting damaged/killed & developing fatigue from attacking low value targets.

Let's say for example in a given turn, 50% of the strikes hit low value targets. If the player was allowed to hit only high value targets - so that 100% went at TF w/CVs or nearby surface fleets, etc, their effectiveness would double. (effectiveness, potency, use whatever word). Being able to target specific TFs would make air forces devastingly effective (as if they aren't already).

I recognize that players want 100% control and don't like it when their planes hit the wrong target (I'm sure air force commanders feel the same way). However, it's a matter of play balance and play between the various armed forces. Unexpected events/attacks also models war:

To quote the Prussian war theorist, Carl Von Clausewitz: "In war, the will of one combatant is directed at an animate object that reacts, often in unanticipated ways. This cyclical interaction between opposing wills occurs in a realm of chance and chaos."

[Grumbling Grogn]

If your "operational planning" revolves around sinking two transports and a minesweeper, then its not your area commnader at PM that needs replacing...

Perhaps, but then again "sinking two transports and a minesweeper" had nothing to do with my "operational plan". Perhaps you should read my post again, or was there point to this other than to slip in a barely veiled jab/insult at my abilities?

This line of reasoning is akin to reading the "loss reports" in a TOAW game...

No, it is not. Because that is not the "line of reasoning" I took and it is totally irrelevant to this entire discussion.

This is another huge strawman argument (you seem to build a lot of those!). Why do you feel the need to build these strawman arguments to knockdown? Please confine yourself to the issue at hand and stop making false arguments for other people so you can knock them down. It adds zero to the discussion at hand.

Why, I wonder is it readily accepted in a ground game that the tactical situation is too changable to have details mucked with by the operational commander, yet in Naval games, where the time distance dynamics are at least an order of magnitude higher, that somehow a sample of information. Acquired at unknown intervals and using assumptions about how "the game works" to know the things the AI does and doesn't do, to make this kind of "prioritization".

First off, the commanders in the game last night had WEEKS to communicate to subordinates that they should be focusing on the enemy CVs and surface fleet. They also had almost a month to communicate to PM that we would be holding Gili Gili in force with an entire division and PMs air assets should concentrate their attacks on Japanese CVs and surface combat ships should they attempt a landing at Gili Gili.

Secondly, the US command had the Japanese TFs identified for TWO days before the day of the actual strike. Thus there was more than ample time to once again communicate to the local PM commander which of the two TFs to concentrate on and to not waste crews flying to Shortland, Rabaul, etc. None of this even takes into account that Mac Arthur and the entire SWPAC HQ was in Port Moresby and the sightings were from PBYs stationed in Port Moresby...

The "my bombers on naval attack fly unescorted to Rabaul" argument I can sympathize with. My bombers attacked a single transport over there instead of 2 transports and a destroyer over here, I have a lot less sympathy for. The weather, lack of timely search reports, any number of TACTICAL DETAILS YOUARE NOT PRIVY TO (and can't be without turning the game into a tactical game) could have caused the division of resources you report.

(edit: bold added because of the last two posts saying it was a legit SNAFU again)

This is bull. I am sick and tired of every AI screw up being blow off by fan boys that say it was a "planned" SNAFU executed by the AI without a shred of evidence to back it up. Anything that the AI does in this game that is questionable immediately returns the pat answer that the AI did it in that manner intentionally to simulate a foul up by "people on the ground".

These SNAFUs happens way, way, way too often for this and there is ZERO indication that ANY of the missions flown in the example given were a SNAFU at all. This is the old "black box" theory where nobody knows exactly how it works but "The computer says it is so....so it must be right!" I have seen enough AI to know this is a seriously flawed tact to take.

We said we would look into the prioritization issue, but that is for WitP. What exactly do you want us to do GG? Create a private patch for each potential minority group that does not like a certain design decision?

Look, either you can not read or you have simply skimmed the dozen or so posts I have made on this subject.

I have made my points very, very clear. I have posted them many times. I also have said (several times) that if a change is made or not that is fine. UV is was finished product when I purchased it.

Posted by Grumbling Grogn 01022003
So, if Matrix wants to say the "feature" is not in the game and it will never be in the game that is fine. But to say it is not "in character" for the game because of the "scale" of the decisions the player makes are above the targeting of individual TFs is simply not "consistant".

Posted by Grumbling Grogn 01022003
THAT is the issue. And from what I have seen of Gary Grigsby's and Matrix's commitment to their games I really don't have any long-term worries (really). I am pretty sure that it will be addressed in one manner or another.

Hell, now if someone had said "The money/time ran out and it was never added" or "We never thought of that and it is too late now" or something of the sort I would have no problem. BUT please don't post illogical inconsistent (knee jerk) arguments trying to justify a "feature" that simply does not mesh with the rest of the game and expect anyone with two wits about them to accept it as fact.

Posted by Grumbling Grogn 01062003
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.

Posted by Grumbling Grogn 01072003
Now, the problem I have with people saying that they don't want to add what I propose because they see it as micromanaging is this: (here comes the chorus) the player already does a hell of alot more micromanaging already, and he does it on much, much more mundane and tivial tasks (supply shipments, training, etc.)

So, if the mechisim is already in place (mostly) to manage these strikes, and I have to "micromanage" supply shipments to get decent results from the the AI then for goodness sake let me micromanage my airstikes on this naval battle that has been building for the last two months (game time, unless it is PBEM ) so that my bombers don't go visit Rabual again while my base/flat tops are pounded!

The issue in this forum has turned into the fact that some people simply think that when multiple targets are tracked for multiple days it is "too tactical" for me as the player to tell my naval air strikes to focus on one or the other TF (by type, size, location, whatever). These same people have no problem with me plotting the individual training routine for each and every ship and air unit in the theater each and every day, plotting single ship supply runs to the middle of nowhere and setting CAP levels and altitudes for each and every base each and every day or the multitude of other much more minute and trivial things that are required in UV to get the most out of the engine.

[Reiryc]

Ok GG....

You posted this,

So, if Matrix wants to say the "feature" is not in the game and it will never be in the game that is fine.

So when Heath said,

I did talk with both Gary and Joel and that [no player control of naval attacks] was the design choice they made. I fully understand both points of view and stand behind them on their choice.

And then this,

We are listening and do play the game ourselves and do understand the situation. But at his point the game is pretty much what it is. WitP is the focus of attention now, and when that is ready, we will see what from it is appropriate to backfit into UV.

So since you said things would be 'fine' with such an acknowledgment as you requested, then shouldn't this issue be over with?

People don't have to agree with you, but as long as the developers say that this is how it is by a decision but that at the very least when WiTP is done they will see what they can backfit, then it seems by your own criteria, the problem is solved.

The issue in this forum has turned into the fact that some people simply think that when multiple targets are tracked for multiple days it is "too tactical" for me as the player to tell my naval air strikes to focus on one or the other TF (by type, size, location, whatever).

As you are allowed your opinion, I would argue that others should be allowed theirs. They want to think it's too tactical, then so be it.

Reiryc

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Reiryc
Ok GG....

People don't have to agree with you, but as long as the developers say that this is how it is by a decision but that at the very least when WiTP is done they will see what they can backfit, then it seems by your own criteria, the problem is solved.

As you are allowed your opinion, I would argue that others should be allowed theirs. They want to think it's too tactical, then so be it.

Reiryc

No of course people don't have to agree.

However, as long as this is an open forum, anyone has the right to respond to posts that contain poorly thought-out, illogical and indefensible arguments. Statements saying that setting the size and altitude of my CAP over Townsville are "operational" (for example) while in the same breath telling me that I can not tell my most important base's commander to focus his air strikes on one task force type or another...because that is too "tactical" fit that bill very well.

The fact that someone has the label "Matrix" by their name simply makes it even more important that these issues be aired IMO (especially when you mix in the other hyperbole and dozens of stawmen arguments that have been tossed around). Tack on the fact that Paul has posted things that seem to not quite be the way it is regarding this issue at Matrix and I have no qualms about calling the "logic" in question when I see it posted.

[Paul Vebber]

The issue in this forum has turned into the fact that some people simply think that when multiple targets are tracked for multiple days it is "too tactical" for me as the player to tell my naval air strikes to focus on one or the other TF (by type, size, location, whatever). These same people have no problem with me plotting the individual training routine for each and every ship and air unit in the theater each and every day, plotting single ship supply runs to the middle of nowhere and setting CAP levels and altitudes for each and every base each and every day or the multitude of other much more minute and trivial things that are required in UV to get the most out of the engine.

No, the issue and has always been (for us anyway) "what should Matrix do to improve its customers enjoyment of Uncommon Valor". We have answered that question with "we think there are things we can do, but they are being done to WitP and will be backfit as appropriate"

The argument that "becasue you can make changes in CAP levels and training routines and logistics, that one should be able to direct strikes to specific TFs" is fundamentally flawed.

The basis for the argument is that since all these things are "micromanagement" in your opinion they should all be allowed.

What you fail to understand is that setting CAP levels is a CONTROLLED action. One that your subordinate has all the required information he needs to perform. Same with the other "micromanagement" orders you cite. They are orders that change the activity or status of YOUR FORCES DIRECTLY, BASED ON INFORMATION YOUR SUBORDINATES HAVE. You don't need any extra information to perform them. They are things your subordinates have more or less complete control over (screw ups or miscommunications excepted).

Now, do you accept that there is an "information requirement" that is needed in the order to "Attack the Task force last reported to me to be 90 nm SE of GiliGili headed north likely to have 2 transports and 1 MSW" that is not required in any of the other orders?

Your subordinate needs to go back and find out when he made that report, then attempt to correlate his contact reports since to decide which of the current contact reports he has reflect that TF's location. How accurate was that initial report? What previous reports might have been that TF? He might not have a current report of a "2 transport 1 MSW" TF it may have split, other ships may have been added. You know that doesn't happen because of what you know about the game mechanics, but to "the game" the assumption is that those thigns could happen and the assumption is that despite the problem being made "simple" in game terms, the chance of success in correlating all that information is not certain, and is not ini any way proportional to how badly you want the outcome to be as you desire. Priority can't change the information you either have or don't have.

This is why all the ships in the pacific weren't all sunk in the first 3 months of the war. ITs a big ocean and keeping track of who is who in the zoo against a sly and cunning enmey is not an easy thing. If every TF detected could be immediately attacked upon detection, or even reliably tracked until an attack could be made, then not much would have moved, and losses, particularly to merchants would have been incredible.

No matter how bad you want to win the lottery, if you don't have the right numbers you can't win. Likewise no matter how badly you want to attack the 2 transport 1 MSW TF (in reality a "label" for a TF or unknown size or composition that at one point some time ago MAY have had 2 transports and an MSW, but might not have. And may or may not have changed in composition since the report.) if your subordinate can't correlate a known target to that past report, the attack can't be made.

Does this in any way sound vaguely more complicated than "fly 60% CAP now instead of 30%?

The sum total of information your subordinates have is not assumed to be what gets reported to you. They report what they have confidence in. You have no idea what conflicting chaotic mess of reports they are sifting through to pick one TF out they are "pretty sure" (at that time) they understand the whereabouts of and report.

The assumption that "attack TF X" requires no more information than "Change the CAP %" is hopefully demonstrated to be false, and the fact that it is availability of required information, not the "level of micromanagement" that determines what things the player can and can't micromanage.

Now there are a lot of possibilities that might allow you to give an order like "give priority to attacking transport TFs headed to Gilli Gilli". That is a very different order from "attack the TF reported to have 2 transports and 1 MSW I think might be going to Gilli Gilli". One is general guidance, the other something that may or may not even mean anything at the time of execution. That order may not have changed allocation of assets you criticize since at the time of execution, there may not have been any "targetable" transport task forces to attack. 12 hours before or after there might have been. There may have been a 3 hour window in the middle where they "popped back up" but by then the other missions may have been planned and the "bird in the hand" theory neglected an attempt that may or may not have been successful.

Even a "priority TF type" order is not an "ensure all TF of this type get attacked" order. THe nature of teh information problem prevents that.

Hopefully you and others who have a difficult time with "the TF is right there on the map, how come I can't ensure it gets attacked" can see that the information, at the right place, at the right time with the right opportunity, is not always present to make this happen. This isn't something changing "priority" can address.

It would require a detailed "tactical game within the game" to manage the production and distribution of that information, something that is not goiong to happen. You have to accept that much of the underlying "tactical information and the ability to act on it" is abstracted into the stats of your leaders and used by the game to allocate assets in an abstract manner.

A bit more influence over that allocation is possible. Control over it just isn't.

[denisonh]

What are effects of weather and "spotting" on the AI target selection?

I know that the more spots you have on a target, the higher the "spotting level" and the better the chance for it to be targeted. But how does that work? Is there a "minimum" level necessary? Does the range and spotting level have an interaction?

And does weather have impact here as well?

Understanding some of the factors that impact the AI targeting selection would have relevance to this topic, I think, as I beleive these factors never seem to make it into the discussion.

Does anybody know how these impact the targeting decision, if at all?

Not that I beleive that this is the "primary cause", but including these effects on the discussion may assist in the overall understanding of the process.

[Paul Vebber]

Tack on the fact that Paul has posted things that seem to not quite be the way it is regarding this issue at Matrix

Please provide instances where I have misrepresented somehow the "official stance" on the topic?

If you don't like hyperbole, staty away from it yourself. Though I think an occasional dose or "strawman" can help people understand issues they might not understand fully.

I and David have both been very specific:
NO ability to attack specific TFs.

BUT openness to the desire to have greater influence over the asset allocation process. Not control of it. Not insurance that TFs of a given type will always be attacked. Not insurance that "mistakes" will not be made or "inapprpriate asset allocation decisions don't occur. And relatively often. That is what happened (and continues to happen today in operational planning circles, scrrew-ups always occur and there are always those that lambast the military for them - to wit the recent "unplesentness between a certain USMC general and the "Millenium Challange" experiment over subordinates being "stupid" and the results "covered up"...)

Yes, weather and spotting level and the other "level" (recon, intel, I forget) play a BIG role in what gets targeted and what doesn't. All part of the "abstraction" of all the tactical level information that makes the problem so hard.

[Inigo Montoya]

So GG, I am truly trying to understand your motivation and goals.

Are you trying to change Matrix's mind about our ability to target specific TF's?

Do you now accept that Matrix has made a design decision and they are going to stick with it?

Are you arguing for argument's sake?

Are you asking us to help you become a better player and avoid falling prey to "The Rabaul Effect?"

What do you hope to accomplish?

[denisonh]

Thanks again Paul.

I have found that I use more assets on Naval Search than when I first started playing, and as a result have fewer issues with targeting the "wrong" force (still get the Rabaul effect though)

I appreciate the time you take to discuss the issues on the forum, and assist us in gaining insight into the reasons why some of the mechanisms are the way they are. And that the input for the forum gets consideration.

[Grumbling Grogn]

The argument that "becasue you can make changes in CAP levels and training routines and logistics, that one should be able to direct strikes to specific TFs" is fundamentally flawed.

The basis for the argument is that since all these things are "micromanagement" in your opinion they should all be allowed.

Nice try, but no. I never made that argument (another strawman). The entire "tactical VS operational issue" was only raised because YOU (and Mr. Heath as well) responded to this thread with the statements that control over what type of TF to target for naval air strikes was too tactical and UV was an operational level game. Do I really need to go back and quote YOUR posts to you?

What you fail to understand is that setting CAP levels is a CONTROLLED action. One that your subordinate has all the required information he needs to perform. Same with the other "micromanagement" orders you cite. They are orders that change the activity or status of YOUR FORCES DIRECTLY, BASED ON INFORMATION YOUR SUBORDINATES HAVE. You don't need any extra information to perform them. They are things your subordinates have more or less complete control over (screw ups or miscommunications excepted).

Ah...yes. We all understand that...

Now, do you accept that there is an "information requirement" that is needed in the order to "Attack the Task force last reported to me to be 90 nm SE of GiliGili headed north likely to have 2 transports and 1 MSW" that is not required in any of the other orders?

I reject this as another strawman. NOBODY has said that targeting a TF somehow ties the air unit to specific TF when the turn resolution happens...and I have said this at least three time now and even explained in laymen terms how the interface could 'type' the TF with a single click.

Likewise no matter how badly you want to attack the 2 transport 1 MSW TF (in reality a "label" for a TF or unknown size or composition that at one point some time ago MAY have had 2 transports and an MSW, but might not have. And may or may not have changed in composition since the report.) if your subordinate can't correlate a known target to that past report, the attack can't be made...The sum total of information your subordinates have is not assumed to be what gets reported to you. They report what they have confidence in. You have no idea what conflicting chaotic mess of reports they are sifting through to pick one TF out they are "pretty sure" (at that time) they understand the whereabouts of and report.

Yes...so? I tell them to prioritize the CV TF at this last reported location. Turn runs and he can't find a CV TF (minor SNAFU). Oh well, move on down to the next (hard coded?) priority (just like it does now, right?). This is hardly a reason not to implement the feature.

The assumption that "attack TF X" requires no more information than "Change the CAP %" is hopefully demonstrated to be false, and the fact that it is availability of required information, not the "level of micromanagement" that determines what things the player can and can't micromanage.

The assumption was never made (strawman again :rolleyes: ). But, I understand what you are saying and fully agree. THAT is what the entire SNAFU "code" is supposed to handle (I would hope). But, it should not prevent a player from telling a unit to prioritize a TF of this type, last spotted at XXYY.

Even a "priority TF type" order is not an "ensure all TF of this type get attacked" order. THe nature of teh information problem prevents that.

Yep, sure, but nobody has asked for a "ensure all TF of this type get attacked" order have they?

Hopefully you and others who have a difficult time with "the TF is right there on the map, how come I can't ensure it gets attacked" can see that the information, at the right place, at the right time with the right opportunity, is not always present to make this happen. This isn't something changing "priority" can address.

I have no problem with that. YOU have the problem understanding that if I can see it TWO days in advance I should have plenty of time to get on the horn and warn my men on the ground and give a few orders to prioritize one TF over another TF by type, location, basic composition, whatever. This does not mean, and has never meant that I give orders to attack TF101 and by God TF101 has to be attacked.

It would require a detailed "tactical game within the game" to manage the production and distribution of that information, something that is not goiong to happen. You have to accept that much of the underlying "tactical information and the ability to act on it" is abstracted into the stats of your leaders and used by the game to allocate assets in an abstract manner.

I hate to say this, but I don't believe you. I have seen way too much AI to buy into it that each and every time this happens it is a "planned SNAFU" by the game engine. And frankly, it is not my fault that I don't believe that what you say. If this is truly the case, and if UV had more messages informing the player then the title of this thread would more likely be "Too many SNAFUs!" and it would be a simple matter to adjust (if it was deemed needed)

But it is not, because I simply do not believe that even 1/4 of these events are "planned SNAFUs" executed by the AI intentionally to simulate foul ups.

A bit more influence over that allocation is possible. Control over it just isn't.

"Control" has never been requested (that I have seen).

[Paul Vebber]

I noted you seem to have gone from

it is a very small thing to allow the player the same level of control for the single most important air mission type in the game that he has over all the other air mission types.

to

I can not tell my most important base's commander to focus his air strikes on one task force type or another

Is it dawning on you that targeting specific task forces in the manner you can target bases is not a reasonable request?

DO you realize that granting the player more influence over what TYPE of TF is given what priority is something that was admitted early on as a possibility?

David heath wrote some pages ago:

I will also say that the AI may at times may make a bad choice and we are working on improving that but remember it is AI and it will never be everything to everyone.

"improving" may be to the AI alone, which may be able to be made a better judge of "what is stupid". Improving may be more player influence over the AI. I don't know.

But are you just arguing to prove some point that "your right and we are wrong"? TO give us an object lesson in logic (mne in particular seems to irk you, but I have yet to see any refutation other than "if you micromanage THOSE things you should be able to micromanage THIS".

I take the time to argue this becasue I think there are likely a fair amount of others (the 17 some odd percent who are "part of the 50% ) Some of whom hopefully will better understand from all this where we are comming from.

Hopefully trying to get our point of view across is not a waste of time, and likely better received by those disagreeing than bannishment as other places do...