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

[Reiryc]

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...

Makes this place infinetly better for it too....

Reiryc

[Reiryc]

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.

Well since you agree to the point that posters don't have to agree on things...then why not accept that the producers disagree with your view on things?

What more can you do? You've stated your position mulitiple times and in different ways. I've read it and their replies and what I can garner is that both of you seem to understand each other but disagree on the why's and how's. I do realize that you don't feel they understand you, but based on their responses I think they do.

Since both sides have aired their opinion on the matter and disagree....shouldn't this be over now?

Reiryc

[mjk428]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber


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.

The poll was created in response to a statement that 50% are happy the way it is and 50% want to be able to establish priorities in some way. I voted for the third option because I agree that TF targetting is not necessary and would change the feel of the game.

The 17% you refer to is only part of the "50%". The other part of the "50%" are those that chose option 3, which means the "50%" is actually the "66%".

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
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.

An attempt to produce examples to aid in your understanding of the issues is not a 'strawman' arguement. You seem to use this as a way to avoid taking the analogy on board at times.

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. [/B]

Indeed. What exactly do you think the local commander should do with your intention? I put it to you that he should operate to the orders you give him, and use his forces to fulfill those orders (CAP, naval search, naval attack, etc)? I think you will find that is what happened. You have issues with exactly how he did that.

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...

This is where you keep misunderstanding my posts. YOU had the TF identified for 2 days. That is YOU the player, saw the TF sighting reports. You know they relate to the same TF, you guess/deduce what they are and where they are going, and know their exact location (to 30 miles). The local commander in the real world:
- may not recieve all the sighting reports
- may not localise them correctly
- may not correctly processed the intelligence to link multiple reports to the same TF
- may not have correctly identified the TF mission, and linked it in the way that the game allows you to automatically.
Now, you can model this lot explicitally. i.e. each spotting report has x% chance of correct interpretation, y% correct id, etc.
Alternatively, the game factors this all in, by arranging that a number of missions go the correct way. Now, I do not know if this is by luck (just how the AI turns out), or the result of careful tuning. I do not rate all this as SNAFU, but the normal workings of a complex command and control system. SNAFU is escorts not finding bombers, or full strikes on a lone tanker (or CV as us IJN call them!) - somewhat different from e.g. a routine strike on Rabaul when you would prefer them to hit something else.
Oh yes, and do you really think that because MacA is in the same hex as his base commander (30miles!), this means they talk every day? I know organisations in the same open plan office that dont communicate effectively!:)

(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.

Please cite your sources about relative SNAFU levels in the South Pacific in 1942/3. By Service branch and nationality please. All I am saying is that you, in thinking that the game can be changed to 'force' the 'correct' AI activity take no account of the advantages you have that the real commander doesn't. In order to give the control over the AI options that you want, I suspect that 2x3 would need to model a whole gamut of stuff to simulate all sorts. At present, base A will quite happily attack a TF on the same day that base B spots it. How did it know? Does B radio all sightings every day (twice a day in fact)? Now in order to simulate this (and the rest), bases attack in a less than systematic way sometimes. If the game didn't show a TF symbol in a hex, but a huge red shaded area on the map labelled '80% confidence location for one or more TF, consisting of possibly 1AP, two men and a dog', would you be asking for targetting control (got to pick the correct hex mind)?
Also, you say there is no indication that any attacks were SNAFUd. Correct. 2x3 have admitted that there is a lot under the hood that might be used to improve the messages given. However, there is also no indication that any attacks were NOT SNAFUd!

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.

Several other people (moderators included) have also made their points very clear.

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. [/B]

This (to me) sums up the points you miss, that have been pointed out by 2x3 above.
- just because you have tracked for multiple days doesn't mean the commander on the ground will have.
- plotting air missions against moving TF requires info not available to the CinC, whereas all the other activities you cite do not.
- you do not HAVE to perform all the "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" - the AI never does, and I rarely do (once set). In any event, even if this is unnecessarily tactical (and to an extent I agree it is), two wrongs do not make a right!

And last but by no means least, the feature has been quoted as a deliberate design choice by GG (the other one!) - it IS the game. Anyone for a game of chess? I play by the rules where queens have a double strength attack at range 4, but you can't air launch rooks, unless a pawn has made it's spotting roll.

I suspect this will run a bit yet...

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by 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?

Have I ever asked for this? No. I have simply made the mistake of using the term "target a TF" as a reference to the use of the mouse interface to allow the program to 'type' the TF for future priority. It would be assine to even desire the ability to target individual TFs when the entire battlefield changes between the time you issue orders and the time they are executed.

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

If that decision is to review it for WiTP and retro fit it into UV (if it is changed and if it is possible). Yep that is basically what I have heard. But frankly, I don't need any response from Matrix. It is just the illogical, poor arguments that raise me to post.

Are you arguing for argument's sake?

No, actually you are seeing so much of me because it is slow at work.

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

No. Because I refuse to implement the 'gamey' solutions I have seen to "work around" an AI with holes in it.

I refuse to base my B-17s in Townsville because my AI commander in PM is too stupid not to send them against ships in Rabaul when an enemy TF is 60 miles away (spotted by HIS PBYs).

And if and when I can no longer base my planes in a realistic manner as I chose in this game because the frustration level gets too high I will simply shelve the game. Frankly, I doubt that will happen anytime soon though as there are other aspects of the game that out balance this one problem.

BUT, I can tell you one thing it will be cold day in hell before I invest weeks or months of time playing a PBeM game only to be screwed by this flakey AI on targeting at a critical moment. So, in a manner (IMO of course) the game is not fully functional for PBeM. That is the first time this has really occured to me...

What do you hope to accomplish?

I hope to simply be a voice of logic when someone tells me that setting routing supply shipments by ship by day to every port, ...<insert lengthy list here>... is okay but then tell me that I can not tell my local commanders to prioritize enemy CV TFs over enemy transport TFs is too "tactical" or micro managing.

[Paul Vebber]

OK, I'm at a loss as much of your protestation has revolved around your inability to target specifc Task forces, or that specifc Task forces have "gotten through".

You have complained:

While trying to point my air assets at the most priority enemy TF I have been tracking for two days is too "tactical" for UV. Thus it is not in the game.

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

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

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?

What is one to take away from these comments but that you were arguing for control of the targeting (prioritization in your parlance) of SPECIFIC TF's????

Now you say

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

Huh??? What about all of the above. Not control 'eh, yes just 'prioritzation' of one TF over all other possibilites...

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.

Is the game engine playing a "tactical game" under the hood and figring out appropriate SNAFUs to make, HELLO, of course not!

There is a routine that in some way I honestly don't know, takes the targets out there, the weather, the information levels, the commanders stats and rolls them in a ball and doles out assets to some, all or non of them according to an asset allocation scheme. What do you think is happening? That a game of Carriers at War is being played out?

Asset allocation is an information based process. THe game makes some broad assumptions about the relationship between the information "levels" of targets and weather and ability and what assets are assigned what missions, and a whole bevy of other stuff Gary threw into the mix, and it assigns assets to targets. It also looks at supporting mission like escort and there , there is a "SNAFU factor" that causes unescorted raids to occur. They happened in real life, quite a bit.

What percentage of raids were unescorted, how di weather and commander and staff ability and squadron Co ability and just plain dumb luck play a role. WHo knows, but the way it happens in UV "feels about right".

Should bombers attack Rabaul unescorted so often? I don't know, a lot of bomber raids went unescorted to Rabaul. How many is too many? Everybody has an opinion. Are there some more "inappropriate than others" sure and we have said we would look at it. Looking at it doesn; menat that we won't end saying no, after doing some research and thinking things through, they happen about as often as they should.

If you have info on such things that substatniate your take on "too many SNAFUs" we would be glad to consider it, but "Things don't go as I like often enough so its the games fault" is not an historically convincing argument for changing anything.

Oh and the reason I never play board games pbem anymore is those pesky dice rolls, eck if I'm going to waste my time playig a game for months to have it all come down to getting some bad die roll. No fun in that...:rolleyes:

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
I noted you seem to have gone from

to

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?

Different ways of saying the same thing really. The first post was in general, the second was more detailed because by that time it occurred to me that to some people it was not obvious how stupid it would be to give ironclad orders to attack a specific TF in a game where the entire battlefield changes between the time orders are issued and they are executed. Sorry, I figured that was pretty obvious, I overestimated my audience (it won't happen again).

BTW Did you read the other posts? The ones how I DETAIL EXACTLY how a single click interface to "target a TF" can be used to translate the data into a 'TF-type' stored by the game to be used during the turn execution? If not, shame on you and that would explain some of your confusion. IF you did, shame on you even more for ANOTHER strawman.

I would go back and quote my original post about this type of single click interface but I have already done this for you once... So, I can only assume you are picking about different parts of my different posts and piecing them together in this way intentionally in a vain effort to make another strawman case. :rolleyes:

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

BUT, I can tell you one thing it will be cold day in hell before I invest weeks or months of time playing a PBeM game only to be screwed by this flakey AI on targeting at a critical moment. So, in a manner (IMO of course) the game is not fully functional for PBeM. That is the first time this has really occured to me...

If when you play, a single turn, or set of air strikes can turn the game, you are doing it wrong. Are your strategies really that risky? What about a sub attacking you at the wrong moment? That unexpected mine field? That single critical hit?
Play the odds, ensure you are not vulnerable or if you are, you have fall backs. Or play something deterministic, like chess. The AI on chess is quite good now you know.

[Paul Vebber]

Different ways of saying the same thing really.

Thats, that I guess. IF they are the same, there is no difference to argu over.

The first post was in general, the second was more detailed because by that time it occurred to me that to some people it was not obvious how stupid it would be to give ironclad orders to attack a specific TF in a game where the entire battlefield changes between the time orders are issued and they are executed. Sorry, I figured that was pretty obvious, I overestimated my audience (it won't happen again).

IF its so obvious, then why have you constantly brought up the complaint you can't target a specific TF in your posts since then? You explained quite nicely the basis for my arguments, but don't seem to understand what it means. If you really think it "stupid to give ironclad orders" why is the lack of ability to do so such a theme in so many of your posts?

BTW Did you read the other posts? The ones how I DETAIL EXACTLY how a single click interface to "target a TF" can be used to translate the data into a 'TF-type' stored by the game to be used during the turn execution? If not, shame on you and that would explain some of your confusion. IF you did, shame on you even more for ANOTHER strawman.

Yes I did read that, but since you have complained so many times since posting it that about not attacking the specific task force you desired I figured that it was another of your random musings.

So if you click on a transport TF approaching Gilli Gilli but because that particular TF was not targetable, PM launched an attack at a transport off to heck an gone, you would not complain (seems when that happened you complained though...)

Several flights of mediums, my dauntless unit and about half of my escorts fly to pester a SINGLE transport that moves into Lae harbor.

Had that happened after you clicked on the transport approaching Gilli Gilli, you would be OK with it???

Different ways of saying the same thing really.

Indeed! :rolleyes:

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
OK, I'm at a loss as much of your protestation has revolved around your inability to target specifc Task forces, or that specifc Task forces have "gotten through".

You have complained....

What is one to take away from these comments but that you were arguing for control of the targeting (prioritization in your parlance) of SPECIFIC TF's????

Prioritization is not the same thing as "control". Using CAP for example, prioritization would allow me to assign a certain percentage of fighters to CAP and the rest to escort (as it is now). Control would extend this somewhat (IMHO) to assigning specific missions to escort, specific altitudes to fly CAP at, perhaps even what formations to fly, etc...Sure they are all measures of the same thing and they blend into gray areas as well.

Control for targeting naval strikes would be like telling the officer at PM to hit THAT TF at THAT location at THIS time WITH THESE units at THIS ALTITUDE, with THIS bomb load... I hope nobody wants that. I sure don't.

Prioritization would be to tell the man at PM to focus on the TF last seen at XXYY or to focus on CV TFs in THIS area if they are spotted or to not hit ships in port... And if another TF matching the prioritized description is seen during turn execution (i.e. the next day) I would expect the officer on the ground to at least attempt to fulfill his orders. Anything wrong with that? If not then what the hell are we doing here?

THERE is a difference. A big difference between control and prioritization of naval air strikes as they have been defined by this thread and others.

Should bombers attack Rabaul unescorted so often? I don't know, a lot of bomber raids went unescorted to Rabaul. How many is too many? Everybody has an opinion. Are there some more "inappropriate than others" sure and we have said we would look at it. Looking at it doesn; menat that we won't end saying no, after doing some research and thinking things through, they happen about as often as they should.

Hell, I don't know either. BUT, I do know that if Big Mac told his ground based air to NOT fly any missions against ships in Rabaul that they would not be flown <period> By the same token if Big Mac told his officer to focus on enemy invasion fleets at Gili Gili and they ignored them for two days and hit the enemy at Buna instead said officer would be in deep $%^@# (SNAFUs and minor foul ups not withstanding)

If you have info on such things that substatniate your take on "too many SNAFUs" we would be glad to consider it, but "Things don't go as I like often enough so its the games fault" is not an historically convincing argument for changing anything.

Yeah, sure it is my wallet. Like I said before it is easy to give the pat answer that it was a "planed foul up" by the game engine and not simply bad AI choice. It does not wash with me.

Oh and the reason I never play board games pbem anymore is those pesky dice rolls, eck if I'm going to waste my time playig a game for months to have it all come down to getting some bad die roll. No fun in that...:rolleyes:

More words in my mouth? More strawmen? I have no problem with random chance. I do have a problem with lack of ability to assign basic, simple, realistic priorities and poor AI. But more so with people that can not debate a point logically without resorting to continuous strawmen arguments in order to build themselves a case by tearing the other person down.

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
So if you click on a transport TF approaching Gilli Gilli but because that particular TF was not targetable, PM launched an attack at a transport off to heck an gone, you would not complain (seems when that happened you complained though...)

CORRECT! I would have no problem with THIS issue or even with the AI really.

NOW, if this happened over, and over in one form or another (as I have seen) you would see me posting that there are way too many SNAFUs in UV.

And perhaps that is really the issue. Because you at least (as far as I can tell) are convinced that these are SNAFUs and miss-directions, etc because of incorrect data and information. Fine, if that is the case then there are way too many and they don't make sence (suddenly attacking Shortland from PM when multiple TFs have been spotted nearby?!)

It has been mentioned by many (including me) that perhaps more messages as to what happened during/to air mission might help. But then again it might just shift the focus from one issue (ability to set targeting priorties) to another (too many SNAFUs)...

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
If when you play, a single turn, or set of air strikes can turn the game, you are doing it wrong. Are your strategies really that risky? What about a sub attacking you at the wrong moment? That unexpected mine field? That single critical hit?
Play the odds, ensure you are not vulnerable or if you are, you have fall backs. Or play something deterministic, like chess. The AI on chess is quite good now you know.

Clever.

Tell that to the Japanese at Midway and Coral Sea...oops that one is in this game.

One day/night sequence can turn the tide of this game easy.

[Leahi]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[orders?



"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."

But if memory serves me correctly, within the first six months of the war US carrier planes sunk about five IJN CV's and damaged at least one other. This must have been a very high percentage of all the CV's the IJN had, or deployed at the time. Also, as I recall, land-based US aircraft butchered a very threatening IJN invasion convoy headed for New Guinea, which ended Japan's expansion southward. Seems that US planes did a pretty good job of selecting and finding critical enemy TFs.
The percentage of stragtegically significant enemy naval targets spotted and destroyed by the US in the first six months of the war is way out of proportion to "all the ships in the pacific" in that "big ocean." You seem inadvertently to support GG's argument, Mr. Vebber.
Keep it up, GG; I'm with you. If someone feels this discussion is over he can simply stop reading this thread, and eventually it would die out. But I feel you are correct in pointing out inconsistencies in the arguments marshalled against those of us who quite obviously like this game yet are disappointed in certain aspects of its design and would like Matrix to discuss cogently these issues with us.

[Paul Vebber]

But if memory serves me correctly, within the first six months of the war US carrier planes sunk about five IJN CV's and damaged at least one other.

Yup, But Coral Sea and Midway were CV on CV battles.

CV on CV is pretty immaterial to the argument because so far the argument has revolved pretty much around the allocation of land based air. I don't think many people have much heartburn with your ability to go spoiling for a carrier a battle or refuse one? Or the results when they occur?

What percentage of ships spotted by each side were subsequently attacked? I don't know the answer, don't know if it can be answered, but my educated guess is that was signifcantly less than 100.

The argument has revolved around land based air not attacking the "priority" target that is desired to be sunk.

If accomplishing that was as easy as getting a contact report and saying "sick 'em" then the result should have been close to 100%

Read Gen Kenny's memoirs. He talks about pouring over weeks worth of contact reports, establishing what the preffered convoy routes were, waiting for indications a juicy TF got underway and hoping to pounce on it. The Battle of the Bismark Sea was about the only time it "worked" like GG wants and that took the allocation of some 130 fighters and 200 bombers 3 days to sink 7 transports and 4 DDs.

The Japs never really tried that again so its sort of a tough "historical" thing anyway. But why did it take until the middle of 43 to convine them that it was a bad idea and why did it take 230 planes 3 days?

What other missions were being conducted? howmany of those 230+ planes actually flew "SNAFU" missions that didn;t contribute to sinking the 7 transports? How many of those missions did Gen Kenney even realize occured? Or did the subordinates just report them as "Attacking TF as directed". How many of the crews THOUGHT they were attacking the TF in question but turned out not to?

Again we don't know, prorbly can't know. The info probably doesn't exist, to compare to "ground truth".

If a UV player allocated 230 planes to kill one TF and it took 3 turns of flying to do it, and half the escorts got away and managed to pick up some 1/3 of the troops form the sunk ships they would be all over the "Stupid AI"...

IN any case at this point its been reduces to arguing for "points" I'm not about to get into "control" vs "prioritization"...other than to say I like prioritization might win, control loses...

Feel free to argue over the definitions. I've made clear my thoughts.

The game is a GAME. Play it enjoy it, find out what it takes to be successful at it. No games "winning strategies" are ever 100% historical and not all historical winning strategies work in a game.

The best we can do is continue to try to make it more fun for the players by explaining why things are the way they are, and by adjusting things when they can be improved (in our opinion).

That's all we can do. And in doing so we can't please everybody!

I'm OUT on this one...

[pasternakski]

I am greatly disappointed in how this thread has developed. Rational changes have been suggested. Some argued for major, and probably unwarranted and impossible, alterations in the game design, but most asked only for a degree of involvement in playing the game allowed and, indeed, required, in other areas. GG, you have argued long and hard in the name of reasonableness. Others have been supportive. Thank you for those efforts. I stopped posting here because I saw awhile back that the handwriting was on the wall. When people quit listening analytically and started ridiculing, the end was near.

Fun has here taken a back seat to ossification.

I hope that it is not a trend.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by mjk428
The poll was created in response to a statement that 50% are happy the way it is and 50% want to be able to establish priorities in some way. I voted for the third option because I agree that TF targetting is not necessary and would change the feel of the game.

The 17% you refer to is only part of the "50%". The other part of the "50%" are those that chose option 3, which means the "50%" is actually the "66%".

I do not believe that is the case.

A major part of the discussion on this thread has been control vs prioritization.

Many have pointed out they are not the same thing. I created the poll and voted option 3, as I DO NOT WANT more control, just adjustments in setting priorities to avoid the "Gone to Rabaul" effect.

And I do not believe I am the only one in that category.

[mjk428]

Originally posted by denisonh
I do not believe that is the case.

A major part of the discussion on this thread has been control vs prioritization.

Many have pointed out they are not the same thing. I created the poll and voted option 3, as I DO NOT WANT more control, just adjustments in setting priorities to avoid the "Gone to Rabaul" effect.

And I do not believe I am the only one in that category.

You created the poll that's true but not the debate. Look at the quote in your first post in that thread. It was to the affect of: 50% of the people are unhappy TO SOME DEGREE and 50% are happy the way it is. The third option in your poll clearly requires a change, so realistically those that chose that option should be considered part of those that are "unhappy".

Unfortunately the argument has been presented in the extreme and then ridiculed (not by you). Nowhere has anyone made the statement that 50% want direct control of TF targetting.

edit -

It's interesting that I voted for option 3 and considered myself part of the "50%" while you voted the same and considered yourself opposed to the fictional "50%".

Also, here's another post that mentioned 50% (for further clarification):
______________________________________________
Quote by Cap&Gown -

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!
________________________________________________

[Grumbling Grogn]

The argument has revolved around land based air not attacking the "priority" target that is desired to be sunk.

No it has not. You have been arguing this, sure. I have spent several hours posting trying to correct this misconception.

Nobody wants to do away with FoW. Nobody wants to do away with minor foul-ups that cause a mission to not execute perfectly. Nobody wants to do away with major SNAFUs that cause a mission to do something entirely different. But these should be within reason, such as never get off the ground, hit another nearby target, get lost, or even hit a secondary target, hell how about FF once in awhile (esp against SS).

The point is that the bases do not even try to make the correct attack missions as far as the player can tell. And exactly what else do we have to go on?!?

Some people quickly spout the pat line "AI Planned SNAFU" it was 'supposed' to do that and dig out the old history books and start quoting...to which I say 'bull'.

That is an easy cop-out and I have seen no proof of these errant missions being intentional SNAFUs by the AI trying to simulate battle conditions.

No, from what I have seen (and read here) it is just as likely the AI really does see that TF off my shore and thinks that it only deserves 1/8 of my force of bombers and it should allocate a portion of it's air assets to that transport in Shortland harbor, some to Rabaul, some to...

If I have an invasion transport TF 120 miles to the East bearing down on me that I have had intell on for two days there are very, very few times I would expect any portion of my air assets set to defend me to fly 200 miles or more in the other direction to attempt a bombing in a well defended harbor I have never even visited before. If that is supposed to be an AI planned SNAFU then that code is in sore need of review and we have to have messages to clarify this exceedingly poor mission planning.

[Leahi]

"Commander's intent" is defined as the higher commander imparting to subordinates his vision of how he wants an operation to be conducted. It's been called many things throughout military history but this general principle has not changed a great deal. The intent is to be able to issue an initial set of orders that are fairly specific, knowing that this plan will most likely go out the window once the battle commences. However, by imparting his intent to his subordinates, they'll be able to improvise creative ways of dealing with the fog of war in accordance with their commander's vision. A commander's intent is supposed to be relatively short and succint, and not overly complicated. It will be more, however, than a simple list of targets, prioritizing what to hit.
Where does this apply to this simulation? I would submit that the root problem we're fumbling with is the fact that our ability to establish commander's intent -- which I would argue is the soul of a military operation -- is completely missing from this program. It appears that the program has a pre-set commander's intent that is inflexible and this is reflected in these targetting problems that we've discussed. It might be my intent, for example, not to attrite my own aircraft by going after large convoys of destroyers and cruisers knowing that this would diminish my ability to attack critical targets such as carriers and transports. Therefore my carriers would target sighting reports that showed the presence of carriers or troop transports and avoid engaging convoys when sighting reports indicate the aforementioned classes of ships, choosing to shadow them instead with recon aircraft. Or as GG stated, in another situation your intent as the commander may be to ignore transports and engage instead other classes of ships.
How do you engineer commander's intent into a simulation? In one type of military exercise conducted on computers, to simulate theatre level operations, cells are established with human beings scattered through all echelons of the operation, down to the lowest levels, who are capable of juggling common sense and their commander's intent. This is to avoid the very problems we've been discussing in this thread. The work-around to this problem in most strategy games is to go ahead and give theatre level commanders micro-managerial control. Although some praise and some pan the controls in Carriers at War, it far more effectively modeled the execution of a higher commander's intent.
The last comment I'll make on this is that simply giving one the ability to prioritize targets may not model the branches and sequels that any average subordinate commander would juggle as he attempts to follow his commander's intent. An example of this is the fact that a commander may establish zones in different parts of the theatre with different targetting priorities. Transports that are days away from their destination, for example, might have a lower priority than those that are hours from their beachhead. So if you establish a theatre-wide set of target priorities you still won't actually be carrying out the types of operations dictated by commander's intent.
Where does this leave us? A theatre-level simulation like this must require a great deal more influence by the theatre commander than simply allocating supply and leaving the subordinates to run amock. (Yes, I know that's a bit of hyperbole; we have greater control over subordinates than that....)
One last digression (for those who haven't yet fallen asleep reading this): It can be argued that Gettysburg was lost when Lee, in communicating his intent to one of his subordinate generals, ordered him to take a hilltop "if practicable." Because the general did not understand the criticality of this high ground he decided it was not worth the casualties to seize it. Thus misinterpretations of commanders' intentions do occur. I don't mean to open up a debate over the Battle of Gettysburg; I mean simply to make the point that the art of being a skilled theatre commander is to clearly state and enforce your intent. I cite this because in military professional development it is frequently used to illustrate the criticality of imparting your vision to your subordinates. UV manages to model the execution of military operations in complete discordance with the intentions of the theatre commander -- that's us -- with regularity. Subordinates who act with this degree of ineptitude would normally be relieved and replaced with someone who is more capable of adhering to his commander's intent.
I'm not a programmer, but if you're willing to buy into the philosophy that I've discussed here you'll find that our options for resolving this are limited: On one extreme you have to model a third-generation AI that can follow commander's intent, and at the other extreme you have the Carriers at War-style push-button control over targets. There must be a happy medium somewhere. Simply doing nothing to address this issue would be unfortunate, and certainly violate this commander's intent....

[juliet7bravo]

I've never understood the insistence that UV is a "strategic level game". As the "3 star behind the desk" I have to make the rounds of virtually each and every unit, each and every day and individually wipe their butts.

I'm the Morale Officer, Training Officer, Medical Officer, Transportation & Supply Officer, Admin Officer ect ect ect for each and every unit. Yet, I can't even prioritize targets, give command guidance to my unit commanders, or impart my "Commanders Intent". I have no staff. I have no "real" subordinate commanders. Pretty much, I'm sitting at the top of a very sharp pyramid with a bunch of brainless 2LT's out there running the units.

As a leader, when I have subordinates of questionable intelligence and ability, I attempt to constrain them by giving them guidelines to work within. While this doesn't always work, I can at least hope this limits the damage they can do. Sh!t happens in real life...but in UV I have no way of influencing it other than hoping for the best. What I can do, is use some extremely cumbersome workarounds, that just adds tremendously to the micro-management. It'd be far simpler, better, and more enjoyable to just give me some decent tools to work with.

err...what Ron said...