Scenario 17, Americans, just had my Surface Combat TF steam 12 hexes to intercept/protect a friendly base under bombardment attack. By letter of the law in the game, I guess I should have expected this, as the TF was set to 'REACT TO ENEMY'. However, the TF it chose to engage was at least twice its strength if not more.. and..uhmm.. oh yeah there were 1 2 3 4.. FOUR enemy CV's a few hexes away as well.
So, in essence, the computer sent a complete TF to its absolute total annihilation based upon an order I really never gave. In a board game I would have had input on this "phase" of the game.
Now it seems, because of this, I should never set a TF to 'REACT TO ENEMY'. Yet then Surface Combat TF's are just about worthless.. They won't for instance try to engage a couple ML's trying to lay mines nearby, or a mostly unescorted bunch of AP's, or anyone of a number of other viable, GOOD, targets...
It seems TF's set to either or both 'REACT TO ENEMY' and 'RETIREMENT ALLOWED' almost never do what you want them too. Doesn't this represent an absolute MAJOR flaw in this game. That the most important element in the game, our TF's, we do not have enough control over?
I'm all for the added detail and depth a computer game can give us over a board game, but let the micro-management be where it needs to be. Any board game I'd have had better control over major assets than this..
It's pretty well agreed Air Units in UV have gone crazy.. I'm thinking the TF system isn't much better...
Feel free to tell me how wrong I am and why historically my TF would have sailed as it did to known spotted and guaranteed annihilation...
While were at it tell me why all my ships on their long journey from pearl all arrive with 0 system damage, yet Im lucky if I can sail a ship past the end of the Isle Noumea is on without getting a point of system damage. (Playability I suppose, but hard to see how that pleases the historical over-accuracy buffs that seem to flock to games like these)
Thanks Guys (and Gals)!
My Task Force Has Gone Crazy!
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But mine was in a PBEM game, and I had a TF of 6 DDs react 11 hexes to a force with a BB, 3 CAs, 2 CLs and 5 DDs! To say the least, they were all deep sixed.
But that was one case, and even with all the turns I have played, I have only seen that one instance that was bad.
I have found that units won't really eact to TFs that "pop up out of nowhere", so you generally see the TFs that your guys can react to. After my little fiasco, I now look at potential enemies they react to and adjust the react setting accordingly.
If you tell your subordinate commander to react, he will do so, particulaly if he is aggressive. A careful one might not do so. It has been critical to have my surface TFs react at times, and have prevented some disasters by doing so, so it is a valuable tool.
So the react setting is not a bad one, just be careful when you use it.
But that was one case, and even with all the turns I have played, I have only seen that one instance that was bad.
I have found that units won't really eact to TFs that "pop up out of nowhere", so you generally see the TFs that your guys can react to. After my little fiasco, I now look at potential enemies they react to and adjust the react setting accordingly.
If you tell your subordinate commander to react, he will do so, particulaly if he is aggressive. A careful one might not do so. It has been critical to have my surface TFs react at times, and have prevented some disasters by doing so, so it is a valuable tool.
So the react setting is not a bad one, just be careful when you use it.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Mostly, I agree with this.
A transport TF, if enemy warships are nearby, should always turn and run for cover. But if they are attacked by aircraft they should run the gauntlet.
A surface combat TF, should always attack another surface TF, so long as there is a good chance of a victory. Again, if the enemy TF is considered superior then it should steer clear of the enemy. If it is attacked from the air it too should run the gauntlet.
The solution is not micromanagement, the solution is a point I have advocated before. The solution is a series of “IF – THEN-ELSE” orders.
You would give the order before the TF sails or before the ground unit begins its march.
This more closely models what actually happens. Higher commanders tell their subordinates “Do this” but the subordinates know that according to their training if “such and such” happens then the standard response is to “follow chapter 6 of the manual”.
But “IF-THEN-ELSE” also means that the player is not dependant upon a friendly AI that is too stupid to know what to do. It means the unit reacted as the player wanted but the player does not need to administer micromanagement.
Thank you for reminding me of this. I first brought it up in the Combat Leader forum in early 2001 when that projected started.
A transport TF, if enemy warships are nearby, should always turn and run for cover. But if they are attacked by aircraft they should run the gauntlet.
A surface combat TF, should always attack another surface TF, so long as there is a good chance of a victory. Again, if the enemy TF is considered superior then it should steer clear of the enemy. If it is attacked from the air it too should run the gauntlet.
The solution is not micromanagement, the solution is a point I have advocated before. The solution is a series of “IF – THEN-ELSE” orders.
You would give the order before the TF sails or before the ground unit begins its march.
This more closely models what actually happens. Higher commanders tell their subordinates “Do this” but the subordinates know that according to their training if “such and such” happens then the standard response is to “follow chapter 6 of the manual”.
But “IF-THEN-ELSE” also means that the player is not dependant upon a friendly AI that is too stupid to know what to do. It means the unit reacted as the player wanted but the player does not need to administer micromanagement.
Thank you for reminding me of this. I first brought it up in the Combat Leader forum in early 2001 when that projected started.
Now you are in reaction: to the stupid move by your subordinate commander. "Varus! Give me back my Legion!" that is the helplessness the game is supposed to impart to an operational command. WE all must learn to work with it.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Yeah, but as an Operational Commander, I wouldn't be limited to only saying "React to Enemy" or "Don't React to Enemy". In this case, the game seems to be simulating the case where as Operational Commmander I speak a completely different language than my units, thus I'm reduced to giving my orders in pidgin english. And then praying they know what I mean. 
There could be a lot of improvement here. I really like the idea of pulling up an expanded box where I could give "If-then-else" orders.
Or maybe a simple system of more options
React to all enemy TF
React only to enemy of equal or lesser strength
React only to enemy of lesser strength
Do not react to enemy
Then the TF commander looks at the scouting reports he's getting and decides what to do.
Or the old Pac-War system let me set a "Max Range" to react to the enemy. So then I could at least set it so a TF in Noumea would react to something in its neighborhood, but wouldn't go charging up to Guadacanal where I knew there would be a IJN BB TF.
And on a related topic, is there a reason I have to be located in a base to have a Surface TF react? My instinct in playing the game is to go ahead an sortie my TF, put them in the area where I expect them to meet the enemy, then have them engage the enemy. But it seems in this system they can be cruising along, spot an enemy TF with their float planes, then just ignore it.
I know its another ocean, but it doesn't seem like you could do anything like a "Hunt for the Bismarck" situation with this setup.
There could be a lot of improvement here. I really like the idea of pulling up an expanded box where I could give "If-then-else" orders.
Or maybe a simple system of more options
React to all enemy TF
React only to enemy of equal or lesser strength
React only to enemy of lesser strength
Do not react to enemy
Then the TF commander looks at the scouting reports he's getting and decides what to do.
Or the old Pac-War system let me set a "Max Range" to react to the enemy. So then I could at least set it so a TF in Noumea would react to something in its neighborhood, but wouldn't go charging up to Guadacanal where I knew there would be a IJN BB TF.
And on a related topic, is there a reason I have to be located in a base to have a Surface TF react? My instinct in playing the game is to go ahead an sortie my TF, put them in the area where I expect them to meet the enemy, then have them engage the enemy. But it seems in this system they can be cruising along, spot an enemy TF with their float planes, then just ignore it.
I know its another ocean, but it doesn't seem like you could do anything like a "Hunt for the Bismarck" situation with this setup.
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington
Originally posted by marc420
Or the old Pac-War system let me set a "Max Range" to react to the enemy. So then I could at least set it so a TF in Noumea would react to something in its neighborhood, but wouldn't go charging up to Guadacanal where I knew there would be a IJN BB TF.
This is exactly my point.. My local Surface TF "patrolling" the Luganville-Noumea area against whatever minor threats could otherwise come along should not be steaming 12 hexes up to Irau to engage a large group of BB's and CA's.
I really have to take a stand on this one. I see ZERO reason why I shouldn't be able to give an order like that, historical accuracy included, subordinate incompetant commanders included.. I should be able to tell a TF to patrol a local vacinity and engage local or "reasonable" opposing enemy task forces.
The statement that I would see the enemy TF's coming and therefore be able to "toggle" off that setting on my surface force is NOT a solution. Thats simply working around what doesn't work in the game.
So, just because I spot an enemy task force way up at Guadalcanal, my local TF's suddenly have to halt all response to anything... There is no reality in that...
I really have to take a stand on this one. I see ZERO reason why I shouldn't be able to give an order like that, historical accuracy included, subordinate incompetant commanders included.. I should be able to tell a TF to patrol a local vacinity and engage local or "reasonable" opposing enemy task forces.
Historically (and very accurately), knowing what exactly one faces and deciding to commit to battle was more luck then skill.
Assuming that the local commander has the full picture is questionable at best. Radar was not great, communications were not reliable, spotters were not accurate, commander's skills were not all the same, etc ...
Who's to say that the DD commander didn't think he could use his radar advantage, sneak in at night and launch a torpedo attack on some heavy cruisers or battleships and escape before getting his little task force creamed?
If you go down the reasonable path, all US forces would sit in port for the duration, as they were well aware that Japan's night fighting skill far surpassed their own.
You have skilled commanders at your disposal who are either aggressive or defensive. Put the correct man in change and your results should be as expected, but again, combat is NEVER a sure thing, with even the best making serious mistakes...
This game, unlike board games, forces the player to act on incomplete and occasionally outright wrong information. That is part if its brilliance. The goal is to issue your orders, pick your commanders and set your deployment in order to give you the best chance to succeed. The player can't do any more than that, and that is how it should be.
A board game would have movement and interception happening in sequence- you get to see what I moved into the target hex, then you decide whether or not to react. In UV your commander made the decision to react when my force was still many hexes away. The moves of both forces were simultaneous.
Veldor, I was as surprised as you were when the surface group group turned up in the middle of my bombardment groups. What could have been more effective would be holding off for a day or two until the bombardment TFs were low on ammo, then show up. Maybe my carrier groups would be too fatigued to strike back effectively.
A board game would have movement and interception happening in sequence- you get to see what I moved into the target hex, then you decide whether or not to react. In UV your commander made the decision to react when my force was still many hexes away. The moves of both forces were simultaneous.
Veldor, I was as surprised as you were when the surface group group turned up in the middle of my bombardment groups. What could have been more effective would be holding off for a day or two until the bombardment TFs were low on ammo, then show up. Maybe my carrier groups would be too fatigued to strike back effectively.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill
- Winston Churchill
Originally posted by bilbow
Veldor, I was as surprised as you were when the surface group group turned up in the middle of my bombardment groups. What could have been more effective would be holding off for a day or two until the bombardment TFs were low on ammo, then show up. Maybe my carrier groups would be too fatigued to strike back effectively.
I guess my point is I did spot your bombardment and carrier groups. I did know what was coming. I did NOT want my Surface TF to go up and engage.
That being said, the only thing you can tell me I did wrong was leaving my Surface Task Force set to "React To Enemy". That is the part that I think is so highly flawed. Like someone mentioned about the Pacific War game, there should be someway I can patrol and protect my local bases without automatically including far off ones that just happen to be maximum range from the current hex. But instead I have to in essense "stop" something totally unrelated, just to prevent something entirely else from happening.
I fully understand why what happened happened. According to the rules of the game exactly what should have happened did happen. I'm simply saying the rules don't allow enough flexibility in issuing orders as they should.. Especially given how important TF's are to a game like this, additional detail and mission parameters should at the very least be able to be set globally if not individually per TF.
And plenty of others have pointed out there are plenty of elements in UV that would be left up to individual sub-ordinates, yet you still have control over them. Exact Cap-levels, Supply shipment and movement and so on... If I can do that surely I can issue more detailed orders to my TF's.
There are ways within the present game to control responses like this. You can, for example, place an MSW in the TF. It has a much lower max speed/distance factor, therby narrowing down the distance the TF will react. Or to defend its specfic location, maybe what you had in mind, you can set it to Patrol/do not react and right click the hax involved. In this case it will patrol that hyex and defend it quite adequately.
It would be nice to be able to explicitly set max reaction distances, but there are ways to accomplish the same thing.
I understsand your frustration, but stuff like this gets learned the hard way. That's the way I learned it!
It would be nice to be able to explicitly set max reaction distances, but there are ways to accomplish the same thing.
I understsand your frustration, but stuff like this gets learned the hard way. That's the way I learned it!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill
- Winston Churchill
-
Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39759
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Question...
Veldor,
What was the aggressiveness of the TF commander?
Regards,
- Erik
What was the aggressiveness of the TF commander?
Regards,
- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC
For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
Originally posted by bilbow
There are ways within the present game to control responses like this. You can, for example, place an MSW in the TF. It has a much lower max speed/distance factor, therby narrowing down the distance the TF will react. Or to defend its specfic location, maybe what you had in mind, you can set it to Patrol/do not react and right click the hax involved. In this case it will patrol that hyex and defend it quite adequately.
This is a good tip/workaround. To clarify though, MSW's will not join Surface Combat TF's (At least not for me) and DM's are too fast for this purpose. A patrol boat would do the trick. So would an APD but I find them too valuable to risk for such a task.
Originally posted by bilbow
There are ways within the present game to control responses like this. You can, for example, place an MSW in the TF. It has a much lower max speed/distance factor, therby narrowing down the distance the TF will react. .
Nothing personal but I get a good laugh from stuff like this. That experienced players find things like that, aren't bothered by it or don't fully realize what it means. What your suggesting can mean only one of two things:
1. What Im looking for is a valid request and your workaround is the only way to accomplish it by manipulating the game against itself as the game itself is not flexible enough to give you adequate options and control to do it otherwise. Thus verifying a game flaw exists.
2. What Im looking for is not a valid request, in which case your work around is basically an "exploit" to manipulate the game against itself to achieve something that shouldn't be able to be achieved. In which case a game flaw also exists.
Im sure you've read other threads that discuss all the other things you can accomplish by throwing in slower ships.. Most of them should not have to be done that way. It is pretty funny if you think about it. Just because there is an ahistorical-workaround doesn't mean there isn't an issue.
Surely its not historically accurate that Surface Combat TF's dragged along a Minesweeper just so the commander didn't get any bright ideas to go on a hopeless crusade against a pile of BB's...
Yet none of the historical buffs will ever argue over it, because they learn a way around it in the game, and are somehow happy.. Yet they will debate an AA value of 340 vs 345 for a particular vessel..
I'm probably in the minority here, but this is where I think computer games fail us. Too often we are working around the system (learned through experience) to accomplish something the interface should just have provided us in the first place.
Why accept that? I say demand more and better!
Re: Question...
Originally posted by Erik Rutins
Veldor,
What was the aggressiveness of the TF commander?
Regards,
- Erik
N. Scott, RADM, Leadership 53, Inspiration 56. Competant and Aggressive but not "Very Aggressive".
It was an auto-picked commander, and a bit odd as plenty of better ones were available at the time in Noumea.. But it wasn't terribly important to me given what I wanted it to do with the TF.
Leadership aside, I'd like slightly more detail in the mission parameters that I can assign. I don't debate that in this case the game did exactly what it was suppose too. I simply debate having the option to assign a slightly more detailed mission that would have prevented that sort of thing from occurring in some situations.
-
Admiral Scott
- Posts: 707
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, NY USA
I often will set a surface TF to react to enemy, even when I know it will be going up against a stronger enemy TF.
Why? Because I want to try and prevent it from bombarding my base, and hopefully do enough damage to slow it down when it retires. Since the enemy ships will be reduced in speed, my land based aircraft will finish them off, and I will come out ahead in victory points.
Why? Because I want to try and prevent it from bombarding my base, and hopefully do enough damage to slow it down when it retires. Since the enemy ships will be reduced in speed, my land based aircraft will finish them off, and I will come out ahead in victory points.
Why accept that? I say demand more and better! [/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed. But in the mean time we work with what we've got, the alternative being we don't play at all. It is a game, after all.
Actually, including a minesweeper in a surface TF or at least going along with it is not ahistorical, given the frequency of encountering minefields.
Agreed. But in the mean time we work with what we've got, the alternative being we don't play at all. It is a game, after all.
Actually, including a minesweeper in a surface TF or at least going along with it is not ahistorical, given the frequency of encountering minefields.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill
- Winston Churchill
Originally posted by bilbow
Agreed. But in the mean time we work with what we've got, the alternative being we don't play at all. It is a game, after all.
Yes. And I'd hate for this to turn into another WITP debate, but some of these things that are reasonable work arounds in UV, I just don't think are going to work, at least for me, for WITP.
It's reasonable that in this case, I should have spent the extra time to count hexes, realize I was just within range, and modify my TF's setting accordingly, even if just temporarily.
It's also reasonable in this case, that I have a plethora of available minesweepers at the base the TF sailed from, in order to include for "slowing down" purposes, even if just for lack of an additional interface option.
But I don't think either is a given in the added scope and scale of WITP.
I still click one by one on every TF icon on the screen, just to make sure everybody is heading the right place, and so on. I can never tell which TF icons are my main TF or which are just renmants heading back to port. How come they cant be colored by strength or something just like ports,airfields, and land units are?
I can live with all of this for UV, think its the best game out thus far too, but my own personal opinion is if this is what WITP is going to be, then I am going to hold off and wait for others because I'm thinking the interface isn't sufficient as it is for a game that scale...
Some have yet to even finish a game of UV... So if WITP is simply going to make your turn take 5 times as long for lack of any better interface controls... We might need some sort of "inheritance" forum so younger players can pick up the games of those who have passed on before finishing their games..
That said it must be really scary for Matrix. WITP, in my mind, can only end up being one of two things... Highly successful and the crowning achievement of any computer wargaming developer thus far, or an over-ambitious needlessly long and complicated poorly interfaced dog of a game thats totally unmangeable and hence unplayable..
I would love for it to become the former, and it would seem to me that the more we demand from UV, the better WITP will be. WITP is after all the game I've always wanted. I never wanted UV, I just bought it because it's all we've got right now...