One Month In...

[Flat Top Junkie]

Hokey Dokey, one month into my UV career and here is my half term report

"A polished and impressive performance undermined by a few irritating blemishes!" B+

To all the guys at Matrix & 2By3, congratulations, who do I send my resume to for a job?

OK, onto the nitty gritty, a few points & thoughts I'd like to share and hopefully get some feedback on.

1) The AI cheats

No doubt about this one in my mind and something that on occassion has spoiled my enjoyment of non-PBeM games. for example (playing Allied), US TF locates IJN carriers and launches strikes first in good weather. Two Dauntless formations numbering 30+ dive bombers with escorts fail to score a single hit against 3 IJN flat-tops with 'average' CAP. Although they did stick a bomb into a DD???)

IJN counterstrike of 30 mixed Vals and Kates with a half dozen Zero escorts break through a Wildcat CAP of 25 and inflict a total of 8 torpedo hits on the two US carriers in a single strike. Then, to rub salt into the wounds, 9 Nells from Rabaul fly unescorted through 23 Wildcats and sink the Lady Lex!

Bah!

2) Subs need to have the 'intelligence' to shadow a TF once it has been located or attacked. Case in point, if a sub locates a transport convoy then it would basically attack and/or shadow that convoy unless forced to withdraw by the convoys escorts.

I would suggest that once a sub has engaged or located an enemy TF then a 'Shadow' option should be made available so that a TF is not subsequently 'lost'.

3) Sinking Ships - It often seems to be the case that repeated airstrikes during a 'day' seem to find and bomb the same ship over and over again. With 'Fog of War' turned off, I have seen a single ship take 8 bomb hits in one airstrike and yet still be afloat later in the day when another attack arrives. Does the AI check for a ship sinking at the end of each attack? e.g. HMS Hood (BB) sank in a little over 2 minutes after being critically hit by the Bismark.

4) Cargo modifying ship damage.

In some cases I've witnessed APs take bomb hit after bomb hit and stay afloat just long enough to unload their cargo. If a loaded troop transport is struck, particularly if a 'critical hit' is determined then the damage should be massive and catestrophic. Secondary explosions from fuel and ammunition usually meant that a single hit was enough to sink the unfortunate transport 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.

5) The 'why did you attack *that* scenario'

Many people have already mentioned the bizarre target selection that sometimes seems to go on. It's been well documented so I wont add to the debate other than to say... Argggghhh!

6) Weather

At the start of each turn a wee dialog box tells you that its 'clear' or 'cloudy' or 'thunderstorms'. Where? The South Pacific is a BIG place. It would be really nice to have a weather map of some description unless the suggestion is that the entire South Pacific is only affected by one giant weather system a day that blankets the entire region.

7) Radar - ok, maybe I blinked and missed it, but didnt the Allies makes extensive use of Radar during the Pacific campaign? With CAp being vectored onto incoming IJN airstrikes this should give a significant advantage in response times, initiative and intercept opportunities... may be it does.... enlightment please

8) Sometimes the AI on the friendly side is just too plain stupid. Yes the game relies on the human player to make overall command decisions for each day and then the local commanders respond accordingly, but IMHO the AI needs to be sharpened up to take into account that this was war and targets were prioritised. There should never be a case when airstrikes pass up the chance to strike at enemy flat-tops in favour of going after a minesweeper or a patrol boat.


Well, enough of my rantings. I'm sure UV is just going to keep on getting better and better and that it wont be too much longer before it joins Harpoon in the exalted ranks of the naval strategy gaming elite.

Thanks guys

Paul S.
Flat Top Junkie

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Flat Top Junkie

1) The AI cheats

They've said it doesn't cheat on "Historical" difficulty.. only on hard or very hard. I haven't noticed any cheating except that the weather seems to turn bad in the afternoon whenever I've won the morning battle and need one more strike to finish the enemy off.

2) Subs need to have the 'intelligence' to shadow a TF once it has been located or attacked.

That would be nice, but not really a bug. If you set your subs to "AI control" they sometimes pursue known targets.

3) Sinking Ships - ... Does the AI check for a ship sinking at the end of each attack?

Yes, it does check. I've seen ships sink right away if they take massive damage. Sometimes it takes a day or two before a ships sinks. It also makes sense that a damaged ship is likely to be hit again in a second strike because it is going slower than the other ships.

4) Cargo modifying ship damage.

I've seen tankers carrying fuel take significantly more fire damage than empty ones. It also burns up the cargo.

6) Weather

At the start of each turn a wee dialog box tells you that its 'clear' or 'cloudy' or 'thunderstorms'. Where? The South Pacific is a BIG place. It would be really nice to have a weather map of some description unless the suggestion is that the entire South Pacific is only affected by one giant weather system a day that blankets the entire region.

This is being addressed in the 2.30 patch.

7) Radar - ok, maybe I blinked and missed it, but didnt the Allies makes extensive use of Radar during the Pacific campaign?

Not in 1942 they didn't. Radar was in its infantcy and so were the people learning to use it. Some ships do use radar in UV but don't expect it to make much difference until 1943.? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yamamoto

[Flat Top Junkie]

Not in 1942 they didn't. Radar was in its infantcy and so were the people learning to use it. Some ships do use radar in UV but don't expect it to make much difference until 1943.?

It wasnt the lack of radar that was the difficiency. It was a lack in forward air controllers with radio links to the aircraft that limited the use of radar to flat-tops and bases i.e. having radar wasnt as effective if you couldnt vector CAP onto an approaching attack, all you could do was put your hard hat on and take cover!

Your comment about inexperienced radar operators is true for 1941/2 to a certain degree e.g. the radars at Pearl Harbour being installed just weeks before the Japanese attack.

However, in 1942 radar use was increasing and it provided the US carriers and allied bases an increasing advantage of early warning of incoming IJN attacks.

In fact a number of points were raised about radar tactics following the battle of Coral Sea particularly to do with the use of advanced cruiser patrols and their sea planes confusing radar identification of attacking aircraft, the dropping of radio silence when combat sweeps were taking place to allow fighter controllers to vector aircraft onto attacking formations and specific altitudes and tactics for the stationing of CAP to combat specific attack profiles e.g. 20,000ft to prevent dive bombing

Note that the IJN attack on the combined TF11/TF17 battle group on may 8th was detected 70 miles out. Sure the intercept wasnt made perfectly, only one fighter group made a successful intercept, but radar was playing an ever increasing role in the war.

It would seem to me that there is little reproduction of such 'early warning' in UV ie. air2air combat taking place in hexes other than those of the TF giving a chance of the attacking formations being disorganised and un-cordinated by the time they reached their targets and thus reducing the effectiveness of the attack.

Paul S.
Flat Top Junkie

[Mr.Frag]

One very important point:

You mentioned the Fog of War setting.

Having FoW disabled causes the AI to have access to too much information, resulting in some really silly results. Perfect example of this is Nells & Betties going all the way to Cains to smash a convoy of ships yet ignoring the tasty TF parked at Gili Gili. With FoW enabled, you would not know about the TF forming in Cairns and attack the much more logical target in Gili Gili.

Because the AI can see the huge convoy in Cairns that has no escorts, it will ALWAYS attack it over the warships located at Gili Gili which shoot back!

As far as the CV results, yes, the AI has stronger aircraft/targetting results at Historical from what I have seen. This is not cheating as such where the game looks ahead and sees where things are etc, it is just an adjustment of the odds to compensate for the fact that you can outthink it.

At higher then historical settings, you'll find that 2-3 A6M2 Zeros on CAP is enough to defeat multiple waves worth of F6F's Trust me, I did some testing, the harder levels ARE harder.

You can take the AI at historical, but you MUST have well rested CAP or they will get through. CAP with fatigue in the 30's will not stop anything and basically commit suicide.

[Flat Top Junkie]

Having FoW disabled causes the AI to have access to too much information, resulting in some really silly results. Perfect example of this is Nells & Betties going all the way to Cains to smash a convoy of ships yet ignoring the tasty TF parked at Gili Gili. With FoW enabled, you would not know about the TF forming in Cairns and attack the much more logical target in Gili Gili.

Sure. Originally I turned off FoW just to 'see' if the 'number of hits to sink' diminished appreciably. But now I'm back to playing with FoW on.

I've noticed the same as you, but there still seems to be more than a fair share of silly combat results, even with FoW on.

Paul S.
Flat Top Junkie

[Veer]

Originally posted by Flat Top Junkie
1) The AI cheats

No doubt about this one in my mind and something that on occassion has spoiled my enjoyment of non-PBeM games.

The Ai dosn't cheat. On "hard" difficulty levels AI planes and ships are harder to kill/sink but that's the only advanatge it gets.

for example (playing Allied), US TF locates IJN carriers and launches strikes first in good weather.

The USN dosn't launch a 'first' strike. Both strikes are launched at the same time. The game simply resolves the USN strike first in the Combat Play.

Two Dauntless formations numbering 30+ dive bombers with escorts fail to score a single hit against 3 IJN flat-tops with 'average' CAP. Although they did stick a bomb into a DD???)

IJN counterstrike of 30 mixed Vals and Kates with a half dozen Zero escorts break through a Wildcat CAP of 25 and inflict a total of 8 torpedo hits on the two US carriers in a single strike. Then, to rub salt into the wounds, 9 Nells from Rabaul fly unescorted through 23 Wildcats and sink the Lady Lex!



Check the experience. IJN pilots have much better experience than USN pilots early on in the game. Esp. torp and dive bombers. Their Avg. Exp is around 80-90 at the begining, corresponding to only 60 for the USN. That accounts for the difference in results you are seeing.



2) Subs need to have the 'intelligence' to shadow a TF once it has been located or attacked. Case in point, if a sub locates a transport convoy then it would basically attack and/or shadow that convoy unless forced to withdraw by the convoys escorts.

I would suggest that once a sub has engaged or located an enemy TF then a 'Shadow' option should be made available so that a TF is not subsequently 'lost'.

The Comp AI does it. Often I have seen AI subs anticipate where I was going to move my TF next turn and place a sub in the same hex. Leaving your subs on Comp control will give them the same advantage. However with the new Patch subs can now attacks ships moving through their hex, so this won't be that much of an issue.

3) Sinking Ships - It often seems to be the case that repeated airstrikes during a 'day' seem to find and bomb the same ship over and over again. With 'Fog of War' turned off, I have seen a single ship take 8 bomb hits in one airstrike and yet still be afloat later in the day when another attack arrives. Does the AI check for a ship sinking at the end of each attack? e.g. HMS Hood (BB) sank in a little over 2 minutes after being critically hit by the Bismark.

The Hood was unlucky, it's very rare to get that sort of result in UV. Yes the AI does check for ships sinking at the end of every turn, not every strike. Single ships are singled out based on target priority. CV's first, BB's next, etc, with a randomizer thrown in for planes which 'got lost' and didn't find their assigned target so simply attacked whatever they could see.

4) Cargo modifying ship damage.

In some cases I've witnessed APs take bomb hit after bomb hit and stay afloat just long enough to unload their cargo. If a loaded troop transport is struck, particularly if a 'critical hit' is determined then the damage should be massive and catestrophic. Secondary explosions from fuel and ammunition usually meant that a single hit was enough to sink the unfortunate transport 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.

I've never seen 'critical hits' amount to much more than 'regular' hits. Their certainly is no 'massive and catestrophic' hits in the game mechanics. I think critical hits simply mean that sys damage is up by between 10-30%.

5) The 'why did you attack *that* scenario'

Many people have already mentioned the bizarre target selection that sometimes seems to go on. It's been well documented so I wont add to the debate other than to say... Argggghhh!

I've been luckier than most in that I havn't noticed all that many strikes doing stupid things. Target selection seems to be well handled in UV. Their is enough variety to account for planes getting lost, incorrect sightings, bad TF commander descisions, etc.

6) Weather

At the start of each turn a wee dialog box tells you that its 'clear' or 'cloudy' or 'thunderstorms'. Where? The South Pacific is a BIG place. It would be really nice to have a weather map of some description unless the suggestion is that the entire South Pacific is only affected by one giant weather system a day that blankets the entire region.

The new patch should give you the weather report of each base hex. Regardless, the way weather works in UV, it does blanket the entire map. Planes flying in thuderstorms will have higher fatigue/OP losses and have greater chance of missing their target even if the weather in their base hex is 'clear'. Warships will suffer greater SYS damage sailing in thuderstorms even if the hex they are in is 'clear'.
I personnely feel there are too many poor weather turns. This is the South Pacific after all - all that Warm Sunshine!

7) Radar - ok, maybe I blinked and missed it, but didnt the Allies makes extensive use of Radar during the Pacific campaign? With CAp being vectored onto incoming IJN airstrikes this should give a significant advantage in response times, initiative and intercept opportunities... may be it does.... enlightment please

Yes, radar does help. It puts up a lot more CAP than otherwise.

8) Sometimes the AI on the friendly side is just too plain stupid. Yes the game relies on the human player to make overall command decisions for each day and then the local commanders respond accordingly, but IMHO the AI needs to be sharpened up to take into account that this was war and targets were prioritised. There should never be a case when airstrikes pass up the chance to strike at enemy flat-tops in favour of going after a minesweeper or a patrol boat.

Never is a strong word. There were plenty of times when targets such were lost or incorrectly sighted, or the planes attacking them were unable to loacte the correct one. UV already gives CV's top priority in naval strikes. What you are seeing is probably just random factors coming into play.

[Flat Top Junkie]

The Ai dosn't cheat. On "hard" difficulty levels AI planes and ships are harder to kill/sink but that's the only advanatge it gets.

I'd have to say my experience is contrary to yours. For example, just yesterday, by some quirk of chance, IJN and US task forces wound up 2 hexes apart, at worst 90 miles. What happens? well, AI running the IJN launches a massive strike at the US fleet that sinks one and badly damages another carrier. The US strike... well, it didnt happen, cancelled due to bad weather!

And one more... US submarines flawlessly sinking IJN DDs with a single torp and then missing unloading AP's with repeated torp attacks??? Doh!

It also never ceases to amaze me how IJN AP's always stay afloat just long enough to unload their troops and then sink the very next turn.

Maybe 'cheat' is to strong a word, maybe it just 'bends the rules'

Check the experience. IJN pilots have much better experience than USN pilots early on in the game. Esp. torp and dive bombers. Their Avg. Exp is around 80-90 at the begining, corresponding to only 60 for the USN. That accounts for the difference in results you are seeing.

Why should IJN pilots have better experience, particularly in naval engagements? It's not like they'd been honing their skills on the rest of the worlds navies is it.

And it doesnt account for why a CAP of 25 Wildcats cant find and shoot down 9 slow moving twin engined bombers. If that is the 'quality' of US naval aviators of the time then you might as well anchor the fleets at Pearl.

The Comp AI does it. Often I have seen AI subs anticipate where I was going to move my TF next turn and place a sub in the same hex. Leaving your subs on Comp control will give them the same advantage. However with the new Patch subs can now attacks ships moving through their hex, so this won't be that much of an issue.

This isnt about subs 'anticipating' a TF's movement, its about a sub 'following' a TF. Example, sub detects IJN carrier battlegroup, currently in UV the likely outcome is an attack by the sub on one of the destroyer escorts (?) and then the following turn the sub will lose contact with the TF. This simply isnt realistic. The sub would always shadow and follow the enemy TF so that it's position could be reported to other friendly forces and would only engage the TF if an opportunity for a torp attack against a capital ship presented itself.

The Hood was unlucky, it's very rare to get that sort of result in UV. Yes the AI does check for ships sinking at the end of every turn, not every strike. Single ships are singled out based on target priority. CV's first, BB's next, etc, with a randomizer thrown in for planes which 'got lost' and didn't find their assigned target so simply attacked whatever they could see.

Then there seem to be 'flaws' in the AI. If an airstrike located a invasion force unloading on short then the priority target would be the transports. Why then do I repeatedly see DD's and other escort vessels being attacked whilst the big juicy AP's sit quietly at anchor unloading?

I've never seen 'critical hits' amount to much more than 'regular' hits. Their certainly is no 'massive and catestrophic' hits in the game mechanics. I think critical hits simply mean that sys damage is up by between 10-30%.

Even in modern (use the Falklands campaign as a guide) conflicts, a single iron bomb has sometimes been enough to break the back and sink a destroyer. A 1000lb penetrating through deck armour and exploding deep in the guts of a transport ship packed with ammo should be enough to sink it. To my mind, a critical hit should be precisely that. That sort of strike doesnt just mess up the ships galley or cause 'sys damage', it rips a gaping hole in the vessels keel and sends it to the bottom.

Yes, radar does help. It puts up a lot more CAP than otherwise.

Like I said, it would be nice if radar allowed allied CAP to intercept IJN airstrikes in hexes other then the hex occupied by the target TF. IJN air formations should have a chance of being disorganised and strikes uncoordinated due to radar vectored intercept.

Never is a strong word. There were plenty of times when targets such were lost or incorrectly sighted, or the planes attacking them were unable to loacte the correct one. UV already gives CV's top priority in naval strikes. What you are seeing is probably just random factors coming into play.

Fair point, but maybe the random factors are a bit too random If combat engagements were really that 'random' in real life then warfare would be a totally lottery.

Good convo though

Paul S.
Flat Top Junkie

[Mr.Frag]

Check the experience. IJN pilots have much better experience than USN pilots early on in the game. Esp. torp and dive bombers. Their Avg. Exp is around 80-90 at the begining, corresponding to only 60 for the USN. That accounts for the difference in results you are seeing.

You thinking of Scenario 19 where Japan pilots have been fed lots of carrots? 17 starts with pretty much identical skills for all starting CV pilots, with Japan's Kate squadrons trailing behind in experience levels.

[Flat Top Junkie]

OK, here's and example of bad AI making for a real Negative Playing Experience (NPE)...

The following after action reports are from a clear day just off Gili-gili during the Battle of Coral Sea when TF201 came across IJN flat-tops crusing in the sunshine... the rest, as they say, is 'questionable'!

(Historical setting)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Basilaki Island at 18,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 13
SBD Dauntless x 61
TBD Devastator x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 19 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 21 damaged
TBD Devastator x 8 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 16 damaged

PO1 N.Kanno of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3

LT K. Okajima of EII-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CV Shokaku
CV Zuikaku
CVL Shoho
DD Shiratsuyu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's nothing, nada, not a sausage in the way of a hit from an attacking force of 85 bombers in good weather!

OK, the 2:1 advantage of Zeros over Wildcats would explain the heavy loses (only 42 SBDs made it through to the ships)

OK, so now for the return strike...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 20,44

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5
D3A Val x 21
B5N Kate x 19

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 22

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 8 destroyed
D3A Val x 14 damaged
B5N Kate x 7 destroyed
B5N Kate x 13 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 destroyed

LTJG J. Adams of VF-42 is credited with kill number 5

LT T. Ichihara of EI-3 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CV Yorktown
DD Phelps
CA Chester
CA New Orleans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've got to be kidding me right??? US CAP has a 4.5:1 advantage over the escorts and doesnt make significant inrodes into the bomber formations and then these guys harried by better AA than then Japs could ever put up put 3 bomb holes in the Lady Lex.

Like I said... the is a big time NPE.

Paul S.
Flat Top Junkie

[CapAndGown]

I imagine Midway was a definite "NPE".

[Veer]

Originally posted by Flat Top Junkie
I'd have to say my experience is contrary to yours. For example, just yesterday, by some quirk of chance, IJN and US task forces wound up 2 hexes apart, at worst 90 miles. What happens? well, AI running the IJN launches a massive strike at the US fleet that sinks one and badly damages another carrier. The US strike... well, it didnt happen, cancelled due to bad weather!

Not getting why this is a 'cheat'? Are you saying this happens to you ALL the time when you play against the AI. It happens to moe occassionaly, and i've seen it happen to the AI too. Nothing to indicate that the AI has an advantage of me.

And one more... US submarines flawlessly sinking IJN DDs with a single torp and then missing unloading AP's with repeated torp attacks??? Doh!

Hey, sh*t happens. I imagine it wouldn't be easy to hit an 'unloading' AP with a torp. How close is the sub going to get to the beach? IJN DDs are vunerable to subs, which is why i don't use them for ASW.

It also never ceases to amaze me how IJN AP's always stay afloat just long enough to unload their troops and then sink the very next turn.

? AP's sink when sys or flt damage hits 100%. Loading or unloading troops dosn't have anything to do with it.

Why should IJN pilots have better experience, particularly in naval engagements? It's not like they'd been honing their skills on the rest of the worlds navies is it.

Why, I don't know. Pearl Harbour maybe? Why do IJN surface ships have better night experience?

And it doesnt account for why a CAP of 25 Wildcats cant find and shoot down 9 slow moving twin engined bombers. If that is the 'quality' of US naval aviators of the time then you might as well anchor the fleets at Pearl.

Leakers will sometimes get through. Remember Midway? Smaller strikes have a better chance at 'sneaking' through than larger one. You just got unlucky.

This isnt about subs 'anticipating' a TF's movement, its about a sub 'following' a TF. Example, sub detects IJN carrier battlegroup, currently in UV the likely outcome is an attack by the sub on one of the destroyer escorts (?) and then the following turn the sub will lose contact with the TF. This simply isnt realistic. The sub would always shadow and follow the enemy TF so that it's position could be reported to other friendly forces and would only engage the TF if an opportunity for a torp attack against a capital ship presented itself.

It's not easy to 'shadow' a fast moving TF. Subs have a max surface speed of what - 12-15 kts? Surface fleets can do 25+ kts.
I've seen subs 'shadow' and follow transport TFs, or TFs which moved slowly - i.e.: Had a sub strike at a TF in one turn, then the same strike at the same TF next turn a few hexes away.
But it's not easy. Even the Germans in the Atlantic could not shadow transports. Esp. the Fast Convoys. They had to get in position before the convoy appeared and ambush it. They didn't have the speed or the endurance to keep up with them.

Then there seem to be 'flaws' in the AI. If an airstrike located a invasion force unloading on short then the priority target would be the transports. Why then do I repeatedly see DD's and other escort vessels being attacked whilst the big juicy AP's sit quietly at anchor unloading?

Is it unloading troops, supplies, or is it simply empty? Is this information you would expect the AI to know. Say invasion AP's were given first priority - would you like your aircraft to go after the APs and leave the enemy carrier TF unattacked?

Anyway, this has been brought up before - the ability to set target priorities. I think they are looking into it for WITP, so may backfit it into UV.


Even in modern (use the Falklands campaign as a guide) conflicts, a single iron bomb has sometimes been enough to break the back and sink a destroyer. A 1000lb penetrating through deck armour and exploding deep in the guts of a transport ship packed with ammo should be enough to sink it. To my mind, a critical hit should be precisely that. That sort of strike doesnt just mess up the ships galley or cause 'sys damage', it rips a gaping hole in the vessels keel and sends it to the bottom.

Yes, agree with you. But in UV the combat damage dosn't work like that. Essentially ships sink ONLY when they reach a SYS or FLT damage of 100. So when a ship takes a hit, even a really bad, horrible hit by a long lance torp, it's damage may only increase by 50-80. You aren't going to get any spectacular sinkings like the 'ood or Fuso in UV. Maybe they should look into that, but i think many players will simply complain even more: "Look my BB was sunk by a single torp! Thats not realistic!!!"


Like I said, it would be nice if radar allowed allied CAP to intercept IJN airstrikes in hexes other then the hex occupied by the target TF. IJN air formations should have a chance of being disorganised and strikes uncoordinated due to radar vectored intercept.

Yes, it would be interesting if we could have ground radar control to vector in squadrons from different bases onto incoming strikes, ala Battle of Britian. However I think the UV system is fine as it is, and i'm not sure what difference in results implementing such a system would make in UV.

Fair point, but maybe the random factors are a bit too random If combat engagements were really that 'random' in real life then warfare would be a totally lottery.

Hey, from what i get, UV is a lot more 'predicatble' than 'real life' was. Take a look at Midway. If those kind of results happened to the IJN player in UV, he would be screaming "BUG BUG"!!!

[Mr.Frag]

Yep, sometimes I think just how spoiled we are ...

This game should really consist of a plotting table, a bunch of coloured pins that you have to stick in, and a very scratchy sound track where all reports come into you...

NOTHING ELSE is permitted, and there is no rewind button for reports No save game, no rest breaks, no potty breaks, you leave the room, too bad, the game keeps going without you

[Flat Top Junkie]

Not getting why this is a 'cheat'? Are you saying this happens to you ALL the time when you play against the AI. It happens to moe occassionaly, and i've seen it happen to the AI too. Nothing to indicate that the AI has an advantage of me.

All the time. On more than one occassion its brought me close to chucking the game back in its box and playing something with a little bit more of a 'level playing field'.

Hey, sh*t happens. I imagine it wouldn't be easy to hit an 'unloading' AP with a torp. How close is the sub going to get to the beach? IJN DDs are vunerable to subs, which is why i don't use them for ASW.

Don't confuse an AP with a landing ship. Any AP is just a big, lumbering transport ship... aka the QE2. They would have to anchor offshore or in a port to unload sometimes utilising smaller boats to actually transfer troops from ship to shore. So a stationary (anchored) whale of a ship should be a sitting duck for a sub.

? AP's sink when sys or flt damage hits 100%. Loading or unloading troops dosn't have anything to do with it.

What I said was that its uncanny how AP's 'always' stay afloat long enough to unload their troops. No matter how many bomb & torp hits they take and I've seen them take plenty (and have checked with FoW turned off to remove erroneous damage reports). Also, if a transport full of troops takes a bomb hit then I would expect casualties in the hundreds and not in single figures.

Leakers will sometimes get through. Remember Midway? Smaller strikes have a better chance at 'sneaking' through than larger one. You just got unlucky.

'Remember Midway' - ok, I'm trying to see the relevance...

We're not talking about 'leakers', we're talking about 9 twin engined bombers, avoiding a CAP of 25 wildcats who's sole task in life is to intercept just those types of threats and who have numerous radar equipped ships to detect incoming aircraft. Not only that but these 9 bombers then avoid a US TF's AA barrage to successfully strike a flat-top.... this isnt a 'leak' its 'amazing stories' stuff!

It's not easy to 'shadow' a fast moving TF. Subs have a max surface speed of what - 12-15 kts? Surface fleets can do 25+ kts.I've seen subs 'shadow' and follow transport TFs, or TFs which moved slowly - i.e.: Had a sub strike at a TF in one turn, then the same strike at the same TF next turn a few hexes away.
But it's not easy. Even the Germans in the Atlantic could not shadow transports. Esp. the Fast Convoys. They had to get in position before the convoy appeared and ambush it. They didn't have the speed or the endurance to keep up with them.

And how often do TF's move flat out? Sure, there are factors involved here, but the option should be available or the AI be more 'realistic'. Remeber if a TF is performing aircraft ops then its got to spend most of the time sailing into the wind if a captain has made a decision to steam off at full speed then he's going to have one helluva job recovering & launching aircraft.

As for the Germans in the Atlantic, the whole 'Wolf Pack' doctrine involved one sub detecting a convoy, shadowing it and setting up an ambush with the rest of the pack.

Is it unloading troops, supplies, or is it simply empty? Is this information you would expect the AI to know. Say invasion AP's were given first priority - would you like your aircraft to go after the APs and leave the enemy carrier TF unattacked?

Of course, the AI has to take into account if a transport is loaded or empty. Generally troop transports in an invasion convoy would carry mixed loads including men, ammunition & fuel so that losing one ship wouldnt rob the invasion force of a particular commodity. So yes, I think the AI should 'know' about an APs loaded condition and adjust bomb damage accordingly. e.g. an AP hasnt got much in the way of 'Sys' to worry about... it's a barge with an engine and a crew of about 20, but a bomb in an ammunition store on deck or in an unarmoured hold will cause catestrophic secondary explosions and damage.

As for your second question... yes, unloading AP's should have a higher priority than an enemy CV. Troops on the ground are notoriously hard to budge, sure the flat-top is a major threat, but is 'easier' to deal with than losing a base and giving the enemy a foothold on land.

As another example, in a surface combat between 2DDs & 4 troop stuffed APs (IJN) versus 2 CAs & 2DDs allied, the allied forces plastered one of the DDs exclusivly (36 shell hits & 3 torp hits) never once firing a shot at one of the transports. This is just plain nuts.

Yes, agree with you. But in UV the combat damage dosn't work like that. Essentially ships sink ONLY when they reach a SYS or FLT damage of 100. So when a ship takes a hit, even a really bad, horrible hit by a long lance torp, it's damage may only increase by 50-80. You aren't going to get any spectacular sinkings like the 'ood or Fuso in UV. Maybe they should look into that, but i think many players will simply complain even more: "Look my BB was sunk by a single torp! Thats not realistic!!!"

Sure, but the balance seems a little off. At the moment there is 'no chance' of a single hit sinking and that seems to me to be just as bad. Actually a single torp sinking of a battleship isnt as 'un-realistic' as you suggest and certainly if a BB gets hit by 2 torps it should go to the bottom more time than not.

Yes, it would be interesting if we could have ground radar control to vector in squadrons from different bases onto incoming strikes, ala Battle of Britian. However I think the UV system is fine as it is, and i'm not sure what difference in results implementing such a system would make in UV.

I suppose its a case of those of us who are looking for UV to be a more realistic simulation/strategy game than just 'a game'. As a Harpoon vet I was hoping for more from UV. All the detail seems to be there and the game is good... but it could be great.

As for radar, more important is the radar present on US CV's which together with air controllers would vector CAP onto incoming strikes.

Hey, from what i get, UV is a lot more 'predicatble' than 'real life' was. Take a look at Midway. If those kind of results happened to the IJN player in UV, he would be screaming "BUG BUG"!!!

LOL! We're back to 'Midway' again... what's with Midway??

IJN plaster Midway Island, then comes the one dodgy 'roll of the dice' when their spotter plane for the zone in which the US TFs are fails to launch on time and when it does find the US carriers then its radio doesnt work.

Remember that the damage caused to the IJN flat-tops by the US strike (3 CVs worth of SBDs) was magnified by the fact that the Jap decks were strewn with bombs as they attempted to re-arm the Kates and Vals after detecting the US ships. If you look at the number of bomb hits that it took to leave the IJN navy burning then it was substantially fewer than 'normal'.

Also the co-ordination, or lack of it, of the US attack actually aided the 'fatal' SBD strike in getting through by dragging off the IJN CAP and dis-organising it. (another thing that I dont see UV doing too much of)

The US torpedo squadron was decimated in the attack (just ask Ensign George Gay who bobbed around in the water until rescued).

Also remember that the IJN did wreck one of the US flat-tops in the counter-strike.

Good here isnt it!

Paul S.
Flat Top Junkie

[Flat Top Junkie]

Yep, sometimes I think just how spoiled we are ...

This game should really consist of a plotting table, a bunch of coloured pins that you have to stick in, and a very scratchy sound track where all reports come into you...

NOTHING ELSE is permitted, and there is no rewind button for reports No save game, no rest breaks, no potty breaks, you leave the room, too bad, the game keeps going without you

LOL!

One serious point though.... 20 years on and with a PC doing all the leg work, I wouldnt expect to be finding that Avalon Hill's masterpiece is, in some cases, more historically accurate, more realistic and more detailed than its modern day counterpart.

UV is a smidge from being a gaming great. Flat Top(tm) already is.

And that was from back in the days when 'saving the game' meant sliding it under the table!!

Paul S.
Flat Top Junkie

[Joel Billings]

Disruption of CAP does happen in the game, it is just hard to see in the game. Currently the number of planes reported as intercepting (in the black box over the map) is disruption adjusted, so that 20 CAP at 25% disruption would show as 15 planes. In the combat animations, the total aircraft involved (20) in the example above, is shown, but they are fighting less effectively. As each wave attacks, the CAP gets increasingly disrupted and is less effective in the game, even though the combat animation number of CAP does not indicate this. The Midway strike can be duplicated in UV, and I've seen many cases of separated strikes resolving like Midway did (first bombers get blasted, follow on bombers get through and do well).

[Grotius]

<< As another example, in a surface combat between 2DDs & 4 troop stuffed APs (IJN) versus 2 CAs & 2DDs allied, the allied forces plastered one of the DDs exclusivly (36 shell hits & 3 torp hits) never once firing a shot at one of the transports. This is just plain nuts. >>

It's not at all nuts. It's quite plausible. The transports move away while the DDs engage the enemy to buy time for the transports. That's what escorts are supposed to do.

In fact, I see nothing implausible in any of the reports you're complaining about. The game is unpredictable, which is one of its best -- and most realistic -- features.

If you think the AI is not giving you a fair game, then start a PBEM. You will quickly find that UV giveth, and it taketh away: each sides suffers unexpected setbacks. But your decisions, and your opponent's, are what make the difference in the long run.

[Flat Top Junkie]

It's not at all nuts. It's quite plausible. The transports move away while the DDs engage the enemy to buy time for the transports. That's what escorts are supposed to do.

In fact, I see nothing implausible in any of the reports you're complaining about. The game is unpredictable, which is one of its best -- and most realistic -- features.

Too unpredictable in some cases.

I also take issue that you seem to confer the AI with ultra-intelligence in some circumstances, "The transports move away while the DDs engage the enemy to buy time for the transports.", in order to justify the result, but no intelligence at all when it suits.

For example in the engagement above, why didnt the Allied ships split, leaving CAs to handle the IJN DDs and sending the DDs to engage the defenceless transports.

or

The transports were unloading troops, i.e. they were at anchor so buying time for them seems irrelevant, if they were at anchor they are unable to maneuvre if they stopped unloading and up-anchored to get away then the number of troops put ashore should have been modified accordingly.

or

After 36 8" shell hits and 3 torpedo hits a DD doesnt sink allowing break-though?

etc.

It seems easier to just say, ah well, its unpredicatble rather than strive to improve the AI. Excessive unpredictability it not realistic. Sure chance always plays a part but what I have seen is repeated results time and time again and not 'one offs'.

[Flat Top Junkie]

Disruption of CAP does happen in the game, it is just hard to see in the game. Currently the number of planes reported as intercepting (in the black box over the map) is disruption adjusted, so that 20 CAP at 25% disruption would show as 15 planes. In the combat animations, the total aircraft involved (20) in the example above, is shown, but they are fighting less effectively. As each wave attacks, the CAP gets increasingly disrupted and is less effective in the game, even though the combat animation number of CAP does not indicate this. The Midway strike can be duplicated in UV, and I've seen many cases of separated strikes resolving like Midway did (first bombers get blasted, follow on bombers get through and do well).

Hey Joel,

Disruption of the attacking formation is equally important.

CAP could be disrupted as you describe by wave attacks at different altitudes, but would be less effected by repeated waves at the same altitude.

e.g. A torpedo attack could drag CAP down to low altitude making it vulnerable to a high altitude dive bombing attack by a following wave.

I would expect to see un-escorted bombers getting mauled to pieces by anything like a decent CAP, particuarly in the case of a US CV TF with radar detection. Under all but the most 'unpredictable' of circumstances, this scenario should be a duck shoot. Then to suggest that level bombers could survive TF AA is also a little incredulous... or maybe that should be 'unpredictable'.

Also, just because UV attacks happen 'one after the other' this shouldnt suggest that they are either a) co-ordinated, b) attacking in waves or that c) CAP hasnt had chance to rotate or land & refuel/rearm.

e.g. with 25 Wildcats available, a 100% CAP would have maybe 12 in the air at any one time, the other 12 being on the deck either at ready status or being turned around. On radar detection of an incoming threat, the ready aircraft would be launched to join the CAP.

The 're-creation' of the 'Midway' scenario would rely on one additional thing that UV doesnt appear to have and that I've mentioned previously, critical damage determination due to ship loading. In this case the IJN CV's taking what would otherwise have been non-catastrophic bomb hits but, due to high explosive bombs & re-arming/fuelling planes all over the decks, instead caused fatal wounds to the IJN flat tops.

It seems that whilst the AI determines 'critical hits' that the effects they have arnt as 'critical' as they should be.

(BTW, do bomb hits to CVs destroy aircraft on the decks and below (i.e. damaged unservicable aircraft?))

regards

[Caltone]

Originally posted by Flat Top Junkie
Too unpredictable in some cases.

I also take issue that you seem to confer the AI with ultra-intelligence in some circumstances, "The transports move away while the DDs engage the enemy to buy time for the transports.", in order to justify the result, but no intelligence at all when it suits.

For example in the engagement above, why didnt the Allied ships split, leaving CAs to handle the IJN DDs and sending the DDs to engage the defenceless transports.

or

The transports were unloading troops, i.e. they were at anchor so buying time for them seems irrelevant, if they were at anchor they are unable to maneuvre if they stopped unloading and up-anchored to get away then the number of troops put ashore should have been modified accordingly.

or

After 36 8" shell hits and 3 torpedo hits a DD doesnt sink allowing break-though?

etc.

It seems easier to just say, ah well, its unpredicatble rather than strive to improve the AI. Excessive unpredictability it not realistic. Sure chance always plays a part but what I have seen is repeated results time and time again and not 'one offs'.

Although I don't play the AI anymore (PBEM is just too addicting) I never found it to cheat. The results in this game vary so much, that play enough games and you will see it all. If you are experiencing a lot one sided results, they will even out as you play more and more. for all of the results you mention, there are many players here, myself included that could attest to opposite results.

Regarding air to air battles and surface battles: Read the text of what's happening. It will take awhile and its tempting to skip through the combat, but the messages are very informative and give you a good sense of what's going on. In your transport TF vs SC TF example, unless those transports were surprised, they were indeed "screened" by thier escorts. The animations are abstract and you are getting a summary of things happening in a 30 mile area.

Regarding play vs the AI: While I don't think it "cheats", the AI does have weaknesses and you will see more of these in the long scenarios. The best games vs the AI are the shorter scenarios where a lot of the AI behavior has been hard coded.

Keep at it, the game is the best of its kind. And switch to PBEM when you can.

[crsutton]

Use of radar should and does depend on the time in the campaign. Allied ships had radar all through the campaign but it really depended on the type and the commander. For example the SC radar found on surface ships was terribly unreliable and when working often gave false reports-confusing commanders even more in night actions. In fact, Admiral Scott (overrated?) at the battle of Tassafaronga, ordered his ships to turn off their SC radar!. He then compounded his error by placing his flag on an older heavy cruiser while ignoring the two new light crusiers in his squadron that had the better and more efficient SG radar. He really did not understand radar-along with most senior naval officers and it cost him a chance to turn a small tactical victory into a smashing defeat for the IJN.

Carrier commanders were much more in tune to radar, but you can forget the notion of vectoring fighters. The American navy was just not very good at that sort of thing in 1942. In fact, American fighter vectoring improved dramatically only after the Victorious joined the fleet for temporary duty, when American commanders impressed by the excellent British system acopted many of the British techniques.