I've read a number of articles resently on Naval search in the Pacific. All of them without fail mention a search direction. For instance during Watchtower PBY and other seach plane only search NW and N from Fiji while those in Noumea, Espiritu etc search W, NW, N. Why because thats where the Japs would be coming from.
It UV you don't have this ability. Why?
I remember playing a different game, WWII - Battles of the South Pacific I beleive that did allow you to set the search direction,
Naval Search Direction
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
-
Chris21wen
- Posts: 7920
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
A lot of things in UV are abstracted as it is supposed to be a game where you play the role of the theater commander with no direct control down to the grunt level. Some things were given most control in the interests of *fun* vs reality.
Setting the search direction while being completely valid in a tatical game is not something a rear commander is going to waste radio space transmitting orders on...
Setting the search direction while being completely valid in a tatical game is not something a rear commander is going to waste radio space transmitting orders on...
The Operational Myth!
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
A lot of things in UV are abstracted as it is supposed to be a game where you play the role of the theater commander with no direct control down to the grunt level. Some things were given most control in the interests of *fun* vs reality.
Setting the search direction while being completely valid in a tatical game is not something a rear commander is going to waste radio space transmitting orders on...
... but specifically setting the altitude of each airgroup in theater is something a rear area commander would waste his time on? I can see Ghormley looking up from a map and asking his aide, what altitude is that Wildcat squadron on Efate flying at today
Too often inconsistencies in our beloved game are glossed over by the "It's an operational level game after all" caveat. If it was truly an operational level game, the player as a theater commander would be relegated to assigning units to specific bases/commanders and managing the supply train. For combat units you would be restricted to issuing general sets of orders and tactical doctrine and then letting the local area commanders carry out your orders as they see fit. We all know that this is not the case so why do we perpetuate the 'operational' myth?
Now before everyone has a fit, I LIKE having tactical level control over my airgroups, UV would be less fun without it. My point is that it is not beyond the pale to ask for this same level of control over patrol a/c search arcs given the altitude setting precedent.
-g
Hey Gus, if you search through my posts you'll see me and quite a few other folks commenting that the altitude setting with planes just doesn't make sense either 
It leads people down the path of thinking tactics, which is bad for the overall plan. They tend to get bogged down in the micro management aspects and forget their objectives
I do agree with you to a certain extent, but if I want to get tactical, I pull out Harpoon or Close Combat, both of which will give you the tactical fix you need.
UV is not tactical and as soon as you slip down that path, you start expecting things and getting frustrated when your tatical plans don't work. When you step back and look at the bigger picture, you come to understand that "You are in command" instead of the "TF commander" because you are smarter then him. He's not always going to make the right choices. All you can do is replace him with another commander. Thats the limit of rear area command. You build the overall plan, commit the proper resources, then delegate to the local commanders and hope they are smart enough to react to tactic situation changes.
You don't look at the little details except as part of computing your master plans. I don't care about the 1st Marines vs a RCT, I care about their assault strength and how many transports it takes to move them and what HQ's need to shift to keep them fighting. It's all in how you look at the big picture. The more you distance yourself from micromanagement, the better you can deal with the overall plan and react to changes without a second thought as you are not in the foxhole with your men.
I'm using UV as a training tool for WitP, when looking at the tactics is just going to reduce you to a babbling wreak
It leads people down the path of thinking tactics, which is bad for the overall plan. They tend to get bogged down in the micro management aspects and forget their objectives
I do agree with you to a certain extent, but if I want to get tactical, I pull out Harpoon or Close Combat, both of which will give you the tactical fix you need.
UV is not tactical and as soon as you slip down that path, you start expecting things and getting frustrated when your tatical plans don't work. When you step back and look at the bigger picture, you come to understand that "You are in command" instead of the "TF commander" because you are smarter then him. He's not always going to make the right choices. All you can do is replace him with another commander. Thats the limit of rear area command. You build the overall plan, commit the proper resources, then delegate to the local commanders and hope they are smart enough to react to tactic situation changes.
You don't look at the little details except as part of computing your master plans. I don't care about the 1st Marines vs a RCT, I care about their assault strength and how many transports it takes to move them and what HQ's need to shift to keep them fighting. It's all in how you look at the big picture. The more you distance yourself from micromanagement, the better you can deal with the overall plan and react to changes without a second thought as you are not in the foxhole with your men.
I'm using UV as a training tool for WitP, when looking at the tactics is just going to reduce you to a babbling wreak
There are many of us on this forum, who believe that you should be able to search in sectors or areas or what ever you want to call it. Apollo is one name that comes to mind in this quest .....we maybe a small group....but we shall have our day!;)
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Doesn't "Carrier Strike" use search vectors? Don't know if its available at Underdogs but its a tactical carrier game. Also Carriers-at-War. I think the ability to set search"sectors" would not be out of line in an operational game.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Oops! Well, meanwhile back at the topic...
I like the direction Gus and Mr. Frag are going here, and have ever since the game first came out. Altitude selection for airgroups cannot, in my estimation, be part of WITP (and shouldn't have been for UV). At the same time, orders for the directions in which naval search is to take place should be. Think of the orders for the "Strawberry" PBYs at Midway. This was all planned at the "theater command" level.
One reason, I think, that Matrix/2by3 have not addressed this is that naval search seems to be effective in the entire 360 degree radius as a result of one of those "design oversimplifications" we all love so much. Search aircraft are far more capable than they ought to be. When you have 12 Mavises at Rabaul seeing everything from Port Moresby to Townsville to southeast of Lunga and picking up submarines north of Shortlands and west of Kavieng, you have planes doing too many things at the same time. Twenty percent of the SBDs on two American carriers are always more than enough to spot anything within 10 hexes in the entire 360 degree circle surrounding their TF.
The "upside" of naval search direction restrictions is that you will have some control over where your search aircraft are going. The "downside" is that you lose this omniscient ability that UV builds into search aircraft. I fully agree that the change ought to be made, but when it is, look out for the "boo birds." A bazillion players are going to be P.O.ed when their naval search planes fail to see a four-carrier TF before it lays waste to their precious flattops.
Even Grigsby's old "War in the South Pacific" game was more realistic than this. Remember? You had to assign air groups on search to a certain direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW) and their search range was limited to the operational range of the type of aircraft involved. The game, in the final analysis, was a little silly, but this (along with visible moving weather fronts and systems) was one of its best features, and one that I have not seen equalled for effective historical simulation.
Let's bring 'er back, I say.
I like the direction Gus and Mr. Frag are going here, and have ever since the game first came out. Altitude selection for airgroups cannot, in my estimation, be part of WITP (and shouldn't have been for UV). At the same time, orders for the directions in which naval search is to take place should be. Think of the orders for the "Strawberry" PBYs at Midway. This was all planned at the "theater command" level.
One reason, I think, that Matrix/2by3 have not addressed this is that naval search seems to be effective in the entire 360 degree radius as a result of one of those "design oversimplifications" we all love so much. Search aircraft are far more capable than they ought to be. When you have 12 Mavises at Rabaul seeing everything from Port Moresby to Townsville to southeast of Lunga and picking up submarines north of Shortlands and west of Kavieng, you have planes doing too many things at the same time. Twenty percent of the SBDs on two American carriers are always more than enough to spot anything within 10 hexes in the entire 360 degree circle surrounding their TF.
The "upside" of naval search direction restrictions is that you will have some control over where your search aircraft are going. The "downside" is that you lose this omniscient ability that UV builds into search aircraft. I fully agree that the change ought to be made, but when it is, look out for the "boo birds." A bazillion players are going to be P.O.ed when their naval search planes fail to see a four-carrier TF before it lays waste to their precious flattops.
Even Grigsby's old "War in the South Pacific" game was more realistic than this. Remember? You had to assign air groups on search to a certain direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, or NW) and their search range was limited to the operational range of the type of aircraft involved. The game, in the final analysis, was a little silly, but this (along with visible moving weather fronts and systems) was one of its best features, and one that I have not seen equalled for effective historical simulation.
Let's bring 'er back, I say.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
I agree that search aircraft are way too effective in UV.
Those Mavis's know what colour underwear Admiral Spruance is wearing in Noumea for gosh sake.
Matrix probably did make scouting too effective anticipating the bitching that would go in if enemy taskforces were not sighted.
A mistake in my view.
I remember a scene in Tora Tora Tora where intelligence were anticipating a Japanese strike and advising Kimmel to arrange a 360 degree scouting force of 180 ( ! ) B17's for Pearl Harbor.
180 being the number considered necessary for a thorough search.
Those Mavis's know what colour underwear Admiral Spruance is wearing in Noumea for gosh sake.
Matrix probably did make scouting too effective anticipating the bitching that would go in if enemy taskforces were not sighted.
A mistake in my view.
I remember a scene in Tora Tora Tora where intelligence were anticipating a Japanese strike and advising Kimmel to arrange a 360 degree scouting force of 180 ( ! ) B17's for Pearl Harbor.
180 being the number considered necessary for a thorough search.
Never give up, never surrender
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 5086
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
IIRC this topic has been brought up several times already? I consider myself part of the 'small group' lobbying for player-controlled naval search. I think naval search wasn't left to subordinate commanders alone (local ASW perhaps, but not strategic recon). Those guys carried out orders according to the overall strategic and operational plans, which probably coordinated search missions with high-level intel - therefore a player-controlled search option seems valid to me.
Anyway, I've always been impressed by the search function in the 'Burning Steel-Great Naval Battles' series, where you either could assign the number of planes and the search sector yourself or leave it to computer control. Unfortunately you had to do the manual settings each day again and again, so some kind of 'standing orders' would have been better.
Just my 0.02 Euro-Cents...
Anyway, I've always been impressed by the search function in the 'Burning Steel-Great Naval Battles' series, where you either could assign the number of planes and the search sector yourself or leave it to computer control. Unfortunately you had to do the manual settings each day again and again, so some kind of 'standing orders' would have been better.
Just my 0.02 Euro-Cents...
Re: Naval Search Direction
Hi all,
You can read about my proposal (thread name):
Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"
at:
showthread.php?s=&threadid=30931
and:
showthread.php?s=&threadid=36727
Leo "Apollo11"
Yes... for some of us this remains big hope in UV (and WitP)...Originally posted by Chris H
I've read a number of articles resently on Naval search in the Pacific. All of them without fail mention a search direction. For instance during Watchtower PBY and other seach plane only search NW and N from Fiji while those in Noumea, Espiritu etc search W, NW, N. Why because thats where the Japs would be coming from.
It UV you don't have this ability. Why?
I remember playing a different game, WWII - Battles of the South Pacific I beleive that did allow you to set the search direction,
You can read about my proposal (thread name):
Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"
at:
showthread.php?s=&threadid=30931
and:
showthread.php?s=&threadid=36727
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
-
Chris21wen
- Posts: 7920
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
A lot of things in UV are abstracted as it is supposed to be a game where you play the role of the theater commander with no direct control down to the grunt level. Some things were given most control in the interests of *fun* vs reality.
Were does operational level end and tactical level begin? The following extracts were taken from this web page.
[URL=http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/guadc/GC-02.htm[/URL]
‘Admiral Ghormley issued his Operation Plan No. 1-42 on 16 July 1942. It was to govern the execution of Task One which was to be divided into three phases. The first would be a rehearsal in the Fiji Islands; the second would be the seizure and occupation of Tulagi and Guadalcanal. The projected occupation of Ndeni in the Santa Cruz Islands would be the third and final phase. Operation Plan No. 1-42 organized two forces, Task Forces 61 and 63….. Task Force 63, consisted of all the Allied land-based aircraft in the South Pacific under Admiral McCain.
….The land-based aircraft of Task Force 63 were to support and cover the movements of the Expeditionary Force, arrange special missions at the request of Task Force 61, and carry out their regular scouting missions. …
Toward the end of July, when Admiral McCain's tactical plan for Task Force 63 was completed, South Pacific air strength had increased and the air bases had been improved. …
Admiral McCain issued his orders on 25 July. He divided Task Force 63 into seven task groups.
• One group, consisting of the 69th (Army) Bombardment Squadron, the 67th (Army) Fighter Squadron, a New Zealand Air Force Hudson Squadron, and two PBY's, was to scout over 400-mile sectors from New Caledonia.
• A second group, consisting of the 11th (Army) Heavy Bombardment Group, to be based on New Caledonia, Efate, Espiritu Santo, and the Fijis, was to scout between New Caledonia and the Solomons and over and west of the Solomons. It was this group which carried out bombing attacks on Guadalcanal and Tulagi prior to D Day.
• The third group, consisting of the seaplane tender Curtiss and attached patrol planes, was to move part of its patrol planes to Espiritu Santo. Beginning on D minus 2 the planes based in Espiritu Santo were to search both east and west of the Solomons, while the remaining patrol planes moved from Noumea to Ndeni and Espiritu Santo.
• The fourth group, composed of the seaplane tender MacFarland and attached patrol bombers, was to move to Ndeni to inaugurate the air searches northeast of the Solomons on D minus 1.
• The fifth, composed of the seaplane tender Mackinac and attached patrol planes, was to proceed to the east coast of Malaita on D minus 3.
• The sixth group, consisting of Marine Fighting Squadron 212 and Scouting Squadron D-14, was to send three scouts to Espiritu Santo, and to aid the bombardment effort from Efate.
• The final group, consisting of Marine Observation Squadron 251, was to assist the bombardment effort from Espiritu Santo.
The air searches of Task Force 63 would thus cover the general area between New Caledonia and the Solomons, over the Solomons, east to Ndeni, and south to the Fijis. General MacArthur agreed to have Southwest Pacific air forces patrol the northern and western approaches to the Solomons during Task One. …’
It talks about Adm McCain’s tactical plan but he was in Noumea 850 miles away from the action. To me that makes him a rear commander. Further his plan was made two weeks prior to the operation, copies being sent to all concerned. I doubt this would be considered a waste of time.
Another point to note is that he does not mention search heights, so although the individual commanders had instructions to search specific sectors, height would have been left to the commander.
Well a few points.
First off, I LIKE being able to set the altitude of my aircraft, and would NOT like to see this feature removed. How about we just concentrate of getting the search direction fixed?
Second point....although I do support more player input to the search (be it sectors or whatever) I would dissagree with what has been said by some posters that the search is too effective in UV as it currently stands. I play mainly as the Allies, I have had Jap TFs turn up in the most extrodinary places without me having a clue that they were there. Drongo and Luskan have both done this to me many times....even with all my Cats searching for them.
It is not that the current searching in UV is too effective, it is that the search methods are too hap harzard in my view.
First off, I LIKE being able to set the altitude of my aircraft, and would NOT like to see this feature removed. How about we just concentrate of getting the search direction fixed?
Second point....although I do support more player input to the search (be it sectors or whatever) I would dissagree with what has been said by some posters that the search is too effective in UV as it currently stands. I play mainly as the Allies, I have had Jap TFs turn up in the most extrodinary places without me having a clue that they were there. Drongo and Luskan have both done this to me many times....even with all my Cats searching for them.
It is not that the current searching in UV is too effective, it is that the search methods are too hap harzard in my view.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
demonterico
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am
- Location: Seattle WA
Seems to me a theater commander can issue orders concerning any dang thing he wants to. He is the boss, ain't he? Heck when I was in boot camp there were standing orders for how our shoe laces were to be tied. So why wouldn't a theater commander take an interest in search directions if he felt it was appropriate?
Frankly I like games that offer players the option to do things either way, like sub ops are handled in UV. This way the person can decide to let the computer run the operations, or he can handle it manually. I would prefer if air search in UV, and hopefully in WITP, were handled in this manner.
In the end there will never be complete agreement amongst the participants on the accuracy of simulation games as this is a very subjective subject. Thats not to say that these opinions should not be expressed, as this is the best road to finding the "perfect" wargame. It also makes for very interesting reading. In the end I'm just dang happy to have a game as good as UV.
Frankly I like games that offer players the option to do things either way, like sub ops are handled in UV. This way the person can decide to let the computer run the operations, or he can handle it manually. I would prefer if air search in UV, and hopefully in WITP, were handled in this manner.
In the end there will never be complete agreement amongst the participants on the accuracy of simulation games as this is a very subjective subject. Thats not to say that these opinions should not be expressed, as this is the best road to finding the "perfect" wargame. It also makes for very interesting reading. In the end I'm just dang happy to have a game as good as UV.
The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan
Re: The Operational Myth!
Originally posted by gus
... but specifically setting the altitude of each airgroup in theater is something a rear area commander would waste his time on? I can see Ghormley looking up from a map and asking his aide, what altitude is that Wildcat squadron on Efate flying at today
Too often inconsistencies in our beloved game are glossed over by the "It's an operational level game after all" caveat. If it was truly an operational level game, the player as a theater commander would be relegated to assigning units to specific bases/commanders and managing the supply train. For combat units you would be restricted to issuing general sets of orders and tactical doctrine and then letting the local area commanders carry out your orders as they see fit. We all know that this is not the case so why do we perpetuate the 'operational' myth?
Now before everyone has a fit, I LIKE having tactical level control over my airgroups, UV would be less fun without it. My point is that it is not beyond the pale to ask for this same level of control over patrol a/c search arcs given the altitude setting precedent.
-g
I totally agree. Why dont they just give us the option to have more control in certain aspects and if people dont like it they can just leave it alone and the computer can make the decisions. Sort of like an auto-computer take over button or something.
ooops looks like we had the same idea
demonterico
Matrix Trooper
Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 70
Seems to me a theater commander can issue orders concerning any dang thing he wants to. He is the boss, ain't he? Heck when I was in boot camp there were standing orders for how our shoe laces were to be tied. So why wouldn't a theater commander take an interest in search directions if he felt it was appropriate?
Frankly I like games that offer players the option to do things either way, like sub ops are handled in UV. This way the person can decide to let the computer run the operations, or he can handle it manually. I would prefer if air search in UV, and hopefully in WITP, were handled in this manner.
In the end there will never be complete agreement amongst the participants on the accuracy of simulation games as this is a very subjective subject. Thats not to say that these opinions should not be expressed, as this is the best road to finding the "perfect" wargame. It also makes for very interesting reading. In the end I'm just dang happy to have a game as good as UV.
Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!
https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=413785
-
juliet7bravo
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am
Well, IMO the single glaring flaw in UV (and probably WiTP) is the failure of Matrix/GG to understand and differentiate between strategy, operations, and tactics. Of course, in the WW2 era of kludgy radar, long range recon (and sometimes bonehead pilots), TBS, long range commo, impatient bosses in the rear, the occasional inexplicable and mind-boggling delay in decryption/delivery of messages, and sometimes exceptionally stupid leadership, the differences weren't exactly always clear-cut.
What we got in UV, is the worst of all three, in a random, frustrating, and sometimes counter-productive mishmash. But a pure "strategic level game", it ain't...and can't ever be. So I wish they'd get over it, and give us the tools we need.
What we got in UV, is the worst of all three, in a random, frustrating, and sometimes counter-productive mishmash. But a pure "strategic level game", it ain't...and can't ever be. So I wish they'd get over it, and give us the tools we need.