Naval Air Strike Priorities

CommC · Post by **CommC** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 7:17 am

thats why we should have both modes.... or at least a compromise of some sort that would let the players execute their battle plan strategies by choosing what their airgroups attack.

Snigbert · Post by **Snigbert** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:52 pm

I think this is a good idea in theory, but I am afraid of the thought of adding another layer of management which will have to be set 'just so' for every air group to get the results you want. The kinds of problems it would be solving, like Bettys and Nells attacking the lone MSW or SC I can live with, if the alternative winds up being an even more complicated air combat system. Keep in mind the scope of the game when you make requests that add levels of micromanagement...

CommC · Post by **CommC** » Sun Jul 13, 2003 1:16 am

Well, I've already commented above on my view about whether this is micromangeement, i.e. I think designating air attacks on naval targets is an essential part of carrying out the battle plan.

However, I concede defeat in that in a long strategy game like this, a real time mode is simply not practical. Its just too much to try to do in such a long a detailed game.

The real time designation of targets would be a different game, or perhaps a very short scenario which has a carrier battle in it, maybe two weeks in length max. I think this mode would be fun and satisfying, but it would not be UV or WITP as we know it.

In the current concept of WITP, we need less detail and more of the AI commanders making battle and targeting decisions. All we can do is direct the main strategy by putting forces generally where we want them. If anything, the feature we need to be pleading for is a more general summary of the battles.... if we are examining each plane and man lost, thats going to make the game too long and essentially unplayable for most of us.

We also need a quicker way to issue orders.... point and click once, etc, not layers of complex menu screens everytime we want a TF to move from hex A to hex B.

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:21 am

Originally posted by Snigbert
I think this is a good idea in theory, but I am afraid of the thought of adding another layer of management which will have to be set 'just so' for every air group to get the results you want. The kinds of problems it would be solving, like Bettys and Nells attacking the lone MSW or SC I can live with, if the alternative winds up being an even more complicated air combat system. Keep in mind the scope of the game when you make requests that add levels of micromanagement...

Matt. I believe a target priority menu is vital. I also see no problem with it. Right now we have control over altitude, CAP, mission type etc, some of which are much less important and have more to do with the unit CO than the theatre CO (we players) than target priority and selection. A simple binary type yes/no menu for air units (or perhaps bases only with the air units stationed there conforming to base restrictions, most likely a needed "simplification" for WITP) would do the trick. Let's face it, the AI is next to useless as either an opponent or a subordinate. Like a child, it has to be given limits and guidelines or all hell breaks loose.

An example is readily available in our game. Half the time I have to stand down my bombers on Lunga to keep them from getting cut to pieces by your CV TFs, which they have attacked a few times (got lucky with that torp hit on Hornet ...or did I?) instead of blasting your transports at Irau, a closer, more vulnerable, and more important target than CVs at this juncture. A simple yes/no selection toggle would alleviate this. What is so strange by having the theatre commander ring the Lunga base commander and order him to blockade Irau by air and ignore CVs? The co's rating could determine how well these order are followed, but right now, one has to hope the hex your CVs are in is socked in by squalls or bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, well trained air groups are thrown into the sawmill by the friggin' AI subordinate!

Another example in our game is Nells and Bettys on Lunga. Put them on naval strike and voila, into the grinder they go (CAP heavy bases with TFs) instead of dominating the sea within their range) despite Matrix's/2by3's best efforts to keep the friggin' AI from doing just this. Provide a priority or do/don't do list and this at least will give the player the tools to deal with the friendly AI and possibly solve the problem. Why not let players set the base/CV TF parameters and have the leader's ratings affect the execution rather than tackling the problem by coding it is beyond me. I don't see a use for HQ leader ratings otherwise.

I should probably have posted this in the dev section. Too big to rewrite.

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:38 am

I have no problem with micromanagement that accomplishes something...unlike quite a bit of the pointless micromanagement you're forced to do in UV due to a kludgy interface or someones vague and basically wrong understanding of what "strategic control" is.

"Like a child, it has to be given limits and guidelines or all hell breaks loose."

Exactly. This would also be micromanagment that you'd have to do ONCE, at games start. Any changes as the game progressed would be to specific units/bases, done in response to local conditions, or major shifts in the strategic conditions, ie. you've gained total air superiority due to the numbers/quality of your aircraft. What's more, if you didn't like it, and think it's just pointless micromanagment, then you could just leave it defaulted to the initial setup...then everyone's happy.