Hi, Tell me what you think of carrier battles in UV.
(you can pick more then one)
Carrier battles in UV
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Carrier battles in UV
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
HMSWarspite
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
Midway
The thing with Midway that never gets mentioned is this: If you run May/June 1942 100 times (in RL using some sort of alternative universes), how often does Midway happen with a 4:1 result? People cite it as if it was inevitable, and hence any game that doesn't have it happening regularly is flawed. Even with the Allied strategic advantage, I think Midway was a 1 in lots (don't know how many, more than 10, less than 1000) event. There are many points where tiny (and entirely plausible) changes can affect things. IJN doesn't rearm for 2nd Midway strike, USN doesn't get strikes split in just the right way for unopposed DB attack, weather, search planes etc etc. I think the 'normal' Midway might be 2:2, or maybe 2:1 (pro US), but could easily be 1:2 (or 3) pro IJN. I thing the system should reflect this, say 80% of all Midways come out in the range 3:1>2:2>1:2, with less than 20% (total) coming out 4:0, 4:1, or 0:3, etc. Thus 80% of battles 'wouldn't do Midway properly, a further say 10% do it wrong (IJN wins), and 10% or less get close to the real thing. I do hope WitP is like this!
The thing about Midway is it accelerated the inevitable loss of IJN carriers, the IJN cannot afford to lose fleet carriers full stop, USN ones only set the timing of the war, not the result.
The thing about Midway is it accelerated the inevitable loss of IJN carriers, the IJN cannot afford to lose fleet carriers full stop, USN ones only set the timing of the war, not the result.
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
HI Mogami,
What mostly affected my CV battles is not in the in the poll. It's ...what happened the day before the battle!
When my( or his, it happened also to my opponents ) CV TF is heading for the battle and just meet a transportTF or a surfaceTF my CV usually make a full strike taking losses and fatigue.Then, my terrific weapons are turned into pumpkins for one or two days and are easy targets for the comming ennemy TF.
So ,I'm now trying to play in an other way to avoid this.I send a lot of Tf one day ahead from my CV Tf for recon purpose, and if I see an ennemy transport or a Sc Tf ...I withdraw! I also take care to be out of range of ennemy ports: out of the range of my own planes!I don't care a lot about ennemy planes ,my worst ennemies are my own pilots and their suicidal tendencies.If the Vals and Dauntless had a range of 15 hex ,the game would be unplayable.
Of course all this is gamey and I would like to play in a more historical way, so if you can guive some advices...thanks!
I asked in this forum for a kind of target priority or something like that ( an "attack CVTF only "order) . But I'm affraid witp will still have the same problem. Some would say it's micro management but altitude setting is already micro,micro management.
Speaking about altitude, does it affect the result of your CV battles so much?
What mostly affected my CV battles is not in the in the poll. It's ...what happened the day before the battle!
When my( or his, it happened also to my opponents ) CV TF is heading for the battle and just meet a transportTF or a surfaceTF my CV usually make a full strike taking losses and fatigue.Then, my terrific weapons are turned into pumpkins for one or two days and are easy targets for the comming ennemy TF.
So ,I'm now trying to play in an other way to avoid this.I send a lot of Tf one day ahead from my CV Tf for recon purpose, and if I see an ennemy transport or a Sc Tf ...I withdraw! I also take care to be out of range of ennemy ports: out of the range of my own planes!I don't care a lot about ennemy planes ,my worst ennemies are my own pilots and their suicidal tendencies.If the Vals and Dauntless had a range of 15 hex ,the game would be unplayable.
Of course all this is gamey and I would like to play in a more historical way, so if you can guive some advices...thanks!
I asked in this forum for a kind of target priority or something like that ( an "attack CVTF only "order) . But I'm affraid witp will still have the same problem. Some would say it's micro management but altitude setting is already micro,micro management.
Speaking about altitude, does it affect the result of your CV battles so much?
Picked "Never can tell..."
To me it seems like the battles are too decisive/devastating. Yeah, there is Midway, but other than that one were there ever any even-up matches where one side totally killed the other? This seems to happen in my games. Perhaps it is not the game system but the way we play the game. Additionally, since I have only played scenario 17 and 19 since starting to PBEM it might have something to do with it.
In general, since I never can tell who will win, it makes the game exciting.
To me it seems like the battles are too decisive/devastating. Yeah, there is Midway, but other than that one were there ever any even-up matches where one side totally killed the other? This seems to happen in my games. Perhaps it is not the game system but the way we play the game. Additionally, since I have only played scenario 17 and 19 since starting to PBEM it might have something to do with it.
In general, since I never can tell who will win, it makes the game exciting.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
This is a very good point. I also hope WITP has a priority system to prevent this. Every major carrier battle I have lost this has played a major part. My planes will attack transport and surface fleets by themselves or my planes will avoid carriers and attack transport and surface fleets when they are all around. My opponents wait on this and then strike. While their planes are at full capacity mine are depleted and exhausted. A priority system would be a great way to prevent this!Angel wrote:HI Mogami,
What mostly affected my CV battles is not in the in the poll. It's ...what happened the day before the battle!
When my( or his, it happened also to my opponents ) CV TF is heading for the battle and just meet a transportTF or a surfaceTF my CV usually make a full strike taking losses and fatigue.Then, my terrific weapons are turned into pumpkins for one or two days and are easy targets for the comming ennemy TF.
So ,I'm now trying to play in an other way to avoid this.I send a lot of Tf one day ahead from my CV Tf for recon purpose, and if I see an ennemy transport or a Sc Tf ...I withdraw! I also take care to be out of range of ennemy ports: out of the range of my own planes!I don't care a lot about ennemy planes ,my worst ennemies are my own pilots and their suicidal tendencies.If the Vals and Dauntless had a range of 15 hex ,the game would be unplayable.
Of course all this is gamey and I would like to play in a more historical way, so if you can guive some advices...thanks!
I asked in this forum for a kind of target priority or something like that ( an "attack CVTF only "order) . But I'm affraid witp will still have the same problem. Some would say it's micro management but altitude setting is already micro,micro management.
Speaking about altitude, does it affect the result of your CV battles so much?
Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!
https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 9f17441266
Tanaka wrote:This is a very good point. I also hope WITP has a priority system to prevent this. Every major carrier battle I have lost this has played a major part. My planes will attack transport and surface fleets by themselves or my planes will avoid carriers and attack transport and surface fleets when they are all around. My opponents wait on this and then strike. While their planes are at full capacity mine are depleted and exhausted. A priority system would be a great way to prevent this!
Yes, I agree and this has at times caused me much woe--but the issue is, of course, the ability to micromanage a battle too much.
Already there are players who will use decoys and such to create gamey situations that give them an advantage in battle. It would be nice to find a way to eliminate some of these gamey practices without changing the unpredictable nature of carrier battles.
Historically, there were foul up and planes attacked minor targets by mistake. (remember the Coral Sea) and this should be a part of the game. However, there is room to tweak it a bit. For example 80 planes attacking a ML while ignoring a large transport fleet. There should be a level of priority selection with carriers getting the highest priority but the decision should be with the AI and the TF commander, not the human players. And there should be mistakes made, depending on factors such as fweather, fatigue and experience of searching pilots, distance to targets and such.
I want the AI to act logically but only withing the realm of a real world situation where sometimes the right seeming decision is not the best. (Nagumo's decision to hit Midway a second time is a perfect example-It was the right decision based on the intellegence that he had at the time.) Actually, the game makers have done an incredible job of simulating this, but with experience all good gamers will find holes to exploit. I think that is just as much of a problem as a faulty AI (not to say the AI could not use some work)
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
I voted for "never can tell".
In two Scen 19 PBEM games against different opponents as the USN I've fought the "Battle of the Coral Sea" twice along with a second Battle of the Coral Sea and one additional carrier fight near San Cristobal.
In both Coral Sea I's the USN lost one carrier sunk immediately and the Japanese had a heavy carrier seriously damaged which was finished off by LBA: in one case the next day in the open sea and in the other in Gili Gili port about 3 days later. In my second run through the Coral Sea the Japanese also had the Shoho seriously damaged but she is at present still apparently afloat somewhere in the Coral Sea near Gili Gili and may escape. In both games the USN carriers were divided into 2 ten ship TFs with one carrier and 4 cruisers in each. The Japanese were in one TF with all their carriers in game 1 and in 2 TFs in game 2 with the Shoho and Shokaku in one TF and Zuikaku in the other.
In both games the Japanese attacks consisted of roughly 60 bomber types directed at one of my CVs in the morning phase and one or more very weak raids going after the other in the afternoon.
In Game 1 the USN morning raids were one by 4 of the six attack squadrons with the other 2 (1SBD, 1TBD) following. It was a while back but I think the smaller force did most of the damage to the CV that ultimately sank. In any case all my squadrons were fresh.
In Game 2 it was the Shokaku/Shoho force that got tagged in the morning with only one afternoon strike by around 15 SBDs being directed at Zuikaku. My squadrons in that fight had spent the previous 2 days bombing transports (while the Japanese carriers desperately strove to get out from under the rain - they were in range but prepetually under a cloud). So they were pretty fresh when they went after Lexington. In the afternoon phase though the IJN could only manage two raids of around 10 Vals each (one of which came from Lae and I guess was made by refugees from Shokaku).
In Game 1 there was a Second Coral Sea. After refurbishing my squadrons of attack planes after "Coral Sea I" I sent my remaining carrier up along the Australian coast UNDETECTED. My opponent had spent at least a week running LRCAP over Port Moresby with the bulk of his fighters from Shokaku and Shoho. His CAP over his carriers was a mere 8 Zeroes (musta been fatigued too) when my strike arrived with 10 or so F4F3s, 30 SBDs and 10 TBDs. Don't tell me that doesn't sound beautimous. Well - it wasn't: one bomb hit each on Shoho and Shokaku. Shoho may have been rendered incapable of flight ops but Shokaku put up a counterstrike in the afternoon phase which fortunately was even less effective. My afternoon strike, made with half as many planes as the morning strike, accomplished nothing. The next day he ran North, I ran South (hardly any attack planes undamaged) ending the Second Coral Sea.
Finally in Game 1, there was a one sided fight off San Cristobal between 4 US CVs and about 4-5 IJN CVs and 2-3 CVLs. Pride goeth before the fall. I had pulled off a minor Pearl Harbor on Tulagi catching some BBs and cruisers lounging around the day before the fight and had made no sightings of CVs anywhere around so I decided to hang around to bomb the BBs some more. BIG OOPS. Most of my planes did go after a BB rather than the carriers which were detected that next day. One strike went after Ryuho or Ryujo and damaged it but I lost Hornet and Lexington. _ _ . . _ _ I suppose it coulda been a fair fight IF my carriers had selected the enemy CVs/CVLs as targets instead. As it was it was IJN all the way.
In two Scen 19 PBEM games against different opponents as the USN I've fought the "Battle of the Coral Sea" twice along with a second Battle of the Coral Sea and one additional carrier fight near San Cristobal.
In both Coral Sea I's the USN lost one carrier sunk immediately and the Japanese had a heavy carrier seriously damaged which was finished off by LBA: in one case the next day in the open sea and in the other in Gili Gili port about 3 days later. In my second run through the Coral Sea the Japanese also had the Shoho seriously damaged but she is at present still apparently afloat somewhere in the Coral Sea near Gili Gili and may escape. In both games the USN carriers were divided into 2 ten ship TFs with one carrier and 4 cruisers in each. The Japanese were in one TF with all their carriers in game 1 and in 2 TFs in game 2 with the Shoho and Shokaku in one TF and Zuikaku in the other.
In both games the Japanese attacks consisted of roughly 60 bomber types directed at one of my CVs in the morning phase and one or more very weak raids going after the other in the afternoon.
In Game 1 the USN morning raids were one by 4 of the six attack squadrons with the other 2 (1SBD, 1TBD) following. It was a while back but I think the smaller force did most of the damage to the CV that ultimately sank. In any case all my squadrons were fresh.
In Game 2 it was the Shokaku/Shoho force that got tagged in the morning with only one afternoon strike by around 15 SBDs being directed at Zuikaku. My squadrons in that fight had spent the previous 2 days bombing transports (while the Japanese carriers desperately strove to get out from under the rain - they were in range but prepetually under a cloud). So they were pretty fresh when they went after Lexington. In the afternoon phase though the IJN could only manage two raids of around 10 Vals each (one of which came from Lae and I guess was made by refugees from Shokaku).
In Game 1 there was a Second Coral Sea. After refurbishing my squadrons of attack planes after "Coral Sea I" I sent my remaining carrier up along the Australian coast UNDETECTED. My opponent had spent at least a week running LRCAP over Port Moresby with the bulk of his fighters from Shokaku and Shoho. His CAP over his carriers was a mere 8 Zeroes (musta been fatigued too) when my strike arrived with 10 or so F4F3s, 30 SBDs and 10 TBDs. Don't tell me that doesn't sound beautimous. Well - it wasn't: one bomb hit each on Shoho and Shokaku. Shoho may have been rendered incapable of flight ops but Shokaku put up a counterstrike in the afternoon phase which fortunately was even less effective. My afternoon strike, made with half as many planes as the morning strike, accomplished nothing. The next day he ran North, I ran South (hardly any attack planes undamaged) ending the Second Coral Sea.
Finally in Game 1, there was a one sided fight off San Cristobal between 4 US CVs and about 4-5 IJN CVs and 2-3 CVLs. Pride goeth before the fall. I had pulled off a minor Pearl Harbor on Tulagi catching some BBs and cruisers lounging around the day before the fight and had made no sightings of CVs anywhere around so I decided to hang around to bomb the BBs some more. BIG OOPS. Most of my planes did go after a BB rather than the carriers which were detected that next day. One strike went after Ryuho or Ryujo and damaged it but I lost Hornet and Lexington. _ _ . . _ _ I suppose it coulda been a fair fight IF my carriers had selected the enemy CVs/CVLs as targets instead. As it was it was IJN all the way.
I picked never can tell.
I've only had 1 even up carrier battle. In my first PBEM game Scen 17 playing IJN our "Coral Sea" was fought off Efate. Result I lost Zuikaku and USN lost Yorktown with Lex beat up. My air groups were creamed. Pretty historic.
I did manage to sink all the other USN CVs later but that was mostly because I managed to surprise them.
In my second game the USN has managed to beat through my CAP with detached carrier sqns based at GG and plant bombs on Kaga. I returned the favor with a Val strike on Noumea that put a couple CVs out of the war. We have been playing Cat and Mouse recently with neither side willing to go out from under the LBA umbrella into the opponent's.
Quark
I've only had 1 even up carrier battle. In my first PBEM game Scen 17 playing IJN our "Coral Sea" was fought off Efate. Result I lost Zuikaku and USN lost Yorktown with Lex beat up. My air groups were creamed. Pretty historic.
I did manage to sink all the other USN CVs later but that was mostly because I managed to surprise them.
In my second game the USN has managed to beat through my CAP with detached carrier sqns based at GG and plant bombs on Kaga. I returned the favor with a Val strike on Noumea that put a couple CVs out of the war. We have been playing Cat and Mouse recently with neither side willing to go out from under the LBA umbrella into the opponent's.
Quark
I voted 'never can tell'. But with reference to the above, there is an excellent book 'Why the Allies Won' by Richard Overy which attempts to explode the myth that Allied victory in WW2 was inevitable. Includes a section on Midway - an American victory because they happened to have a few bombers attacking successfully at a fortuitous moment.HMSWarspite wrote:The thing with Midway that never gets mentioned is this: If you run May/June 1942 100 times (in RL using some sort of alternative universes), how often does Midway happen with a 4:1 result? People cite it as if it was inevitable, and hence any game that doesn't have it happening regularly is flawed. Even with the Allied strategic advantage, I think Midway was a 1 in lots (don't know how many, more than 10, less than 1000) event. There are many points where tiny (and entirely plausible) changes can affect things. IJN doesn't rearm for 2nd Midway strike, USN doesn't get strikes split in just the right way for unopposed DB attack, weather, search planes etc etc. I think the 'normal' Midway might be 2:2, or maybe 2:1 (pro US), but could easily be 1:2 (or 3) pro IJN. I thing the system should reflect this, say 80% of all Midways come out in the range 3:1>2:2>1:2, with less than 20% (total) coming out 4:0, 4:1, or 0:3, etc. Thus 80% of battles 'wouldn't do Midway properly, a further say 10% do it wrong (IJN wins), and 10% or less get close to the real thing. I do hope WitP is like this!
The thing about Midway is it accelerated the inevitable loss of IJN carriers, the IJN cannot afford to lose fleet carriers full stop, USN ones only set the timing of the war, not the result.
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
-
HMSWarspite
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
Kevinugly wrote:I voted 'never can tell'. But with reference to the above, there is an excellent book 'Why the Allies Won' by Richard Overy which attempts to explode the myth that Allied victory in WW2 was inevitable. Includes a section on Midway - an American victory because they happened to have a few bombers attacking successfully at a fortuitous moment.
Hi, I shall have to read this. However, I didn't say that Allied victory was inevitable, I said " USN ones [CV] only set the timing of the war, not the result", by which I mean that the US naval victory over Japan was inevitable. I can see no scenario where the US fail to destroy the Japanese merchant marine (having demolished the CV fleet). Ge is an entirely different matter!
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
I voted "never can tell". Every carrier battle is a gut-wrenching experience. Even a single plane can sometimes get through to score a critical hit. Because UV is this way, it is very replayable. If you lose all the time, you need to re-examine your tactics and dispositions or maybe you're playing opponents better than you. I believe either side has a chance in an equal battle. 10 IJN CVS are going to trouce 3 allied CVS most of the time but even weather could affect this outcome.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Sorry, wasn't suggesting that at all - if the Japanese had won at Midway the Allies probably would have won the war anyway only later with higher casualties and leaving a very different post-war Europe. Whilst at University I took a course on WW2 as part of my History BA and leant heavily on Overy's book (and got a 1st too!!). What I like about it is that it's very accessible.HMSWarspite wrote:Hi, I shall have to read this. However, I didn't say that Allied victory was inevitable, I said " USN ones [CV] only set the timing of the war, not the result", by which I mean that the US naval victory over Japan was inevitable. I can see no scenario where the US fail to destroy the Japanese merchant marine (having demolished the CV fleet). Ge is an entirely different matter!
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
52 votes as I post this and one good thing that is showing is the
"I win no matter what side I command" selection has zero votes.
So at least from the 52 who have voted there does not seem to be a sure-fire way to win a carrier battle.
*Waits to see what this will start.*
"I win no matter what side I command" selection has zero votes.
So at least from the 52 who have voted there does not seem to be a sure-fire way to win a carrier battle.
*Waits to see what this will start.*
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
-
Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
I voted "never can tell", and I think this is OK and realistic, although very stressful for players...
What bothers me much more than unpredictability of CV battles is their eventual influence on the outcome of the whole campaign. In other words, CVs are waaay too overpriced in points. If you lose one BIG CV duel - you effectively lost the campaign. Even if you want to continue, using your other assets, CVs are worth so many points you can never manage to catch your opponent.
PM developed to the max is worth 500-some points, Lunga developed to the max is worth ~360 points. Large fleet CV (with its aircraft) is worth ~450+ points. This is unrealistic. If you lose 4 fleet CVs with most of their aircraft, you'd have to capture 4-6 "Lungas" and "PMs" to compensate and there are simply no such bases on the map! (At least not in the "capturable" area of the map.)
Since CV battles are unpredictable, it appears that the outcome of UV campaigns (measured in points) is - unpredictable beacuse of this.
O.
What bothers me much more than unpredictability of CV battles is their eventual influence on the outcome of the whole campaign. In other words, CVs are waaay too overpriced in points. If you lose one BIG CV duel - you effectively lost the campaign. Even if you want to continue, using your other assets, CVs are worth so many points you can never manage to catch your opponent.
PM developed to the max is worth 500-some points, Lunga developed to the max is worth ~360 points. Large fleet CV (with its aircraft) is worth ~450+ points. This is unrealistic. If you lose 4 fleet CVs with most of their aircraft, you'd have to capture 4-6 "Lungas" and "PMs" to compensate and there are simply no such bases on the map! (At least not in the "capturable" area of the map.)
Since CV battles are unpredictable, it appears that the outcome of UV campaigns (measured in points) is - unpredictable beacuse of this.
O.
-
HMSWarspite
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
- Location: Bristol, UK
Oleg Mastruko wrote:I voted "never can tell", and I think this is OK and realistic, although very stressful for players...
What bothers me much more than unpredictability of CV battles is their eventual influence on the outcome of the whole campaign. In other words, CVs are waaay too overpriced in points. If you lose one BIG CV duel - you effectively lost the campaign. Even if you want to continue, using your other assets, CVs are worth so many points you can never manage to catch your opponent.
PM developed to the max is worth 500-some points, Lunga developed to the max is worth ~360 points. Large fleet CV (with its aircraft) is worth ~450+ points. This is unrealistic. If you lose 4 fleet CVs with most of their aircraft, you'd have to capture 4-6 "Lungas" and "PMs" to compensate and there are simply no such bases on the map! (At least not in the "capturable" area of the map.)
Since CV battles are unpredictable, it appears that the outcome of UV campaigns (measured in points) is - unpredictable beacuse of this.
O.
a) are you sure this isn't what happened in RL?
b) exactly how would you like the other guy to win? Sinking 4 of your Fleet CV isn't enough?
c) You discount sinking the other guys carriers, they cost points as well you know!
d) there is no d)
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
-
Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
a) Not quite... You can say that IJN lost the war when they lost 4 CVs at Midway, but had USN lost the 4 CVs at Midway, they would not lose the war, just make it a bit longer. Even IJN had many other assets at their disposal even after Midway catastrophe, as Solomons campaign proved later. In UV you DO have those other assets as well, but the problem is they are worthless (as measured in game points) compared to monster 450-point CVs.HMSWarspite wrote:a) are you sure this isn't what happened in RL?
b) exactly how would you like the other guy to win? Sinking 4 of your Fleet CV isn't enough?
c) You discount sinking the other guys carriers, they cost points as well you know!
d) there is no d)
b) Of course sinking 4 of my CVs should not immediatelly impose that I lose and he wins! What I am trying to say - losing CVs is crippling punishment in itself, player deos not need to be punished *further* by losing 450 points per carrier, thus making the game virtually unplayable from that moment on.
I think CV - or any ship for that matter - should be worth in points as much as the ship has "durability points". I like this "durability=game points" calculation, I don't know why it's not used for CVs too.
So, Yorktown class = 90 points, Shokaku = 100, Lex = 110 (IIRC) etc.
That way when you lose a CV - you lost very important asset, but in no way CV can be worth as much as, say, Lunga, game-point-wise.
BTW, I think BBs are "overpriced" as well. Two large BBs are worth (in game points) more than fully developed Lunga (?!?).
O.
For a system of target priority
I also hope WITP has a system of target priority.
Because the right problem is why your fleet don't attack the ennemy CVs when their position is well known ? And launch air attacks on secondary target ?
Well, give some instructions to your fleet commander, like engage only ennemy CVs is realistic, i don't see the matter.
When admirals take the sea, they have always some orders of their chief of staff.
And in this game, the gamer his the high commander for the south pacific.
It's more realistic than micro-manage all the other details like altitude of all planes in the south pacific......
Because the right problem is why your fleet don't attack the ennemy CVs when their position is well known ? And launch air attacks on secondary target ?
Well, give some instructions to your fleet commander, like engage only ennemy CVs is realistic, i don't see the matter.
When admirals take the sea, they have always some orders of their chief of staff.
And in this game, the gamer his the high commander for the south pacific.
It's more realistic than micro-manage all the other details like altitude of all planes in the south pacific......
Hello...
The targeting system currently in use will not launch attacks against secondary targets, when the location of a nearby CV task force is "well known".
Just because the player can see the icon for the task force, that does not mean that the task force commander knows enough about the target to launch a strike. One of several conditions may exist. The weather may not allow or the current position of the enemy CV task force cannot be calculated or strikes have already been launched and are on the way to targets before enemy CV task force is located or another task force may be mistaken for the enemy CV task force, just to mention a few problems that can occur.
The chances of the local commander choosing to attack a screening force or enemy transport task force, when he knows about the enemy carrier force are about 1 in 200 (there is a very, very small chance he might make a mistake).
Although it might seem realistic to some, if a button were added to order the CV task force to not attack anything, except for enemy CV task forces, the new complaint would be that CV task forces will not attack anything, at all (even though the player can see an icon of an enemy CV task force). A more realistic, and most likely less fun, alternative might be to increase the fog of war for the player, so that he sees what the friendly CV task force commander sees, nothing at all. Just show usefull messages sent by coast watchers, seaplanes and the like, such as, "Main body sighted".
Hope this Helps to Clarify...
Michael Wood
___________________________________________________________
The targeting system currently in use will not launch attacks against secondary targets, when the location of a nearby CV task force is "well known".
Just because the player can see the icon for the task force, that does not mean that the task force commander knows enough about the target to launch a strike. One of several conditions may exist. The weather may not allow or the current position of the enemy CV task force cannot be calculated or strikes have already been launched and are on the way to targets before enemy CV task force is located or another task force may be mistaken for the enemy CV task force, just to mention a few problems that can occur.
The chances of the local commander choosing to attack a screening force or enemy transport task force, when he knows about the enemy carrier force are about 1 in 200 (there is a very, very small chance he might make a mistake).
Although it might seem realistic to some, if a button were added to order the CV task force to not attack anything, except for enemy CV task forces, the new complaint would be that CV task forces will not attack anything, at all (even though the player can see an icon of an enemy CV task force). A more realistic, and most likely less fun, alternative might be to increase the fog of war for the player, so that he sees what the friendly CV task force commander sees, nothing at all. Just show usefull messages sent by coast watchers, seaplanes and the like, such as, "Main body sighted".
Hope this Helps to Clarify...
Michael Wood
___________________________________________________________
DE GRASSE wrote:I also hope WITP has a system of target priority.
Because the right problem is why your fleet don't attack the ennemy CVs when their position is well known ? And launch air attacks on secondary target ?
Well, give some instructions to your fleet commander, like engage only ennemy CVs is realistic, i don't see the matter.
When admirals take the sea, they have always some orders of their chief of staff.
And in this game, the gamer his the high commander for the south pacific.
It's more realistic than micro-manage all the other details like altitude of all planes in the south pacific......
Mike, given the huge morale and fatigue penalties carrier squads now suffer when hitting insignificant targets, it is really imperative we be given the ability to specify which targets the CV's should hit.
It is currently impossible to sortie into enemy territory without one's CV pilots turning into jabbering mounds of jellow after a few days...hitting rubbish TF's etc.
If a player wants to target AP's etc then leave the option open for the player to have the current settings but we REALLY need the ability to select target types.
Also, why do CV taskforces currently react towards enemy carriers and then launch against secondary targets?
Also, on a related note, I don't believe the attack radius planned for WITP is necessary.
The problem with out-of-control LBA flying to their doom could be fixed with a toggle switch "Fly with escort only" in conjunction with the ability to select target types.
It is currently impossible to sortie into enemy territory without one's CV pilots turning into jabbering mounds of jellow after a few days...hitting rubbish TF's etc.
If a player wants to target AP's etc then leave the option open for the player to have the current settings but we REALLY need the ability to select target types.
Also, why do CV taskforces currently react towards enemy carriers and then launch against secondary targets?
Also, on a related note, I don't believe the attack radius planned for WITP is necessary.
The problem with out-of-control LBA flying to their doom could be fixed with a toggle switch "Fly with escort only" in conjunction with the ability to select target types.
Never give up, never surrender