Carrier battles in UV

[pasternakski]

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.

I completely disagree with this. There is no reason for players to be indulged with successful results for following the "wander around in Tijuana all night with $20 and a hardon and don't run a risk of contracting an STD" theory. I don't want to play a game where you can just assign your squadrons to offensive missions, then drive your carriers into enemy territory like an American tourist expecting that you will annihilate only the targets you want while ignoring everything else because your recon (real and imagined) gives you Godlike vision.

[Mike_B20]

I completely disagree with this. There is no reason for players to be indulged with successful results for following the "wander around in Tijuana all night with $20 and a hardon and don't run a risk of contracting an STD" theory. I don't want to play a game where you can just assign your squadrons to offensive missions, then drive your carriers into enemy territory like an American tourist expecting that you will annihilate only the targets you want while ignoring everything else because your recon (real and imagined) gives you Godlike vision.

I am not saying that CV's should never launch against secondary targets and I am not suggesting that players enjoy Godlike vision.
There were plenty of instances where taskforce types were incorrectly identified (IJN at Coral Sea for one) and I would expect airstrikes where targets were misidentified.
My point is that pilots are currently incurring artificially high morale and fatigue hits and because of this a measure of control is needed.

[bilbow]

I am not saying that CV's should never launch against secondary targets and I am not suggesting that players enjoy Godlike vision.
There were plenty of instances where taskforce types were incorrectly identified (IJN at Coral Sea for one) and I would expect airstrikes where targets were misidentified.
My point is that pilots are currently incurring artificially high morale and fatigue hits and because of this a measure of control is needed.

I have to disagree here also. Carriers are already the priority, so why do we need set it? In my games carriers will almost always be the target of a strike. Maybe not as cooridinated a strike as you's like, and maybe not as successful. But carriers will draw strikes when possible the vast vast majority of the time.

You expect strikes on non-carrier targets when mis-identified, but still want to target only carriers, which the game does already aside from the factors that Mike mentions in his note above. Sounds redundant to me.

I think the unpredicabilility of the current system is an excellent model, even if that unpredictability leads to frustration at time. There is and should be a degree of luck involved.

[Mike_B20]

I have to disagree here also. Carriers are already the priority, so why do we need set it? In my games carriers will almost always be the target of a strike. Maybe not as cooridinated a strike as you's like, and maybe not as successful. But carriers will draw strikes when possible the vast vast majority of the time.

You expect strikes on non-carrier targets when mis-identified, but still want to target only carriers, which the game does already aside from the factors that Mike mentions in his note above. Sounds redundant to me.

I think the unpredicabilility of the current system is an excellent model, even if that unpredictability leads to frustration at time. There is and should be a degree of luck involved.

How about the situation where you are for example, covering a landing expecting enemy CV's any time to make an appearance.
You'd like to keep your crews fresh but they keep flying off to plaster the odd AP.
You now have a choice of standing your aircraft down to rest the crews(risking total annihilation when the enemy CV's do show) or watch as they turn to jellow, attacking AP's etc turn after turn.

The problem is not one of target priority but total target exclusion of unimportant taskforce types (as far as the vagaries of scouting and misidentification allow).

[Angel]

When I was asking for an " attack CV only " order it was for an other reason.
When your CVTF is approaching ennemies waters you may find transports or other ships you really don't want to attack because you don't want to take losses and fatigue when a major CV battle can occur ONE OR TWO DAYS AFTER.
The problem is not the day of the battle but the days BEFORE.

Also, even a base with no bomber but just fighters is a threat for your CVTF If a few transports are in port and in range of your planes they will strike and fight with the CAP. Why should I fear bases with no bomber?

As a trick, you can put a Tf one day ahead of your CVs to reduce the effectiveness of your opponent strikes the day after,
etc...

In most of cases I just want my CVs to attack NOTHING ( NADA! RIEN !)untill they meet the ennemy CVTF. And of course, using the "stand down" order may not be appropriate ....

[bilbow]

How about the situation where you are for example, covering a landing expecting enemy CV's any time to make an appearance.
You'd like to keep your crews fresh but they keep flying off to plaster the odd AP.
You now have a choice of standing your aircraft down to rest the crews(risking total annihilation when the enemy CV's do show) or watch as they turn to jellow, attacking AP's etc turn after turn.

The problem is not one of target priority but total target exclusion of unimportant taskforce types (as far as the vagaries of scouting and misidentification allow).

That means you have to have plenty of search aircraft out in order to smell the enemy CVs far enough out so you can make the right decision. There should never be a case where you are surprised if you are searching properly. Your heavy bombers (if allied) make excellent long-range search planes. And if you are ranging so far ahead of your bases that even the longest range search planes won't spot the enemy far enough out then I suggest you are placing your carriers where they do not belong because they can't be properly supported.

[Mike_B20]

That means you have to have plenty of search aircraft out in order to smell the enemy CVs far enough out so you can make the right decision. There should never be a case where you are surprised if you are searching properly. Your heavy bombers (if allied) make excellent long-range search planes. And if you are ranging so far ahead of your bases that even the longest range search planes won't spot the enemy far enough out then I suggest you are placing your carriers where they do not belong because they can't be properly supported.

What I am talking about has absolutely nothing to do with being surprised by enemy CV's or scouting.

It has to do with air crews being exhausted by trivial strikes before encountering the enemy CV's.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?
Do you seriously consider your previous post any sort of argument against greater control of CV airstrikes?

[mogami]

Hi, I never like to send my CV out unless I know exactly where the enemy CV are located. If I don't know their where abouts I hide my CV and put everything on search I can. Always pay attention to those transport TF's that decide its time to run. "TF retiring from enemy"

I think it is safe for me to say that when I don't know where the enemy is, they usally turn up in the worst possible spot (and time)
I think the long campaign games are really hide and go seek until one side's CV are gone. Then the side with CV gets to have it's own way for a while. If both sides CV are gone Mr Sluggo comes out and the surface battles get fought. (I don't like to let my surface forces get pounded by enemy CV if I can help it. Sometimes they have to endure it but only if LBA can try to protect them and hit back once in a while)

For me the phases of UV are

Hide and Seek (The CV dance)
Whack the Weasel (Surface forces driven away from target base)
Dog Pile (land your land troops)
Clean up the mess (move in engineer and support troops)
Bombs Away (move in the bombers)

Repeat as many times as 600 turns or your enemy allows

[bilbow]

What I am talking about has absolutely nothing to do with being surprised by enemy CV's or scouting.

It has to do with air crews being exhausted by trivial strikes before encountering the enemy CV's.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?
Do you seriously consider your previous post any sort of argument against greater control of CV airstrikes?

I don't want greater control. It's not needed and won't improve the game. I would introduce other problems that we can only guess at. Maybe a better way of saying it is Mogami's comment above about not knowing where the other guy's carrier's are.

In some areas I'd prefer less control, such as the tactical need to set altitude and detail manage fatigue.

[Mike_B20]

I don't want greater control. It's not needed and won't improve the game. I would introduce other problems that we can only guess at. Maybe a better way of saying it is Mogami's comment above about not knowing where the other guy's carrier's are.

In some areas I'd prefer less control, such as the tactical need to set altitude and detail manage fatigue.

As I said in my example above, you are EXPECTING the enemy CV's to come calling. For the sake of argument, they were spotted hovering just outside of CV to CV engagement range, under friendly air cover. They don't want to approach immediately and you don't want to approach them to fight on their terms.
But really, wherever the heck they are is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that when they DO decide to drop in, your aircraft crews will likely be about as useful as udders on a bull.

I've beaten up a few too many enemy CV taskforces which came unstuck in very similar circumstances.
Having played as the allies only by PBEM so far and still fairly early in them all. No doubt my turn to suffer this fate will come later.

[fcooke]

In one of my current games as the IJN I have captured PM, Cooktown, Cairns and Tville. USN shows up near Tville with a 5 CV & the LI in one TF. TF was spotting numerous times (Mavis in both Oz and GG, as well as Bettys from GG. It launches a small strike that fails to find a TF sitting at Tville. I sortie a large AC TF from GG with 6 CV/3CVL to go after the USN (set to do not react). TF has all fighters on 50% CAP (99 morale/0 fatigue) and all Vals and Kates on naval attack. Vals mid teens fatigue (had been on ASW) and Kates 0. Two CS in TF had Jakes on naval search. Next turn I get attacked by the USN, with a number of CVs hit in the am phase (and my CV TF did the one hex react move). My attack planes don't even attempt to fly. In the PM phase the few remaining USN planes go after a TF at Tville (they lost a lot of planes in the am strikes). Again the IJN planes stay on deck. Next day I decide to push forward towards Tville thinking he doesn't have many attack planes that are flyable and I'll crush him. Again he attacks me but my planes go after a 4 AK TF that's shown up at Tville with the am strike. Scratch 4 AKs. In the PM strike about 20 odd Vals and 20 odd zeros finally go after his CVs. A few get through and hit the LI. Just feels like code might have some glitch with the 'how much CAP is flying' routine. 50% zeros from a 600 odd plane TF should attack pretty much anything.

It gets even stranger. A couple of days later I rerun the turn to watch it in detail - and the reults come out differently. I hadn't changed any settings and I know there's a combat replay bug but in this resolution the IJN crushes the USN on the first day.

I'll accept that stuff happens but the IJN CV TF was created after the USN TF was spotted. After being attacked by the USN the next day the IJN admiral absolutely knew there were USN CVs about but he attacked the AKs the following day anyway. Weather was fine all days and no no-fly symbols were on my TF. Maybe my detection level was low (but it didn't feel like it). I would suggest adding in a 'sighting confidence' measure so we can more properly understand the behaviour of our planes.

I have the whole sequence of saves and combat reports if you are interested Mike.

Regards,
Frank

[DE GRASSE]

Thanks for your response. It's more clear for me now.
And congratulations for this game, which is wonderful.
In 1992, i played with Pacific War (SSI) and now i wait for the new version.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

I will discuss displaying a 'sighting confidence' value with the sighting report, with Gary and Joel. We might be able to accommodate.

As things stand, the combat value for a CV task force is about 200 times that of other task forces, so the local commander would really like to get the enemy carriers, when possible.

I maintain that if we allowed the player to attack only enemy CV task forces, he would most likely loose the first attack of the day, while he verified the enemy task force was a carrier group (increased detection level), and get slaughtered. As far as screening forces go, historically, most air groups would attack the first task force they stumble across, assuming it to be the carrier task force. So, using a screening force is a valid option. Other task forces in the area, such as a replenishment task force of one oiler and one destroyer will often be targeted by mistake. The problem of detection level and hitting the desired task force is compounded, when there are several task forces in the area.

I understand the frustration that players and the real historical figures feel, when trying to get sub-commanders to follow the orders. Confusion reigns, mistakes are made and things seldom work out the way they were planned. If any commander, land, sea or air could have gotten his forces to do what he wanted, he would have been in very, very good shape.

Thanks for Your input...

Michael Wood

__________________________________________________________

...Maybe my detection level was low (but it didn't feel like it). I would suggest adding in a 'sighting confidence' measure so we can more properly understand the behaviour of our planes.

Regards,
Frank

[Mike_B20]

I maintain that if we allowed the player to attack only enemy CV task forces, he would most likely loose the first attack of the day, while he verified the enemy task force was a carrier group (increased detection level), and get slaughtered.

__________________________________________________________

My, what a punitive stance.
You are really determined to ignore shortcomings in the combat modelling huh?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

I do not feel the model is flawed, as I have tried to explain. I need to get back to work.

Thanks again for Your input...

Michael Wood
_______________________________________________________

My, what a punitive stance.
You are really determined to ignore shortcomings in the combat modelling huh?

[Sonny]

Gotta say Mike_B20 has the right idea (if I read this right). There would not be a perceived need for an "Attack CV TF only" switch if small differences in fatigue did not make so big a difference in results.

Haven't made specific tests but in judging the performance of the pilots (both LBA and CV based) the difference in, say, 4 fatigue and 24 fatigue is not a 20% reduction in performance which you might expect but more like 60-80% reduction. What does this all mean? It means that when your entire complements of Zeros and Vals and Kates go after an unprotected TF of 4 AKs twice in the same day and rack up 18-30 fatigue they are useless the next day against any air group with fatigue lower than 10. Certainly they should be less effective than those rested enemy pilots but not nearly as ineffective as I have seen in all of my games.

The two things which might alleviate the need for the "switch" are:

1) lessen performance/result differences based on fatigue. If fatigue counts for 30% in whatever formula is used to get results then make it only count 15%. This way if your guys do go off bombing that stray AP TF they can be ready the next day to put up a reasonable fight.

2) find some way for CAGs to allocate somewhat more appropriate number of aircraft to attack based on number and types of target ships. This appears to happen somewhat already when there are a lot of targets available because the available aircraft are split to attack all (or most all) of the targets. But when there is only one target - every pilot wants to get in on the kill and so you have entire squadrons rack up fatigue. Exactly what this appropriate number of aircraft is, however, would be difficult to determine. This would also entail another toggle though - full attack or limited attack. Limited attack would be overridden if a CV TF were within range.

3) O.K. I said two but this has been requested before and may be linked in some fashion to the limited attack switch mentioned in #2 - have the ability to limit air operations for a base/squadron to only once a day. Just another way to limit fatigue and may not be necessary if fatigue is cut back (as it will be in WitP).

Again, I have not tested any of this but it seems that fatigue mounts up in a linear fashion. If it were to increase in a geometric progression it might mean that the first day or two of combat did not cause undue fatigue but as each day passed additional operations would cause greater increases in fatigue. This would necessitate keeping track of number of consecutive days of operations for each pilot rather than just adding todays total to the total from yesterday and subtracting the days reduction due to rest.


Hope at least some of this makes sense.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

We have done a lot of work in WIP on the air combat model. Among other changes, we have reduced the fatigue for all missions, some significantly. We have also changed the CAP rules to allow greater latitude for local commanders to loan normal CAP to nearby units under air attack. We have also done work on air-to-surface aircraft allocations. Many of these changes were added to improve play in normal and multiple day executions games.

I think You will like the improvements...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________________

...There would not be a perceived need for an "Attack CV TF only" switch if small differences in fatigue did not make so big a difference in results...

Hope at least some of this makes sense.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Hello...

We have done a lot of work in WIP on the air combat model. Among other changes, we have reduced the fatigue for all missions, some significantly. We have also changed the CAP rules to allow greater latitude for local commanders to loan normal CAP to nearby units under air attack. We have also done work on air-to-surface aircraft allocations. Many of these changes were added to improve play in normal and multiple day executions games.

I think You will like the improvements...

Michael Wood

Thanks for info and nice news (new features) Mike!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Tristanjohn]

Hello...

I do not feel the model is flawed, as I have tried to explain. I need to get back to work.

To begin, I don't think the model is all that far off re where CV strikes end up going in general. As a rule they find the right target, sometimes do not. God-like control over where these planes end up over targets would not well serve the simulation, would not reflect history.

By the same token, it is idiotic to continually send massive strikes to puny targets already pulverized by the first wave of bombers. That needs to be corrected.

On the whole I disagree with your bald premise that this model is not flawed. The model most definitely is flawed, Mike.

Before I begin, let me say that I've as much experience in wargames as anyone around and I've volunteered much of time down through the years to help make these games better things to play. Indeed, I've logged countless hours playtesting into the wee hours some of Gary's former titles. I've been around and I've paid significant dues, so please read what I have to say without taking offense. I assure you that I intend none.

1) CV TF attack squadrons usually arrive over target in large packages and thus tend to overwhelm the CAP over the target hex.

2) No consideration seems to have been paid to the sequence of combat events. So, the damage a first strike might do to given carriers in an enemy CV TF needs to impact the ability of those enemy carriers to launch subsequent flights. In game it appears that one side gets to launch all its strikes for the entire turn, then the other side does the same thing. I have occasionally seen what appear to be alternate strikes back and forth but that's not the rule.

If a first strike puts a carrier out of commision, its planes ought not to be able to fly any longer. I just don't see that much.

3) Successful torpedo strikes by Japanese torpedo bombers off carriers are too high, and successful torpedo strikes by Allied torpedo bombers are off the historical scale. If your model was "accurate" a player should be able to play a hundred games and not see more than one or two USN torpedoes find their marks. The torpedoes were slow and defective, the planes delivering these torpedoes themselves were slow and defective. Yet I've seen USN torpedo bombers successfully strike home not only on CVs but CAs and DDs and the like. That just didn't happen in 1942.

Japanese torpedo bombers are simply devastating on USN assets and that isn't historical either. They were better but nowhere near as effective as this system suggests.

4) Spotting routines are laughable. First of all not that much information was available to begin with, and why should the USN know what the Japanese can see and vice versa? The plain fact is that the ability of either side to get what information they did have available from spotting to the right people, and then have it used properly by those people, was not all that high during the period in question.

The information we do receive is next to useless. What heading is a given TF on, how fast was it proceeding? It'd help to have an "Information Center" where players could review current and old spotting reports at a glance and study these. So, the most current sighting of a given TF would be presented in, say, white, yesterday's in blue, the day before yesterday's in red and so on, again, with speed and direction (at time of sighting) also displayed--and displayed in plain view, not by "hovering over the icon" with the pointer. With this kind of information at his disposal a player could more reasonably make intelligent plans, the simulation would be infinitely enhanced, the game would become more fun to play.

While we're on it, Australian coastwatchers need ability to relay reports of incoming Japanese air strikes and TF movements down the Slot, and this early warning has to go a long way toward preparing Allied forces in the lower Solomons to succcessfuly meet these attacks.

5) The weather system could stand big-time revision.

First of all it doesn't even appear to function properly (I've seen all sorts of correct spotting and even attacks into so-called "bad weather" hexes. Happens all the time.

Secondly, there is no consideeration given to weather fronts. That's what's needed, so players can use the weather (hopefully) to their advantage with regard to fleet movements. Design a sort of "screen'saver" of weather that moves across the map in more-or-less intelligent fashion, and have the centers of these "weather fronts" much harder to penetrate with respect to spotting (nearly impossible would be about right) while their fringe areas mellow out some and allow partial detection of fleet assets. Something like that would represent an entirely more intelligent approach and improve both the play and feel of the simulation greatly.

What you have at present is all but dysfunctional. It certainly is not "right."

Please understand I am not here to give you a bad time, Mike. I like your game UV and have nothing but very high respect for Matrix the company. I've very much enjoyed playing Gary's games over the years. I would encourage Matrix and 2by3, though, to take a long look at the dynamics of the upcoming WitP system and ask in all honesty if it relflects anything like reality. The UV simulation does a fairly good job, broadly speaking, in some areas, but other aspects of this model are off to such a degree that you only make yourself look foolish when you issue blanket statements such as, "The model isn't flawed." Well of course it's flawed, and some gamers here at least ask you to try to make it better.

Come on. If that's the best you can do, say so. If that's all you care to do then say that. But I feel it's unreasonable on the part of the development team to expect serious wargamers to look at what's extant and call that "realistic." Fun to play? I happen to think it mainly is a fun game. I'm sure everyone who plays it feels the same way. But spot-on it ain't. Not by a long shot. (And when you think on it so far we've only brushed one small part of the greater model. Many other useful improvements might be made--assuming it's possible to make these improvements, always. )

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

We have been working since Uncommon Valor, alpha, version 1.0 towards improving the fidelity of our combat, sighting and game systems. You may have noticed some improvements we made, using player input, in our patches for UV.

We have made many more changes in War in the Pacific, based on our testing, the testers of our quality assurance team and input from these forums towards the unreachable goal of a perfect game and appreciate very much the player input.

Joel, a producer on the game reads these, as do I, one of the programmers. Gary and Keith sometimes follow the forums as well, but as programmers are loath to post, for fear of getting into an argument or being called foolish and not attending to the code, I am the only programmer who frequently posts (I work for Matrix).

As far as your specific points go, I will try to address some of them:

"...it is idiotic to continually send massive strikes to puny targets already pulverized by the first wave of bombers."

Yes, it is. We have worked more on this item.

"CV TF attack squadrons usually arrive over target in large packages and thus tend to overwhelm the CAP over the target hex."

This depends a lot on the carrier, task force commander, ship's captain, pilot experience and ship's crew experience. The greatest factor, however, is the range to target in relation to aircraft range. Longer range aircraft can loiter longer and form into larger formations when attacking a distance. Shorter range aircraft must take off and try to join up on the way to the target. Because of these factors, early war attacks by Japanese carrier forces will usually offer greater strike packages than American strikes.

"No consideration seems to have been paid to the sequence of combat events. So, the damage a first strike might do to given carriers in an enemy CV TF needs to impact the ability of those enemy carriers to launch subsequent flights. In game it appears that one side gets to launch all its strikes for the entire turn, then the other side does the same thing. I have occasionally seen what appear to be alternate strikes back and forth but that's not the rule."

As an operational level, hex based war-game, the sequence of events are not as granular as they might be in a tactical level war-game or in a ship simulator.

"Successful torpedo strikes by Japanese torpedo bombers off carriers are too high, and successful torpedo strikes by Allied torpedo bombers are off the historical scale. If your model was "accurate" a player should be able to play a hundred games and not see more than one or two USN torpedoes find their marks. The torpedoes were slow and defective, the planes delivering these torpedoes themselves were slow and defective. Yet I've seen USN torpedo bombers successfully strike home not only on CVs but CAs and DDs and the like. That just didn't happen in 1942. ...Japanese torpedo bombers are simply devastating on USN assets and that isn't historical either. They were better but nowhere near as effective as this system suggests."

The number of cases in 1942, in which American torpedo bombers made torpedo attacks was somewhat limited and I am not sure that hundreds of games should be played with only a couple torpedoes hitting. The same would apply to your feeling that Japanese torpedoes are too accurate. In any event, the accuracy of torpedo attacks is more a measure of the weapons platform values in the database. I will hand off your concern to the database folk.

"Spotting routines are laughable. First of all not that much information was available to begin with, and why should the USN know what the Japanese can see and vice versa? The plain fact is that the ability of either side to get what information they did have available from spotting to the right people, and then have it used properly by those people, was not all that high during the period in question."

What information is given to the player has been an issue from the beginning of development. A realistic simulation would offer almost no useable information from a specific source. However, since this is a game and has one day long turns, there is not enough granularity for the player to act on information, as it come in, during the day. And, responsive to player needs, we have to make the game fun to play. Ergo, animations, pictures, drawings and the like are included, as well as user information on where enemy units are and the like. In fact, when I get done here, I have to add the estimated speed and course to the report for enemy task forces that have been spotted. A lot of folk have been asking for it.

"The weather system could stand big-time revision."

We have done some work on the weather system for WIP. We still have some more do.

"What you have at present is all but dysfunctional. It certainly is not 'right'."

What we have done is not that great for a ship simulator, but is pretty good, I think, for the operational level war game we advertised.

We will keep working for Your pleasure...

Michael Wood