Answer: A stupid human alert
Picture if you will...
A task force of American Carriers is heading North, covering an invasion force intent on kicking the Japanese out of Gili Gili.
An SBD pilot walks up to the Captain of the Lexington (yes she survived Coral Sea)...
Pilot <salute> "Ahhh, sir..."
Capt. "don't ask me again pilot"
Pilot "but sir, shouldn't we take at least a couple planes off ASW patrol in case we run into Jap carriers?"
Capt. "I told you not to talk about that didn't I? You know I can't do that."
Pilot "but sir, we've been on 100% ASW duty for over two weeks now..."
Capt. "I have my orders son, you know I can't change them!"
Suddenly the klaxon sounds battle stations. The Captain never hears it, as the Japanese air-strike sinks everything...
Somewhere, in a different place and time, sits a gamer (in shock), slowly realizing his mistake, happy there is no-one (real) to witness his absolute gaff.
Oh well, time to reload, and go at it again...
This is still the life!
Aloid
“The best games are those where you get to drop bombs on ships.” D.Fling
Something I wish this game had
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
or...
Sailor : "Sir, our seagulls have sighted 5 Jap CV's 60 miles to the Northeast !".
Capain : "Well, there's nothing I can do about that, my orders are to patrol for submarines".
Sailor: "Sir, shouldn't we arm the 60 aircraft in the hangars for a strike against the CV's, or at least put up more CAP?"
Captain: "I have my orders and so do you sailor...ready another 4 SBD's for anti-sub patrol"
Sailor: "Yes sir".
Sailor : "Sir, our seagulls have sighted 5 Jap CV's 60 miles to the Northeast !".
Capain : "Well, there's nothing I can do about that, my orders are to patrol for submarines".
Sailor: "Sir, shouldn't we arm the 60 aircraft in the hangars for a strike against the CV's, or at least put up more CAP?"
Captain: "I have my orders and so do you sailor...ready another 4 SBD's for anti-sub patrol"
Sailor: "Yes sir".
Never give up, never surrender
...speaking of those seagulls...
does anybody strip them off the ships and concentrate them elsewhere? naval primary, land secondary in port morbid or later in lae...they do a great job for me (vs. the ai anyway). for what it is worth, i understand that part of the problem the japanese had at midway is that the carrier aircraft were armed for attacking midway (bombs) as ordered...and re-armed again (torpedos) upon rumor of U.S. carrier forces...maybe more than once...caught the japanese carriers doing re-arm/top-off. i also seem to recall an event where a british officer shouted down a rating that was trying to explain/inform that the protective caps/covers/plugs where still mounted on the ship's guns...ordered "shoot" regardless...and they did. a friend also told me a story (vietnam era) about the "friendlies" having evacuated an area...known to be a prelude to "something going down" and the customary increase in security/rediness didn't happen (a discussion took place with saigon with the response of something like the "i've got my orders...so do you")...a two night rocket attack with other light support weapons was what happened next...he said there were five men seriously wounded as a result. didn't the austrians have a metal for *not* following orders?
ASW 100 percent
Hi, If they were set to ASW 100 percent there were no undamaged aircraft for that group onboard.
I understand.
But you can't expect the AI to fix your problems/mistakes. It does not know what you are planning. (You can't teach AI intent) What would be wrong with putting 2 CV in the TF and having 1 out of the 6 (USN 4 IJN) bomber groups do ASW (along with escorting CA/BB/CS)
If your carriers are covering transports then they need to be ready to attack enemy TF. (you can protect a transport TF from subs by placing a few escorts in the TF and having one of them fly ASW with float planes)(CVE also make good ASW protection. They have a few fighters to protect from air attack and too few bombers to attack enemy TF but more then enough for ASW.)
A fleet carrier at sea with it's bomber groups set to 100 percent is just waiting to get reacted to and sunk without hitting back. (Bomber groups on CV get to assign a portion to search and still fly Naval Strikes. Let the escorts hunt for subs)
Murphys Laws, Whatever can happen will happen. It will happen at the worst moment, It will happen at the most unlikely place and time.
I understand.
But you can't expect the AI to fix your problems/mistakes. It does not know what you are planning. (You can't teach AI intent) What would be wrong with putting 2 CV in the TF and having 1 out of the 6 (USN 4 IJN) bomber groups do ASW (along with escorting CA/BB/CS)
If your carriers are covering transports then they need to be ready to attack enemy TF. (you can protect a transport TF from subs by placing a few escorts in the TF and having one of them fly ASW with float planes)(CVE also make good ASW protection. They have a few fighters to protect from air attack and too few bombers to attack enemy TF but more then enough for ASW.)
A fleet carrier at sea with it's bomber groups set to 100 percent is just waiting to get reacted to and sunk without hitting back. (Bomber groups on CV get to assign a portion to search and still fly Naval Strikes. Let the escorts hunt for subs)
Murphys Laws, Whatever can happen will happen. It will happen at the worst moment, It will happen at the most unlikely place and time.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
I believe what Aloid is asking for is quite acceptable. All UV players are comfortable with the idea of their TF commanders overriding or 'interpreting' your orders and making decisions for themselves, whether it be a convoy retreating from enemy CV's or surface TF's, FT's remaining on station until the coast is clear to deliver their cargo, LBA air apportioning naval strikes etc ... I don't see why an air combat TF commander can't make similar decisions themselves.
As I have mentioned in the past it is quite easy to shoot yourself in the foot in this game and given the time and effort invested in a campaign game it truly sucks when an oversight leads to a catastrophe.
I know some will say that this reflects real life but I think it would be better to play and win or lose a game on one's own merits than to win or lose on a technicality.
-g
As I have mentioned in the past it is quite easy to shoot yourself in the foot in this game and given the time and effort invested in a campaign game it truly sucks when an oversight leads to a catastrophe.
I know some will say that this reflects real life but I think it would be better to play and win or lose a game on one's own merits than to win or lose on a technicality.
-g
TF commanders
Hi, A TF commander with airgroups set to 100 percent ASW has no bombers to react with even if he wanted to. (or was allowed)
A CV commander who launched all his bombers on a port attack (or airfield/ground) has no bombers to react with if enemy CV 'pop' up.
The safest method is to set prime mission to Naval attack with the port/airfield as secondary. Then if CV 'pop' up they launch other attacks if enemy TF is found it gets attacked. But if you assign 100 percent of your bombers to non Naval strike missions you have no on deck aircraft to launch. You make this call when you assign missions.
In WITP you can split onboard airgroups. (they divide into 3 equal parts)
So you can set 1 of these groups to ASW and still retain Naval Attack groups.
It would be nice if this feature (among others) gets back fitted to UV
A CV commander who launched all his bombers on a port attack (or airfield/ground) has no bombers to react with if enemy CV 'pop' up.
The safest method is to set prime mission to Naval attack with the port/airfield as secondary. Then if CV 'pop' up they launch other attacks if enemy TF is found it gets attacked. But if you assign 100 percent of your bombers to non Naval strike missions you have no on deck aircraft to launch. You make this call when you assign missions.
In WITP you can split onboard airgroups. (they divide into 3 equal parts)
So you can set 1 of these groups to ASW and still retain Naval Attack groups.
It would be nice if this feature (among others) gets back fitted to UV
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Hey Mogami,
I agree with you that for strictly offensive air missions the player's orders should be adhered to, however in the relatively non-offensive air missions such as patrolling, training etc. the local commander in charge should be given license to defend against emerging threats and counter attack or flee as would happen in real life. This is already in the game for other types of TF's so it should not be an issue to retro fit it for aircombat TF's. Think of it as self preservation.
But I believe that the problem goes beyond just air combat TF's but is relevant to any TF that is required to go into harm's way. How many time have you seen a surface combat/bombardment TF sit in its the target hex because the player forgot to switch it over to retirement allowed on the ingress/egress leg of its sortie? It would be nice if UV was a bit more user friendly in this regard. For example, if you have an aircombat TF at sea and any of its fighter units are standing down or training a little pop up warning indicating this would be a nice little feature to add. Or as a surface/bombardment TF set to patrol approaches to within its sprint range to its target hex a little pop up reminder to switch it to retiremnet allowed would be quite useful. All of this is quite easy to do and does not require any adjustment to the AI.
IMO the challenging part of the game should be the strategy and tactics that one employs, it should not be how proficient one is wrestling with the interface.
-g
I agree with you that for strictly offensive air missions the player's orders should be adhered to, however in the relatively non-offensive air missions such as patrolling, training etc. the local commander in charge should be given license to defend against emerging threats and counter attack or flee as would happen in real life. This is already in the game for other types of TF's so it should not be an issue to retro fit it for aircombat TF's. Think of it as self preservation.
But I believe that the problem goes beyond just air combat TF's but is relevant to any TF that is required to go into harm's way. How many time have you seen a surface combat/bombardment TF sit in its the target hex because the player forgot to switch it over to retirement allowed on the ingress/egress leg of its sortie? It would be nice if UV was a bit more user friendly in this regard. For example, if you have an aircombat TF at sea and any of its fighter units are standing down or training a little pop up warning indicating this would be a nice little feature to add. Or as a surface/bombardment TF set to patrol approaches to within its sprint range to its target hex a little pop up reminder to switch it to retiremnet allowed would be quite useful. All of this is quite easy to do and does not require any adjustment to the AI.
IMO the challenging part of the game should be the strategy and tactics that one employs, it should not be how proficient one is wrestling with the interface.
-g
Retire
Hi, Set TF's conducting training or other type missions to retire and they will run away like transport TF's (retire means run if enemy CV appears or enemy surface TF enters the hex TF is in.)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Hey Mogami,
Yes setting a TF to retirement allowed is the correct thing to do but Aloid's original post was for UV to provide 'stupid human alerts', i.e. to warn you when you have ordered your TF to do something that may be sub optimal for the given situation. If we all were capable of issuing the optimal set of orders every turn to our units there would be no need for this.
Let me give you an example from the Matrix line of products that is representative of what I am asking for. In SSG's game Korsun Pocket arguably the most acclaimed feature is the 'Combat Advisor' which highlights for the player all possible combats along with the odds and the friendly units involved to achieve those odds. The player no longer needs to hunt through every friendly and enemy stack of units to coalesce a sequence of moves and combats for that turn. Does the Combat advisor play the game from the player, no, it simply makes suggestions and that is all some of us would like from games that are as detail oriented as UV, WitP etc.
While it is true that creating a turn checklist and adhering to it religiously does solve this problem it would be nice if the UV/WitP engine were able to help out in this regard after all this is one of the many benefits of PC war games vs board game, they are much better at record keeping and the mundane little details that humans often overlook.
-g
Yes setting a TF to retirement allowed is the correct thing to do but Aloid's original post was for UV to provide 'stupid human alerts', i.e. to warn you when you have ordered your TF to do something that may be sub optimal for the given situation. If we all were capable of issuing the optimal set of orders every turn to our units there would be no need for this.
Let me give you an example from the Matrix line of products that is representative of what I am asking for. In SSG's game Korsun Pocket arguably the most acclaimed feature is the 'Combat Advisor' which highlights for the player all possible combats along with the odds and the friendly units involved to achieve those odds. The player no longer needs to hunt through every friendly and enemy stack of units to coalesce a sequence of moves and combats for that turn. Does the Combat advisor play the game from the player, no, it simply makes suggestions and that is all some of us would like from games that are as detail oriented as UV, WitP etc.
While it is true that creating a turn checklist and adhering to it religiously does solve this problem it would be nice if the UV/WitP engine were able to help out in this regard after all this is one of the many benefits of PC war games vs board game, they are much better at record keeping and the mundane little details that humans often overlook.
-g
Great discussion guys. You've taken my post far beyond what my little mind was thinking.
My original situation was one where my CV's were steaming west to Brisbane near a known submarine infestation. Feeling quite safe, I had temporarily sent up everything on ASW patrol. I suppose this is gamey in a way, since I wouldn't ever think I was "safe" anyplace west of PH in real life.
Suffice it to say, I forgot my temporary setting, and completely bought the farm.
Live an learn.
Aloid
My original situation was one where my CV's were steaming west to Brisbane near a known submarine infestation. Feeling quite safe, I had temporarily sent up everything on ASW patrol. I suppose this is gamey in a way, since I wouldn't ever think I was "safe" anyplace west of PH in real life.
Suffice it to say, I forgot my temporary setting, and completely bought the farm.
Live an learn.
Aloid
It would not be bad to have a routine which checks certain things (maybe based on what the AI would do?) and give you an alert message when you click the end orders phase button. This alert would tell you what it thinks is wrong and give you the option to go back to the orders phase or to proceed. It could be an option just like the air ranges etc toggles.
The problems are twofold - 1) would the routine report actual problems or would you get bogged down in crap that the AI (or a separate routine) thinks are problems but are not and 2) would it really be used enough to justify the time spent coding and testing it.
A possible solution would be to have a list where you check a box for each situation you want your XOs to report when you hit the end orders phase button:
Bombardment TF set to patrol
Surface combat TF set to patrol
No CAP over air combat TF
Air combat TF set to patrol
and others which you can think of. It doesn't have to be complicated.
Sure you can do these things yourself - but the computer can do them a lot quicker which may be quite handy in WitP.
In the old game Imperialism II (one of my all time favorites) you get a message that "The enemy has a fleet in the water off our capital province" (or something to that effect) when you click the next turn button. It is an option which you can disable if you find it annoying - which it is in a protracted war. Of course this is a very simple alert system but the idea is the same.
The problems are twofold - 1) would the routine report actual problems or would you get bogged down in crap that the AI (or a separate routine) thinks are problems but are not and 2) would it really be used enough to justify the time spent coding and testing it.
A possible solution would be to have a list where you check a box for each situation you want your XOs to report when you hit the end orders phase button:
Bombardment TF set to patrol
Surface combat TF set to patrol
No CAP over air combat TF
Air combat TF set to patrol
and others which you can think of. It doesn't have to be complicated.
Sure you can do these things yourself - but the computer can do them a lot quicker which may be quite handy in WitP.
In the old game Imperialism II (one of my all time favorites) you get a message that "The enemy has a fleet in the water off our capital province" (or something to that effect) when you click the next turn button. It is an option which you can disable if you find it annoying - which it is in a protracted war. Of course this is a very simple alert system but the idea is the same.
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. "