TF Threat Tolerance Settings

[Tanaka]

What settings are recommended to use for different TF and why? I've searched the forum and manual for this but don't see much of anything? Are these settings rarely used? I must admit I've always left on normal and am wondering if I should use this more...

[HansBolter]

Really? How long have you been playing this game?

Do you really need some one to lay this out for you?

If you want your Surface Combat TFs to actually fight you probably need to be setting them to the highest levels possible.

If you don't want your cargo TFs to stray into enemy air range you probably need to be setting them to the lowest levels possible.

Sorry for the lack of specific setting references, but I don't currently have the game open.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would need to ask for help figuring this out.

[Alfred]

It is documented in both the manual and the patch notes.  Alternatively, use the search term "threat".
 
Alfred

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Really? How long have you been playing this game?

Do you really need some one to lay this out for you?

If you want your Surface Combat TFs to actually fight you probably need to be setting them to the highest levels possible.

If you don't want your cargo TFs to stray into enemy air range you probably need to be setting them to the lowest levels possible.

Sorry for the lack of specific setting references, but I don't currently have the game open.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would need to ask for help figuring this out.

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

I've always used remain on station or retire from danger with normal threat tolerance and normal or direct pathing and it has always worked well. On normal it seems to avoid airpower fine. I almost always have to click direct to get rid of the crazy routes around empty enemy bases. No problems with SC not fighting. I don't send unprotected task forces into bomber attack range. Have not really had any reasons to change things just looking to see if I should use other settings more not looking for a fight about it.

As I've said I've searched the manual and the forum. Searching for threat or threat tolerance has not shown me much at all.

If you just want to take my thread and turn it into another flame war please don't bother I've got a life. Please do direct me if I've missed something. Or not. Either is fine. Just bitching and wasting everyone's time is not.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/sear ... button=+OK+

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Really? How long have you been playing this game?

Do you really need some one to lay this out for you?

If you want your Surface Combat TFs to actually fight you probably need to be setting them to the highest levels possible.

If you don't want your cargo TFs to stray into enemy air range you probably need to be setting them to the lowest levels possible.

Sorry for the lack of specific setting references, but I don't currently have the game open.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would need to ask for help figuring this out.

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

I've always used remain on station or retire from danger with normal threat tolerance and normal or direct pathing and it has always worked well. On normal it seems to avoid airpower fine. I almost always have to click direct to get rid of the crazy routes around empty enemy bases. No problems with SC not fighting. I don't send unprotected task forces into bomber attack range. Have not really had any reasons to change things just looking to see if I should use other settings more not looking for a fight about it.

As I've said I've searched the manual and the forum. Searching for threat or threat tolerance has not shown me much at all.

If you just want to take my thread and turn it into another flame war please don't bother I've got a life. Please do direct me if I've missed something. Or not. Either is fine. Just bitching and wasting everyone's time is not.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/sear ... button=+OK+

In defence of the first replies, most of us find the meaning of the threat tolerance self-evident and recognize that it is our choice to decide which TFs get which setting. As with so many things, "it depends" is the short answer to what we recommend because there are many factors to consider.

Therefore asking the members of the forum for a treatise on threat settings is asking a great deal. Sometimes there is a member who feels like making a lengthy post and they go ahead and do so. Most of the time the members will roll their eyes and ask you to be more specific so you can get a direct answer. And sometimes if members feel you have not tried to find the answer on your own, they get rather blunt in their replies.

Take a look at your initial question. Did it convey that you had looked through the manual? Searched the forum? Watched tutorial videos? What specific situations you are concerned about getting right? [:-]
Perhaps you should consider what you could have done to make our participation easier and more relevant to what you need. [:)]

[Tanaka]

Found accidentally in another thread I was reading about TF compositions. This is the kind of substance I am looking for. Very interesting...


https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4629414

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Lowpe: 4th: I love threat tolerance set to low

Lowpe did you really mean this? Wouldn't that result in TFs being reluctant to engage?

Absolutely! Almost 100% of the time. How it seems to work in game, after extensive use, is that there seems to be no reluctance to engage although this might be due to the fact most Allied players use aggressive leaders. Each task force will usually only have one combat and then withdraw...

But my SAG tend to disengage early, so I get an initial torpedo launch and then if out gunned a retreat. There seems to be no effect against normal merchant convoys.

As Japan I try to maximize the torpedo attacks and slight skirmish instead of a punishing slugfest for a variety of reasons.

[Tanaka]

Take a look at your initial question. Did it convey that you had looked through the manual? Searched the forum? Watched tutorial videos? What specific situations you are concerned about getting right? [:-]

Yes. Twice in two different posts. Again not interested in a flame war. Just looking for substantive posts like above.

[Alfred]

When I say something is answered in the manual, or patch notes, or by using a specific search term, I know for a FACT doing so answers the query because I have checked those precise steps before I posted my response. I do not provide direct guidance unless I am satisfied that the returns contain the answer.

Hence Tanaka is:

* calling me a liar, or

* or was too lazy/incompetent to do the simple things pointed out to him, or

* simply lacks the comprehension skills to understand the answers


The link provided in post #4 does indeed return relevant threads. That Tanaka did not say why the returns (which included contributions from relevant devs and myself) were inadequate show the above 3 points are correct. What did he expect to retrieve, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? the Sydney Opera House? And of course he has been totally silent on what the patch notes say, which only confirms he has as is always the case with Tanaka, not bothered to consult the patch notes.

Tanaka is one of those AE players, and there are many of them who fall within this category, who expect someone else to:

(a) go and find the tiger, or any other wild game,

(b) shoot the tiger with a tranquilizer dart,

(c) tie up to a stake in the ground the sedated tiger

(d) load up a double barreled shotgun, hand over the shotgun but stand behind him aiming the shotgun at the sedated, tethered tiger,

at which point Tanaka squeezes the trigger and then walks the 3 paces to the now dead tiger to have his picture taken of the big game hunter bagging a tiger.


Anyone who uses the excuse they have a life to explain why they can't properly learn how to play AE, simply doesn't have the time to waste playing AE badly. How arrogant to believe the rest of us don't also have lives to live but are indentured servants who in return for receiving bread and water, are expected to answer anything which Milord demands from his indentured servants.

Alfred

[dwesolick]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

Strongly agree with this. Way too much "grumpy old man" syndrome in what used to be one of the best forums around. If you don't like someone's question, or think it is a dumb question, just move on and ignore it. No need to be the self-appointed forum gatekeeper.

Having said that, I rarely use anything but "normal" setting on my TFs. Never had a problem with surface or air TFs not engaging. On rare occasions I'll use "absolute" threat tolerance, when I want a TF to follow a specific route regardless (like when escaping from an even bigger threat).

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

When I say something is answered in the manual, or patch notes, or by using a specific search term, I know for a FACT doing so answers the query because I have checked those precise steps before I posted my response. I do not provide direct guidance unless I am satisfied that the returns contain the answer.

Hence Tanaka is:

* calling me a liar, or

* or was too lazy/incompetent to do the simple things pointed out to him, or

* simply lacks the comprehension skills to understand the answers


The link provided in post #4 does indeed return relevant threads. That Tanaka did not say why the returns (which included contributions from relevant devs and myself) were inadequate show the above 3 points are correct. What did he expect to retrieve, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? the Sydney Opera House? And of course he has been totally silent on what the patch notes say, which only confirms he has as is always the case with Tanaka, not bothered to consult the patch notes.

Tanaka is one of those AE players, and there are many of them who fall within this category, who expect someone else to:

(a) go and find the tiger, or any other wild game,

(b) shoot the tiger with a tranquilizer dart,

(c) tie up to a stake in the ground the sedated tiger

(d) load up a double barreled shotgun, hand over the shotgun but stand behind him aiming the shotgun at the sedated, tethered tiger,

at which point Tanaka squeezes the trigger and then walks the 3 paces to the now dead tiger to have his picture taken of the big game hunter bagging a tiger.


Anyone who uses the excuse they have a life to explain why they can't properly learn how to play AE, simply doesn't have the time to waste playing AE badly. How arrogant to believe the rest of us don't also have lives to live but are indentured servants who in return for receiving bread and water, are expected to answer anything which Milord demands from his indentured servants.

Alfred

Ah another another Alfred flame war created by the God of the game and forum. Just as predicted. Now I have to waste my time with this when I just wanted to discuss threat tolerance strategies. THIS is what I mean by get a life. You are the KAREN of the forums. I don't expect or demand anything from anyone on this forum when I simply as a question. Enjoy the discussion or stay out of the thread. But no Karens cannot resist a bitch session. How dare I ask a question in a FORUM!? GASP!

What are you babbling about now? Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my! What is wrong with you? Seriously?

I have not called you a liar I have just not been able to find much on this topic in the manual or the forums. I don't know how else to say this. If you don't want to offer anything then please for the love of God just stay out. You waste all of our time just going on a tangent just to make a bitch post like the kindergartner you are. I've asked you a million times to stay out of my threads if you have nothing to offer but you refuse to do so because you just cannot resist bitching and starting flame wars. I just ask questions in a forum I don't go around spending all my time in a forum just to bitch at people. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY GET A LIFE.

I have to keep wasting my time with your trolling ass when I'm just trying to have a civil discussion on a subject about WITPAE. And then I have to waste even more time trying to defend every single question I ask or subject I am trying to improve on. You don't own the forums. You are not the forum gatekeeper. You don't own the game. You do not work for or represent Matrix games. You are just a psychotic ego maniac that will not go away. Because the real truth is you just enjoy feeling superior to people. But that just makes you small. You are the smallest of knats that buzzes in and out thinking they have rights to anything and everything when they have the rights to NOTHING.

The MODERATOR told you the first time you did this in a thread of mine to just STAY OUT. GET A LIFE.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

It's been ten years since WITP. Learning all over again. Boggles my mind that people that have live this game everyday don't understand that. Do you guys treat new people even worse? Good job ruining the community.

Would just like to hear from those that enjoy explaining the intricacies of the game and not from someone that just wants to bitch. Just don't comment if you have nothing to offer. Boggles my mind how people don't understand this.

Strongly agree with this. Way too much "grumpy old man" syndrome in what used to be one of the best forums around. If you don't like someone's question, or think it is a dumb question, just move on and ignore it. No need to be the self-appointed forum gatekeeper.

Having said that, I rarely use anything but "normal" setting on my TFs. Never had a problem with surface or air TFs not engaging. On rare occasions I'll use "absolute" threat tolerance, when I want a TF to follow a specific route regardless (like when escaping from an even bigger threat).

Thank you sir. Nice to know there are still some good guys around here!

[Tanaka]

Search for THREAT in manual. 1 of 4 found.

[Tanaka]

2

[Tanaka]

3

[Tanaka]

4

[Maallon]

In case you haven't found it: The patch notes are in the readme file in your game folder, if you search for the keyword "threat" you will find the entry Alfred likely meant.
As far as I understand it the threat tolerance mechanic was implemented after the initial release of WITPAE and is thus not directly covered in the manual, but the patch notes contain a description of the mechanic.

I personally only used the settings "normal" or "absolute" until now, but what Lowpe wrote in the thread you quoted is definitely interesting, will need to think about how I can integrate this into my game.
The "absolute" setting can also be useful if you want your TFs to ignore a threat you know they will encounter, but you also know is not that big of a deal or you know you can manage.
For example if you want to invade Java in the early game but the Dutch air force still has some bombers around who tbh rarely hit a ship anyway, you can set your amphibious TFs to "absolute" so they won't retreat because they perceive the air threat as too great.
In general setting your amphibious TFs to "absolute" if you want to invade a location where you know you will face opposition can help greatly in pulling the invasion of according to plan. Take this with a grain of salt though, this is only helpful if you can assess your opponents strength correctly and have enough force in the area to keep your TFs safe from attacks.
If your opponent can slip a large SCTF in the hex you try to invade while your invasion TF approaches with an "absolute" threat tolerance .......well you probably get the picture [:D]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Maallon

In case you haven't found it: The patch notes are in the readme file in your game folder, if you search for the keyword "threat" you will find the entry Alfred likely meant.
As far as I understand it the threat tolerance mechanic was implemented after the initial release of WITPAE and is thus not directly covered in the manual, but the patch notes contain a description of the mechanic.

I personally only used the settings "normal" or "absolute" until now, but what Lowpe wrote in the thread you quoted is definitely interesting, will need to think about how I can integrate this into my game.
The "absolute" setting can also be useful if you want your TFs to ignore a threat you know they will encounter, but you also know is not that big of a deal or you know you can manage.
For example if you want to invade Java in the early game but the Dutch air force still has some bombers around who tbh rarely hit a ship anyway, you can set your amphibious TFs to "absolute" so they won't retreat because they perceive the air threat as too great.
In general setting your amphibious TFs to "absolute" if you want to invade a location where you know you will face opposition can help greatly in pulling the invasion of according to plan. Take this with a grain of salt though, this is only helpful if you can assess your opponents strength correctly and have enough force in the area to keep your TFs safe from attacks.
If your opponent can slip a large SCTF in the hex you try to invade while your invasion TF approaches with an "absolute" threat tolerance .......well you probably get the picture [:D]

Wow that is some good substance thank you sir for your contribution and decency!

Yeah not much in the patch notes pretty much what I already knew. Was just looking for more player experiences and situations as I still don't see much reason to change anything I'm already doing. Seems like these would only be used in extreme circumstances.

14. New Feature: Threat Tolerance. The ability for players to specify differing
threat tolerance levels has been added (on the Task Force Routing screen). The
new function allows the player to specify a TF’s Tolerance for detected enemy threats that could cause the TF to auto-retreat.
Tolerance has four levels:
a. Normal: No offsets to retreat calculation.
b. Low: Lower threat tolerance = higher chance of retreat from detected threats.
c. High: Higher threat tolerance = lower chance of retreat from detected threats.
d. Absolute: Absolute threat tolerance = TF will never retreat from detected threats.

Interesting on your use of absolute as well. Forging ahead no matter what happens. I can't imagine doing that without cover or protection though haha.

So will low tolerance work on ignoring those pesky PT boat squadrons that just get in the way and use up all of your ammo?

[HansBolter]

Oh the drama.......[8|]

Play the game....learn the game.

No substitute for experimentation.

[Maallon]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
So will low tolerance work on ignoring those pesky PT boat squadrons that just get in the way and use up all of your ammo?

I don't think it will necessarily work like you intend it to work, because:
- PT Boats are quite fast, so as long you are in their range, they will likely get you.
- If your TF perceive PT Boats as large enough of a threat to retreat from them, they will basically retreat from everything else too.

I haven't used the "low" setting before so I am not 100% sure how things play out with this setting though.
This is probably something you just need to experiment and get experience with to use it properly.

Also while PT Boats are rarely a threat to surface combatants, they can wreak havoc on your transport ships, so it may be wise to not ignore them. And I can vaguely remember that there was this AAR where a PT Boat sunk Yamato, wasn't it Greyjoys AAR?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Maallon

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
So will low tolerance work on ignoring those pesky PT boat squadrons that just get in the way and use up all of your ammo?

I don't think it will necessarily work like you intend it to work, because:
- PT Boats are quite fast, so as long you are in their range, they will likely get you.
- If your TF perceive PT Boats as large enough of a threat to retreat from them, they will basically retreat from everything else too.

I haven't used the "low" setting before so I am not 100% sure how things play out with this setting though.
This is probably something you just need to experiment and get experience with to use it properly.

Also while PT Boats are rarely a threat to surface combatants, they can wreak havoc on your transport ships, so it may be wise to not ignore them. And I can vaguely remember that there was this AAR where a PT Boat sunk Yamato, wasn't it Greyjoys AAR?

Yes, it was Greyjoy's AAR. Some of the PTs greatest successes have been disrupting landings. Just by appearing and trying to attack the unloading ships they cause the invasion TFs to cease unloading and get underway, often with collisions ensuing. The interruption can happen again after that combat finishes if the PTs are still around. That means less gets unloaded by the landing TF which could mean too small a force to meet the enemy on that turn. Escorts should not ignore PTs under any circumstance because the merchant ships cannot ignore them.