Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:12 am

Duplicate Post

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:16 am

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

[snip]

I disagree. How do you know this? You are assuming that because your flight of dive bombers flew 200 miles in the wrong direction to nail a ship in a heavily defended port while the enemy bombardment fleet bears down on your airstrip it was done by the AI intentionally as a simulated SNAFU. This is a bad assumption regarding the current state of AI in PC gaming (IMHO). Add on top of this the extreme nature of this occurrence (200+ miles in the wrong direction?!) and the frequency with which it happens (this exact thing has happened to me at least three times in three games) and I find it very hard to believe that it was programmed to conduct SNAFU missions in this way.

I am assuming nothing. As for your example, I haven't seen it, let alone with the frequency with which you have. I only suggest that the proximate cause of this problem may not neccesarily be only the targeting algorithm.
I am suggesting that there are a series of mathematical models used to replicate the processes we are discussing such as search, targeting, strikes finding the TF, strikes splitting up, etc...

These algorithms from part of the "AI", and are abstractions of the actual process.

So having a, say, 50% chance to find the target, explains only that the the entity finds it 50% of the time. The remaining probilitity is not broken down by category of why it didn't find the target. That is the abstraction that I am referring to. Many probablilities are calculated to produce the results we see, with the focus being probablity of the event happening, not on all the potential reasons of it not happening.

I do not know all the pertinaent details of your example to explain the possible reasons why, I only suggest that ther may be additional factors that have not been considered.

[snip]

The changes I have outlined are far, far from major. The vast majority of the functionality for everything I have mentioned is already in the game for other air mission types. LRCAP can already target TF, so why not add it to naval strike missions? Port attack missions can already target specific ports, so why not add it to naval strike missions? There already exists a multitude of mission types, why increase the total by one so that Naval strikes can be split into "Strike Ships at Sea" and "Strike Ships in Port"?

I think that designating the enemy TF is not realistic, as the tactical picture changes overnight because how quickly TFs move, particulary carrier groups,and the decisions about where to strike are made based on same day sighting reports. But priorities are guidance from the commander that affect the TF commanders targeting decisions. Specifically composition of target TFs, and known CAP (don't fly unescorted into heavy CAP)

Grumbling Grogn · Post by **Grumbling Grogn** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:00 am

I only suggest that the proximate cause of this problem may not neccesarily be only the targeting algorithm. I am suggesting that there are a series of mathematical models used to replicate the processes we are discussing such as search, targeting, strikes finding the TF, strikes splitting up, etc...

These algorithms from part of the "AI", and are abstractions of the actual process.

Sure I agree. But, we still do not know if this "intentional" AI behavior or if the AI really did see that TF and instead chose to fly all the way to Rabaul to drop bombs on a transport for another reason (less AA? less CAP? Who knows?)

Many probablilities are calculated to produce the results we see, with the focus being probablity of the event happening, not on all the potential reasons of it not happening.

Yep, sure but what is the probability that as commander of PM you will, after having been notified by your own scouts for the last two days that a Japanese BB/CA fleet is coming around Gili Gili and bearing down on your base...what is the probability that you would ever in your wildest dreams send your bombers north (i.e. the wrong way) over 250 miles to bomb Rabaul? I would suspect the probability of that happening is near zero. You would be searching for that enemy TF bearing down on you and failing to locate/strike it you would be searching even harder!

NOT blowing it off in the afternoon and sending your men 250 miles north to Rabaul... :rolleyes:

I think that designating the enemy TF is not realistic, as the tactical picture changes overnight because how quickly TFs move, particularly carrier groups,and the decisions about where to strike are made based on same day sighting reports. But priorities are guidance from the commander that affect the TF commanders targeting decisions. Specifically composition of target TFs, and known CAP (don't fly unescorted into heavy CAP)

I disagree 100%.

What is unrealistic about the player designating an enemy TF as a priority target? In any sense of the game? Historically it was done. Heck, one would expect that in the situation I outlined it would not even be necessary for Big Mac to get on the phone and tell the twit in charge at PM "Ah, you maybe should concentrate your bombers on that BB TF that has been heading your way for two days now and not try to nail that transport in Rabaul." I would hope that any officer worth his salt would be able to figure this out all by themselves.

BUT, just as importantly, if in this game I can pick TFs to fly LRCAP over, and target individual bases, ports, hexes and set % of CAP and training (!) by air group...but not target enemy TFs for a naval strike?!?

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:26 am

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

[snip]

I disagree 100%.

What is unrealistic about the player designating an enemy TF as a priority target? In any sense of the game? Historically it was done. Heck, one would expect that in the situation I outlined it would not even be necessary for Big Mac to get on the phone and tell the twit in charge at PM "Ah, you maybe should concentrate your bombers on that BB TF that has been heading your way for two days now and not try to nail that transport in Rabaul." I would hope that any officer worth his salt would be able to figure this out all by themselves.

BUT, just as importantly, if in this game I can pick TFs to fly LRCAP over, and target individual bases, ports, hexes and set % of CAP and training (!) by air group...but not target enemy TFs for a naval strike?!?

Historically done? I doubt if specific TFs were targeted. Not to mention they can split or join overnight. Guidance from Nimitz was not so specific, more as to damaging an enemy capability or type of force(carrier, surface transport).

I the situation above, if a priority can be given to the commander to hit surface TFs, that would more than likely do as much as "targeting the TF".

Grumbling Grogn · Post by **Grumbling Grogn** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:36 am

You are telling me that in the situation above it would be out of line for Big Mac to tell the local PM commander to target the bombardment TF heading his way for the last two days??? I would have to agree but only because it would be pretty stupid for the commander to do anything else!

And if there were two TFs and one had CVs and the other had transports the operationals commander would be out of line telling the local commander to target that CV TF that was last spotted at XXYY?

Sure the TF may be gone, moved, altered, whatever...so? That does not mean you don't have orders to target it if it is still there (and it would be vast majority of the time--spotting it is the hard part).

And if you have orders to target the enemy TF with 3 CVs in it and then you can only spot a TF with two CVs in it... I would hope that the local commander (and AI) can figure out that this CV TF in the same area will be good enough/the same one/whatever and instead of just blowing off the orders entirely and targeting something else ("Hey guys! Wanta nail a flattop or go visit Rabual again?"

) the local commander would attack the TF that most closely matches the order.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:57 am

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

[snip]
And if there were two TFs and one had CVs and the other had transports the operationals commander would be out of line telling the local commander to target that CV TF that was last spotted at XXYY?

Sure the TF may be gone, moved, altered, whatever...so? That does not mean you don't have orders to target it if it is still there (and it would be vast majority of the time--spotting it is the hard part).

And if you have orders to target the enemy TF with 3 CVs in it and then you can only spot a TF with two CVs in it... I would hope that the local commander (and AI) can figure out that this CV TF in the same area will be good enough/the same one/whatever and instead of just blowing off the orders entirely and targeting something else ("Hey guys! Wanta nail a flattop or go visit Rabual again?" ) the local commander would attack the TF that most closely matches the order.

Giving guidance ot the commander to strike CV TFs would mean just that. Strike the CV TFs first. I don't care what TF number it is, as long as it has Cvs in it! If there are more than one, distribute the strikes focused on the one that is more dangerous (I see on CV today, and 2 more pop up tomorrow, the commander, who has a priority from me to strike CV TFs, does just that on the new threat).

Of course, that assumes timely reporting of the spot reports. Since the morning and afternoon phases constitute a number of hours, it is hard to replicate the down to the minute decsions to send strikes against what targets, considering spot reports don't all come in at the same time in a manner to support the perfect decision. (Nagumo's indecision at Midway seems to come to mind)

I believe it is about achieving the results without micromananging the TF commander's decision.

Grumbling Grogn · Post by **Grumbling Grogn** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 3:21 am

Giving guidance ot the commander to strike CV TFs would mean just that. Strike the CV TFs first. I don't care what TF number it is, as long as it has Cvs in it! If there are more than one, distribute the strikes focused on the one that is more dangerous (I see on CV today, and 2 more pop up tomorrow, the commander, who has a priority from me to strike CV TFs, does just that on the new threat).

Of course, that assumes timely reporting of the spot reports. Since the morning and afternoon phases constitute a number of hours, it is hard to replicate the down to the minute decsions to send strikes against what targets, considering spot reports don't all come in at the same time in a manner to support the perfect decision. (Nagumo's indecision at Midway seems to come to mind)

I believe it is about achieving the results without micromananging the TF commander's decision.

Well, surprise! I agree 100%! :p

Now, the problem I have with people saying that they don't want to add what I propose because they see it as micromanaging is this: (here comes the chorus) the player already does a hell of alot more micromanaging already, and he does it on much, much more mundane and tivial tasks (supply shipments, training, etc.)

So, if the mechisim is already in place (mostly) to manage these strikes, and I have to "micromanage" supply shipments to get decent results from the the AI then for goodness sake let me micromanage my airstikes on this naval battle that has been building for the last two months (game time, unless it is PBEM

) so that my bombers don't go visit Rabual again while my base/flat tops are pounded!

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 3:56 am

It is interesting to imply that logistics is trivial (mundane yes, trivial no).

But success in the conduct of a campaign lies in the logstical planning and execution. It is about supply and airpower. For scenario #1, logistics are not an issue, but winning the long scenarios is more of a function of your ability to execute a good plan based on how well you support it. You can lose a carrier battle and still win the campaign, but screw the logistics up, and your campaign fails.

A better AI for executing logisitcs would be nice, among other things. I agree about that. (Logistics is too important to leave to the AI)

But targeting TFs in unneccessary. Setting targets for Port/airfield attacks, and LRCAP are easy enough. Bases don't move and you know where your own TFs are and will be. You just do not know where and with what the enemy TFs will be. Giving a priority would help sort that out, but more control is not better.

Grumbling Grogn · Post by **Grumbling Grogn** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:08 am

Originally posted by denisonh
It is interesting to imply that logistics is trivial (mundane yes, trivial no)...

A better AI for executing logisitcs would be nice, among other things. I agree about that. (Logistics is too important to leave to the AI)

But targeting TFs in unneccessary. Setting targets for Port/airfield attacks, and LRCAP are easy enough. Bases don't move and you know where your own TFs are and will be. You just do not know where and with what the enemy TFs will be. Giving a priority would help sort that out, but more control is not better.

Logistics is very trivial when we are talking about individual supply runs to bases in the rear that have not seen action and never will...

Yet, I have to "micro manage" those.

...And when it comes time to duke it out with the enemies CVs I have to just pray that my planes fly in the right direction?

No, I find that unacceptable. This is a game about the war in the South Pacific, not about being a merchant marine. :rolleyes:

Just because TFs move does not mean it can not work. You pick you air group. You pick your mission: Naval Attack: Ships at Sea. Then you simply click on the TF you want them to "target".

Codewise the game engine would be best served if it simply recorded what the player "sees" as that TF and then type it as a "CV group", "surface combat group" or a "transport group", etc... and by general size. Then when the next turn rolls around and your mystic ever-changing TF has mutated the game will search for a TF of the closest match to the type you "targeted". Codewise it really is not that hard to do.

Look, this is basically just setting priority types. BUT the interface is much cleaner in that all the player has to do is click on the TF he wants to target instead of a damnable dropdown list with 4-8 choices. It also meshes well with the existing targeting methods already in use.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:35 am

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Logistics is
[snip]
...And when it comes time to duke it out with the enemies CVs I have to just pray that my planes fly in the right direction?

I am confused, where do I advocate this? Once again, we talk of a situation where all the facts that pertain this much used example are absent. Weather, search, TF distances, etc....

If anecdotal evidence is deemed significant, then a more complete examination of all the associated facts can deliver a much clearer picture of the event. And the ensuing analysis would be that much more valuable.

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

No, I find that unacceptable. This is a game about the war in the South Pacific, not about being a merchant marine. :rolleyes:

No glamour in being a merchant marine, but it is the most important task to do well to win the game. Boring or not it is critical.

As the saying goes, "Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logisitics"

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn

Just because TFs move does not mean it can not work. You pick you air group. You pick your mission: Naval Attack: Ships at Sea. Then you simply click on the TF you want them to "target".

Codewise the game engine would be best served if it simply recorded what the player "sees" as that TF and then type it as a "CV group", "surface combat group" or a "transport group", etc... and by general size. Then when the next turn rolls around and your mystic ever-changing TF has mutated the game will search for a TF of the closest match to the type you "targeted". Codewise it really is not that hard to do.

Look, this is basically just setting priority types. BUT the interface is much cleaner in that all the player has to do is click on the TF he wants to target instead of a damnable dropdown list with 4-8 choices. It also meshes well with the existing targeting methods already in use.

A damnable dropdown list with 4-8 choices is one way, but not the only way. I can think of easier ways to get it done. Don't make it sound harder than it really needs to be.

And "meshing well with existing targetting methods" is no solution for the reasons I have already mentioned.

The bottom line is you want it that way and I don't. Now that seems obvious to me:)

CapAndGown · Post by **CapAndGown** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:35 am

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
...And when it comes time to duke it out with the enemies CVs I have to just pray that my planes fly in the right direction?

And this is just what the commanders in the theater had to do. Please reread Morrison's histories of Midway, Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz. Your proposal is totally ahistorical and leaves unasnswered the questoin: what if my ships can't attack the TF I selected because it is out of range or because I lost sight of it during the night and did not reaquire it until two hours after another more threatening TF was spotted? Do they just sit on the ship? What if a new threat suddenly develops? There is no way I would want to play the game if your suggestion was adopted unless it was an option I could turn off.

Why are you asking for ahistorical capabilities and yet call yourself a grognard?

Grumbling Grogn · Post by **Grumbling Grogn** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:49 am

No glamour in being a merchant marine, but it is the most important task to do well to win the game. Boring or not it is critical.

As the saying goes, "Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logisitics"

Yep, and we are all amatuers. I doubt Matrix would have sold a dozen games if they developed a “Merchant Marine Simulation”.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 6:01 am

Matrix is filling the void that most other corporate gaming entities neglect.

Wargames with some "meat" on the bones. Something that goes along way towards representing all aspects of operational warfare, not just the gee whiz stuff.

The main reason I enjoyed PacWar was the fact it accurately respresented logistics as a key component to winning the game.

If UV didn't have it, I wouldn't have bought it.

So many reasons behind the battles fought and not fought go back to the campaign in which the action occured. Framing the battles with the situation of the campaign makes it far more meaningful.

And that means logistics.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.

And did I mention, logisitics.

And I AM a professional military officer, currently in graduate school at the US Naval Postgraduate School:D

Grumbling Grogn · Post by **Grumbling Grogn** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 6:08 am

And this is just what the commanders in the theater had to do. Please reread...

Not trying to be insulting, but, have you read the thread?

Players already have way, way, way more micro manageing control over aspect of the game that are minor in comparison. Geez, how many times does this point have to be made? Is this even in dispute?

Need I type up the list of all the air missions we all know so well and show you the exacting options we have over them?

The AI is in question. We give a simple solution to allow control over Naval Strike missions that will, simply put them on par with every freakin other air mission type.

You don’t like it... fine.

BUT, don’t give me the Operational Level/Micro Manager/Non-historical arguements. PLEASE! It holds no water in this game as it already exists <period>

Does anyone even dispute this?

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:19 am

Let's try this one more time:

I want to emphasize again that I am not recommending changes that allow micromanagement or "tactical oversight" of air ops commanders' mission assignments.

All I ask is this:

1- an additional button that allows assignment to "naval attack - at sea."
2- a general priority-setting function that expresses the player's wishes (for good or ill) in terms of task force type priorities for attack. This would not be an absolute override, only a prioritization. The usual stupidies can be committed, anyway (misidentification of TF, attack of a low-priority TF type because a higher priority one either was not spotted or not spotted in time, you know, the usual crap we already put up with and love).

Number one seeks to avoid the "Rabaul effect" I described earlier. I haven't seen much here that disputes the need for players to avoid this kind of suicide and preserve resources for the "real" battles. Number two is the primary bone of contention.

It is very possible for you to scr*w yourself any number of ways by assigning a priority. Let's say, for example, that you are "CV-paranoid." You set your top priority target as CV TFs. A battleship group you didn't see yesterday waltzes in and buggers up your base, followed by a transport TF that commences an amphibious invasion. The enemy CVs? Nowhere to be seen. Your pilots? Sitting on their arses eating SOS when the shells start raining down. Whose fault? Yours. If you had left well enough alone and not assigned your stupid priority, your pilots might have stuck a few holes in those BBs and sent a few thousand troops for a swim. Isn't this possibility how you wanted it to be when you bought the game? Or was your interest piqued by the hope that your subordinates would make a critical error in operational judgment and lose the campaign for you without you having had any more than a slight opportunity to shape history?

Let's look at the flip side for a moment. You spotted no CV TFs yesterday. Recent activity (air strikes, recon flights, bombardment groups, and so on) indicates to you that the enemy is massing to strike your most vital forward base. Your analysis indicates that an amphibious invasion there, unsupported by CVs, is possible, even probable. You make the necessary preparations. You sortie surface forces to seek out and destroy the enemy. You rush reinforcements to the anticipated point of attack. You alert your LBA squadrons to strike any and all transport TFs threatening invasion and, secondarily, surface combat TFs operating in support of the operation. Your educated guess turns out to be a stroke of brilliance. The enemy thrust is smashed. Once again, your command of the operational arts sparkles with brilliance. Isn't this far more satisfying than having to say to yourself, "Well, I had enough stuff in the area, and, although I didn't have much to say about it, my air ops guys put it to good use, I guess."

A third possibility is to give general orders for your air units merely to strike "naval forces at sea" (note how craftily I slipped my suggestion number one into the mix here). If you're lucky, your subordinate commanders will react effectively. Then again, you may not be so lucky. This is the only possibility currently provided for in the game. Many, myself included, find it unsatisfying. I do not see the suggested solution, a simple option allowing prioritization of targets, as too much to ask. If you don't want to prioritize targets, just leave the settings at default.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:01 am

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Not trying to be insulting, but, have you read the thread?

Players already have way, way, way more micro manageing control over aspect of the game that are minor in comparison. Geez, how many times does this point have to be made? Is this even in dispute?

Need I type up the list of all the air missions we all know so well and show you the exacting options we have over them?

The AI is in question. We give a simple solution to allow control over Naval Strike missions that will, simply put them on par with every freakin other air mission type.

You don’t like it... fine.

BUT, don’t give me the Operational Level/Micro Manager/Non-historical arguements. PLEASE! It holds no water in this game as it already exists <period>

Does anyone even dispute this?

You still have not demonstrated how targeting the specific TF is any better than setting a priority.

Simply because I can set a base for the bomb an airfield or port option, doesn't make it better for Naval Attack. The specifics are unnecessary and adds potential gameyness.

Yes, gameyness.

Take this example: Player A has TF 1 with 3 CVs is spotted. Player A creates a new TF 2 with the carriers, leaving 1 DD in the previous TF 1.

Player B targets TF 1, and sinks a DD.

Setting a priority makes more sense, and eliminates the possible technique of the TF shuffle.

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:24 am

I like the ideas expressed in the recent posts by Grumbling Grognard, Pasternakski and Mike Scholl, as well as some others earlier. Though these guys don't agree on all the details, the essence is clear and sound, and I sure hope Matrix is thinking about what they're saying.

Piiska · Post by **Piiska** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 3:21 pm

Is there anyone here who has not experienced the ‘Rabaul effect’? I.e. during an important battle their land based airplanes have conducted operations in a completely wrong AREA. I have not really experienced this with CV groups, but I have certainly experienced it with land groups.

I’m not trying to claim that it happens all the time either. No. But I’m saying it happens so consistently, that there is a good case to call it a problem. It is not realistic with any standards, that air squadrons, once they are ordered on ‘naval strike’, feel free to do what ever they want and strike what ever target happens to be in their range, without a regard on the overall situation on the theatre.

I’m asking would it not be possible, or realistic, to give these two basic orders for your land based air groups (maybe even CV groups): One: In which area to operate, Two: What target type is the current priority? (Where and what are operational orders, how, such as attack altitude is tactical. However, this is a game so the real issue is fun)

In terms of real life, would following order from operational commander be unrealistic to send to assets at his disposal: To squadron commanders at PM: Enemy invasion imminent. Defend Port Moresby. Conduct naval strike missions in the area between Lae, Gili Gili and Gasmata. Attack any targets of opportunity, but consider enemy troop ships as your primary target.

Is such a command unrealistic? Is such a command beyond the scope of the game? Would such a command be micromanagement?

Personally I consider Apollo’s suggestion the best solution for pointing to your air groups where I want them to operate. Add target prioritisation to this and the player can efficiently tell where the planes are supposed to strike and what. There is still plenty of room for realistic stuff ups and such.

Personally I don’t care how the system is changed so that my air groups won’t conduct missions in wrong AREA. Be it AI change, or be it Apollo’s system, but something needs to be done to prevent air groups occasionally acting like idiots.

There are so many issues rolled up in this one debate. So far I consider these ones the main issues

1) Rabaul Effect, I.e. planes attack in wrong areas. Can we agree that it exists? If so perhaps it should be addressed somehow and Apollo’s suggestion is so far the most effective remedy to restrict the air groups to areas they are really needed.

2) Air group target prioritisation is always the same (CV), no matter what the operational situation is. Can we agree that there can be operational situations where it would be best to concentrate efforts to another types of ships -such as troop ships. If situation calls for such adjustment who else but the player would be the one to make such a call? AI? Or was it so in reality that no matter what assets the commander had they always attacked CVs?

These are the issues we should focus out debate to present solutions, or argue the issues don’t exist.

The following are the most commonly used arguments so I repeat them in order to make some sense to this debate and show some weaknesses. Please correct me if I have mistaken, or misunderstood something.

A) Too much micromanagement already. People use this argument to argue against adding higher level control to player. It is the same as saying “I don’t want to micromanage”, while defending micromanagement by arguing against higher decision making. I can’t even grasp such illogic so that it could be presented.

B) Scope of the game is wrong to give player such controls. Again the same as no.3. We already do tactical decisions, such as set attack altitudes, so it is illogical to use this argument to argue against setting areas and boundaries of operations to air groups, which is clearly operational decision by its nature.

C) But historically wrong targets got attacked is spite of orders. Nobody is trying to dispute this, but there is a big difference between oil tanker getting mistaken as CV while they are in the same area and that a troopship gets attacked 400 miles in completely wrong direction. Do not use the fog of war argument against the Rabaul effect argument. They are separate issues.

D) Situations change so quickly that the base commanders need flexibility to be efficient. Agreed. Setting very specific targets, such as TF, could be too much in time frame of one day. This argument however does not negate argument for setting areas of operations and target prioritisations. These two are broad enough orders that still leave plenty of flexibility for individual commanders. The only thing they would change is getting rid of Rabaul effect and give player a say on if it is wise to attack troops ships, battleships or carriers. Not too much to ask really.

Please, let’s try to define the issues we are arguing for or against so the debate can go on instead of going around.

Ps. I felt like adding argument E) Strike packages sometimes fly to bases without escorts. This is completely separate issue from target area selection and target prioritisation. Sometimes packages do get separated, but it has nothing to do with process of setting up the target. In this debate it is irrelevant who arrives to target with whom.

Bc2of5 · Post by **Bc2of5** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 3:37 pm

As i am already said many,many post above in this topic seems it for me necessary to change routines whicht set up raids and raids go out to naval targets with 40 or 50 escorts(which makes sometimes sense,sometimes not) and a handfull of bombers,but when a raid goes out to an heavy defended target and no or almost no escorts are send with them than seem it to me that something is wrong.Just launch the latter scenarios in 1943 where Rabaul try to retalitate with it's airforce and watch it's behaviour:eek:

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:03 pm

In case some missed it, David Heath wrote:

I did talk with both Gary and Joel and that [no player control of naval attacks] was the design choice they made. I fully understand both points of view and stand behind them on their choice.

I will also say that the AI may at times may make a bad choice and we are working on improving that but remember it is AI and it will never be everything to everyone.

Like everything else done at Matrix we all do read the forums and will see what we can do to improve this in the near future.

THere are no plans to allow players to directly target enemy task forces as it is not appropriate at this scale. Again we don't accept the argument that "because you think there is two much micromanagement in one area that means you have to be able micromanage another area". THe balance between keeping the players hands tactcially tied appropriately and letting a commander get into tactical details is a difficult thing, but in general the game allows you to muck around in the thing there was a historical ability to muck around with (like the constant a debates over what altitudes to fly missions at - or the specification of which based to bomb (regarded as "operational level fires" by those doing the planning at the time) and were planned far further ahead than the 1 day. OR the "level of effort" cycles of on task and stand down. THe ability to influence things are in the game becasue historically the commanders did so.

Especially the comparison between targeting land bases and task forces (that move around) - despite the fact an enemy TF is shown on the map - the "time late" and "confidence" in the specifics are abstrated and accounted for in a number of ways that make "if the enemy TF is on the map I have enough targeting info to attack it" a false assumption. SO you CAN'T make specific naval attack targeting decisions, because it was not possible historically to do so.

ONe can argue I suppose that limiting occasions to micromanage to some (not even all) of those that were historically attempted, and not others, unfairly prevents the player form "changing history" but you have to establish some historical constraints or the game becomes pure fantasy. That is called game design. You choose the "historical constants" and the "historical variables" and you go from there. SOmeone will disagree with every design desicion you make - but when the game hangs together as elegantly as UV, you have to admit some considerable success in Gary's choices there.

To be "historical" you should never play at less than 3 or 4 day turns, but that is a different argument... That is the length of the typical "OODA loop" the historical commanders had. Today the planning of an Air Tasking Order takes guess what...72 hours... some things are based on the ability of humans to analyze situations and make decisions - not technology...though there are thous wh think it can be brought down under 24 with "network centric warfare"...again I digress...

It appears that you folks agree with that based on the poll where less than 1 in 5 think that sort of change is necessary. And nearly 1 in 3 think its fine the way it is. That sort of breakdown show its impossible to please EVERYONE no matter what we do, or avoid having a chunk of folks not like some aspect of something.

That said, as David and I both posted, that DOES NOT MEAN that we have ruled out further refinement of the AI, AND/OR the possibility of adding additional options to influence that AI. Nearly 1 in 2 think that sort of change is desireable and we hear you.

We've all read the posts and you can feel free to post but I think this argument has pretty much run its course and circled back a few times.

The bottom line is - no player controlled stikes BUT the likelihood for continued evolution of the AI and player influences on it. (Though any such change would likely be a WitP development that would be backfit to UV when that game comes out.)

We are listening and do play the game ourselves and do understand the situation. But at his point the game is pretty much what it is. WitP is the focus of attention now, and when that is ready, we will see what from it is appropriate to backfit into UV.

Another reason why we should be able to set air mission targets ourselves.

You guys just don't get it.

Re: You guys just don't get it.