Controlling TFs with React/Retirement - A Feature Discussion

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

User avatar
brisd
Posts: 613
Joined: Sat May 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: San Diego, CA

that would be NO contest

Post by brisd »

Mogami, agree with everything you've posted in this thread. Ignore works great but a topic that might cause a change to the game requires a response. There is nothing broke. Anyone who doesn't keep an OPERATIONAL leash on their TF's, whether CV's or others, deserves a trip to Davey Jones' Locker.

In a Coral Sea scenario, my first game, I got the Shoho too close to Port Moresby and a dive bomber put a 1000 pounder in her, severely damaging her. I screwed up, it was my FIRST game. I could have posted "No Fair! LBA got my CV!" but instead I learned from my mistake. I will learn the game, play a few hundred hours and then post appropriately. Matrix - please don't change a thing concerning operational control of the fleets, you got it right the first time! :)

In my opinion, We MUST NOT have a new setting for Carrier TF's.
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39650
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

LBA React Options

Post by Erik Rutins »

As I posted in the other thread related to this topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering this option. However, it clearly needs to be hashed out more than just "avoid LBA" given some of the ranges in the game.

However, I have personally found the Do Not React orders, with their built in limited reaction ability (that might seem non-intuitive, but it's there) to be ideal for Carrier TFs in the vast majority of situations. Using these orders, I've won many engagements and haven't exposed my Carriers to LBA for a long, long time without significant micro-management.

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Re: LBA React Options

Post by dgaad »

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
As I posted in the other thread related to this topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering this option. However, it clearly needs to be hashed out more than just "avoid LBA" given some of the ranges in the game.

However, I have personally found the Do Not React orders, with their built in limited reaction ability (that might seem non-intuitive, but it's there) to be ideal for Carrier TFs in the vast majority of situations. Using these orders, I've won many engagements and haven't exposed my Carriers to LBA for a long, long time without significant micro-management.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik : how about a user enterable variable representing avoidance range? That way, if an LBA has been more or less supressed, you could adjust the avoidance range to something that would allow you to enter LBA range, but not get close enough to trigger a surface reaction.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Post by dgaad »

Could someone explain to me why having additional options in the retirement / react parameters is a bad idea? I'm not asking for anything that currently exists to be taken away, limited or changed.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
Fuchida
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 7:35 pm
Location: Stevenage, England

Re: that would be NO contest

Post by Fuchida »

Originally posted by brisd
Mogami, agree with everything you've posted in this thread. Ignore works great but a topic that might cause a change to the game requires a response. There is nothing broke. Anyone who doesn't keep an OPERATIONAL leash on their TF's, whether CV's or others, deserves a trip to Davey Jones' Locker.

In a Coral Sea scenario, my first game, I got the Shoho too close to Port Moresby and a dive bomber put a 1000 pounder in her, severely damaging her. I screwed up, it was my FIRST game. I could have posted "No Fair! LBA got my CV!" but instead I learned from my mistake. I will learn the game, play a few hundred hours and then post appropriately. Matrix - please don't change a thing concerning operational control of the fleets, you got it right the first time! :)

We MUST NOT have a new setting for Carrier TF's.
No one is suggesting that bad tactics should not be punished.

However, the player has a limited control over the movement of his task forces, understandably so since this is an operational level game. Therefore those task forces should exhibt reasonable behaviour under a given set of circumstances.

Assume for arguments sake that I have a US carrier task force near San Cristobal, outside of LBA. If I spot an enemy carrier group making an end run around me to get at Santa Cruz then I would like to react toward it and launch strikes. If instead I spot a carrier task force near the Slot, I certainly do not want to react towards it to launch strikes because LBA will get me.

Under the current options I can choose react or don't react. If I choose react I stand the chance of getting hit by LBA, if I choose don't react, I stand the chance of the Japs getting past me unmolested to attack Santa Cruz

What I need is a third option. React but don't enter range of LBA (or probably more realistically don't go within x number of hexes of any enemy airbase). This is not because I want to get away with bad tactics but because I want my commanders to have the option to behave sensibly in a wide variety of situations.
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Re: Re: that would be NO contest

Post by dgaad »

Originally posted by Fuchida


No one is suggesting that bad tactics should not be punished.

However, the player has a limited control over the movement of his task forces, understandably so since this is an operational level game. Therefore those task forces should exhibt reasonable behaviour under a given set of circumstances.

Assume for arguments sake that I have a US carrier task force near San Cristobal, outside of LBA. If I spot an enemy carrier group making an end run around me to get at Santa Cruz then I would like to react toward it and launch strikes. If instead I spot a carrier task force near the Slot, I certainly do not want to react towards it to launch strikes because LBA will get me.

Under the current options I can choose react or don't react. If I choose react I stand the chance of getting hit by LBA, if I choose don't react, I stand the chance of the Japs getting past me unmolested to attack Santa Cruz

What I need is a third option. React but don't enter range of LBA (or probably more realistically don't go within x number of hexes of any enemy airbase). This is not because I want to get away with bad tactics but because I want my commanders to have the option to behave sensibly in a wide variety of situations.

Fuchida : I agree.


Consider the following :

This game is the engine that is going to be used for WitP. In that game, there will be much more varied terrain in the sense that you will have isolated islands that are completely out of the range of other islands for support.

Suppose there is an island that is a major base, like Truk, and is surrounded by many hexes of open sea? You might have a Jap carrier group operating there that you want to ambush. Suppose the enemy carrier group moves due north.

Under the current settings, if you set to react, your carrier group will stupidly enter LBA range of Truk and fight a carrier engagement at a huge disadvantage. If you set to Do Not React, you will not catch the group.

A third option would be React but Avoid LBA. Here, you could deploy the carrier group just outside the range of LBA, and the enemy carrier group that moves northwest will be caught by your carrier group which takes a react path outside of LBA, but still far enough and long enough to catch the enemy carriers.

The point is, the React command takes NO NOTICE of enemy LBA threats, and this is totally against the historical SOP of all belligerents of the period. The third option to react but stay out of LBA is something that WAS SOP for the belligerents of the period, but we players cannot do that without close supervision of our own carrier's position and movement.

I want a command to automate to some extent what I do already. Its becoming tedious to count hexranges from LBA so my carrier group avoids LBA. I do the nearly ALL THE TIME, while at the same time I lose the extra movement that I should be entitled to under a REACT status because I know that the REACTION will be stupidly controlled by the code precisely because it isn't cognizant of LBA threats. I shouldn't have to do it this way, it should be an additional option in TF behavior controls. Any sequence of activity that players repeat over and over again needs to be *seriously* considered as a candidate for some feature enhancement - and this is a principle that extends well beyond the wargaming community.

MATRIX : Please also consider that there are a number of people who are not excellent tacticians who are playing this game and getting easily frustrated by carrier group reactions that result in LBA attacks which sink their carriers. This segment of your market will largely abandon the game without additional operational controls that are both easy to understand and provide them with more of an enjoyable experience. This particular operational control request is not something being implemented just to satisfy those people, however, as we have said, its something that was in fact SOP for all belligerents historically.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
Hartmann
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Hartmann »

I agree with dgaad that something should be done simply because, at the moment, the "react to enemy" option is far too hazardous for carriers which pretty much renders it useless (with respect to carriers at least). Everyone of us who made a pertinent experience with "react to enemy" will set it to "off" for good. (I do not even mention the micromanagment issue resulting from having it otherwise).

Certainly, "avoid LBA" is not the thing to go with, but there are several, relatively easily implementable modifier variables which would really help to get more sensible results if they were integrated into the decision routine (in a probablistic, not in a deterministic way). Especially "distance in hexes from bases with airports>=4" seems a good variable to me. Make the decision to follow an enemy TF less likely the closer this action will take your TF to a size 4 airport of the enemy (maybe the estimated amount of planes there should be taken into account, too).


Hartmann
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Post by dgaad »

Originally posted by Hartmann
Everyone of us who made a pertinent experience with "react to enemy" will set it to "off" for good. (I do not even mention the micromanagment issue resulting from having it otherwise).

Hartmann
A good point, Hartmann.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Differing views

Post by mogami »

Greetings, I have been in accord with your request for the options. I also have described how to avoid the problem in lieu of a patch (not ready yet) I also have noticed the 'micro managers' have not had the bad LBA reaction. If you leave those decisions to the AI before there exists the option you will continue to get the result you do not desire. Since the issue is really one of control. The micro mangers will most likely after a patch is made available continue to manage their TF's as before.
If my recon spotted a TF approaching as described above I would direct it's movements as I saw fit. The TF near Lunga would not trigger my TF into a bad reaction. (I don't want my TF's reacting period. except for the limited reaction for tactical reasons that already takes place when TF is set to "do not react"
There is no problem dgaad, everyone is in favor of the requested toggle. My expressions are just for the present conditions. In regard to Deep Blue you again missed my real point. The AI cannot adjust it's behavior to your plans, you must adjust your plans and operational control to the AI. Having an AI that could understand what you really intend when you make and deploy and move a TF would require quite a bit more interface. No matter how many options for TF behavior are installed the micro managers will still have better results since they are moving their assets according to their plan rather then adjusting the plan every turn to account for how the AI moved the TF's. My TF's never go into a hex unless I expressly tell them to. (except of course for that very minor tactical adjustment reaction)
It is not my nature or desire to make posts merely to disagree with someone else. If I cannot make a positive contribution as a response I refrain from posting anything. I have been trying to show players who encounter the LBA reaction there are ways of avoiding it, only this and nothing more. Styles of play and operational outlooks are the concerns of each person and nobody's business but their own. If I have sounded like I am criticizing anyone I am sorry since this was not my aim.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Hartmann
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Hartmann »

Well, even if there will be a patch tweaking the "react to enemy" option satisfyingly, there will still be situations where I *want* to micromanage things, too. No problem with that. :)

Of course, noone demands that the computer aided management does everything perfectly, because - if we would take this to the extreme - it would in the end mean that we've got nothing left to do but watch "Deep Blue" play the game for us.

So I hope it is now crystal clear that we do not want the "react to enemy" option anticipate all our ideas. We just want it to be sensible to a degree that it can be trusted in those 75% of not-so-vital-and-decisive situations, that's all.

The debate is in fact comparable to the CAP issue. We don't demand the routine to organize the CAP *perfectly*. Just that it does its job better to a degree where we can concentrate on other things, and only micromanage the CAP when it is really important.

Hartmann
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Re: Differing views

Post by dgaad »

Originally posted by Mogami
Greetings, I have been in accord with your request for the options. I also have described how to avoid the problem in lieu of a patch (not ready yet) I also have noticed the 'micro managers' have not had the bad LBA reaction. If you leave those decisions to the AI before there exists the option you will continue to get the result you do not desire. Since the issue is really one of control. The micro mangers will most likely after a patch is made available continue to manage their TF's as before.
If my recon spotted a TF approaching as described above I would direct it's movements as I saw fit. The TF near Lunga would not trigger my TF into a bad reaction. (I don't want my TF's reacting period. except for the limited reaction for tactical reasons that already takes place when TF is set to "do not react"
There is no problem dgaad, everyone is in favor of the requested toggle. My expressions are just for the present conditions. In regard to Deep Blue you again missed my real point. The AI cannot adjust it's behavior to your plans, you must adjust your plans and operational control to the AI. Having an AI that could understand what you really intend when you make and deploy and move a TF would require quite a bit more interface. No matter how many options for TF behavior are installed the micro managers will still have better results since they are moving their assets according to their plan rather then adjusting the plan every turn to account for how the AI moved the TF's. My TF's never go into a hex unless I expressly tell them to. (except of course for that very minor tactical adjustment reaction)
It is not my nature or desire to make posts merely to disagree with someone else. If I cannot make a positive contribution as a response I refrain from posting anything. I have been trying to show players who encounter the LBA reaction there are ways of avoiding it, only this and nothing more. Styles of play and operational outlooks are the concerns of each person and nobody's business but their own. If I have sounded like I am criticizing anyone I am sorry since this was not my aim.
Mogami, I apologize if I misunderstood your position. I am in general agreement with most of the points you make here, in particular that the micro-managers will continue to tweak and work as they have before. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

I have to explain that in another game platform (Cossacks) I was requesting additional scenario controls as options, and I got deluged with people essentially saying : "No, we don't want more options, its fine the way it is." I can't understand that :rolleyes:

Anyway, you've stated your concerns and positions very clearly here, and they are good.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

Re: LBA React Options

Post by Capitaine »

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
As I posted in the other thread related to this topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with considering this option. However, it clearly needs to be hashed out more than just "avoid LBA" given some of the ranges in the game.
I agree with you on this Erik. You see, there already IS an "automatic" setting that is somewhat arbitrary: "React to the enemy". Because that reaction is made irrespective of tactical cirmcumstances, it would seem to be within the purpose and intent of the rule perhaps to permit limits to be specified on the extent of that "reaction".

I too do not want to give players too much control over the tactical naval game; the uncertainty really captures the nature of the subject matter well. But refining an existing SOP mechanism is not changing the nature of the game.

I say let's analyze this thing. Surely, if the answer is "just don't use the 'react' setting", then why have that setting AT ALL? Huh? :)
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

Post by juliet7bravo »

Having an option on each TF display that says "no matter what happens, don't go within X distance of an enemy airbase" would be very useful. This setting would be in effect (even for reaction moves) for that TF unless overridden by direct orders to "go to this hex". This setting would be highly useful to help ELIMINATE micro-managing of TF's in general, especially if TF's would then "skirt" enemy airbases by that distance when plotting their course. It'd be kind of like the AZOC's in PacWar, only you'd be specifying the zone of control.

If I have to go around an enemy airbase, I'd rather do it at 250-500 lb bomb range than "torpedo and 1000lb bomb" range. I've had TF's at sea "parking" midway through a turn waiting for me to micromanage their way through/around danger areas. Unless there's a way to set the actual TF paths I haven't found yet?

First impressions of the game BTW...blue. Way too much blue, every dang thing is babypuke blue, after 12 hours I'm sick unto death of blue. Please, I'm begging you...add some color and variety to the menus in the patch!!!! Other than that, everything is greeeeeeat. Stuff like the discussion here is just minor fine-tuning and/or personal preferences...game play is outstanding.
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Post by dgaad »

Originally posted by Hartmann


So I hope it is now crystal clear that we do not want the "react to enemy" option anticipate all our ideas. We just want it to be sensible to a degree that it can be trusted in those 75% of not-so-vital-and-decisive situations, that's all.

The debate is in fact comparable to the CAP issue. We don't demand the routine to organize the CAP *perfectly*. Just that it does its job better to a degree where we can concentrate on other things, and only micromanage the CAP when it is really important.

Hartmann
I think this is right on target, Hartmann. I wouldn't want a control that takes the tactics out of strategy. I'm envisioning just a simple additional TF control that prevents a fleet from entering LBA range when its set to React. That way, we get the benefit of a react move when it benefits us as players, and we don't just simply turn it off because the control behavior is completly stupid.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
NorthStar
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 3:53 am
Location: New York, US

A "Less than excellant tactician" checks in

Post by NorthStar »

I'm probably way below the discussion level on this thread, but I though dgaad made a good point a few posts back.

Personally, I've been looking forward to this game for months, but I'm still not completely convinced I'll ever be able to wrap my brain around it. I'm just not that good, and I don't have all that much time to learn it.

That being said, any options that reduces the grunt work of gaming will be very welcome, and make the game that much more attractive.

Mogami makes a lot of good points about maintaining operation control of the fleet, and not letting task force commander mess things up. But real theater commanders have staffs which help them with record keeping and information tracking. My assumption is that a theater commander would not have to say, "make sure you park the carriers 200 miles off Truk" -- trying to remember exactly what the aircraft ranges are. Rather, he could say "Move against Truk, but stay out of LBA range". His staff could find the data, and make sure the TF commander is properly informed to carry out the theater commander's orders.

What dgaad and the others are asking for is tools to make this kind of thing happen, without intense micro-management.

Those who micro-manage everything themselves -- like Mogami -- will certainly get significantly more performance out of the game and their units than those of us who don't. However, those of us who don't will be lot more likely to stick with the game if the tools are there for us to use -- at least at 75% efficiency. And we'll have noone but ourselves to blame when things go wrong.

The Operational Art of War II is a game worth mentioning in this context. It is (IMHO) a good game. However, it is definitely missing some tools which would make it that much more accessible, and therefore that much more likely to earn a permanent place on my hard drive. (For instance, a way to highlight out of supply units would be nice.)

Anyway, just some thoughts from the less operationally gifted.
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Post by dgaad »

Originally posted by Andrew Offen
Can someone help clarify exactly what the current reaction rules mean in terms of actual distance covered? How far will a CV TF actually move in order to get into strike range of an enemy CV. In my experience it seemed a huge distance and kind of implied the distance was a full 12 hour impulse at max speed. That could be as far as 8 hexes or so. Is this wrong?
Good question. As the game scale is 30 miles to the hex, and each day is 24 hours, and the speed of a CV group is generally 30-32 miles per hour, a CV group could theoretically move 24 hexes in one turn. If a CV group has not moved at all in the previous turn, I don't know if a react move would use all the entire 24 hexes for a react. But typically, I've seen reacts at around 6-12 hexes, which is about half the movement, depending on the situation. In my play I would expect a CV TF to react and move about 10 hexes to any enemy carrier spot, giving them an effective strike range of up to 17 hexes (since the Dauntless range is 7 hexes).
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
Andrew Offen
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 9:00 am
Location: Singapore

Post by Andrew Offen »

Looks like a CV TF will react to the full extent of a max speed move. When you toggle the show ship move radius to on, they will react as far as the outer yellow line (consuming vast quantities of fuel in the process).

I would strongly support the suggestion made to put a player controllable limit on the closest distance a TF will move from a known enemy airfield. This would also be very helpful when controlling normal TF movement as well as applying a much more sensible reaction regime for the AI.

The default can be set to "no limit" leaving those who don't like the idea the option to not use it but for those of us who would it would be a great boost to playabilty.

Rgds
Andrew
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Testing Commander influence

Post by mogami »

Hi, I have just finished a little test. Scenario 17 hotseat (so I could control both sides and insure the test was the same every time.
I formed a CV TF with Zuikaku and Shokaku under Nagumo
US CV TF under Spruance.
moved both TF to area around Gilli (north for IJN south for USN)

Put both TF under react. 3 times there was always reaction leading to battle

Did same test again only replaced Nagumo with Yamaguchi
left Spruance.
3 times always a reaction only battles occurred at least 1 day sooner since Yamaguchi reacted with longer moves. Once from 6 hex NE of Woodlark to 3 hex west of Gilli (a move that would have given me a heart attack in an actual game)
The farthest Nagumo had ever reacted was 6 hexes but he stayed north of Gilli

Of course the description of Nagumo is cautious and Yamaguchi is aggressive.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
dgaad
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Hockeytown

Post by dgaad »

How many hexes were moved by each fleet Mogami? We'd all like to know.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Reaction distance

Post by mogami »

Hi, If Japanese recon planes reported US carriers Yamaguchi always moved in that direction. Spruance always reacted but sometimes he appeared to move away rather then towards.(if the IJN reacted first he sometimes moved away rather then towards)
Nagumo would move toward the enemy but only far enough to get in range (Yamaguchi behaved like he would want the escorts to split off for a surface fight next day)
If the US spotted the enemy first Spruance would move into range if he could, if not he would move to the limit of Japanese aircraft range (to be ready next day) He never moved north of Woodlark (but this might be only because i had him stationed 10 hexes south of Gilli with the IJN carriers 10 hexes north of Gilli.
I wanted both fleets beyond range of aircraft before reaction moves. Yamaguchi once even reacted to a TF that was in fact Neosho and Sims. I was suprised to see Spruance moving away from the enemy rather then towards them but the moves did leave him where PM could support him. Which leaders have gone up to Rabaul? Yamaguchi clearly pays no attention to the danger from PM (he moved well into escorted strike range 2 out of 3 times he reacted)
Some one else run a few tests to compare results.

(I will be gone for a while. In my solo scenario 17 as allies I have a carrier versus carrier situation developing on 9 May)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”