Task Force Micromanagement Poll
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
-
- Posts: 8592
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
My vote is for micromanagement to stay as is... it's near perfect.
And yes, the theatre commander could (and probably did) tell the task force commander (who would then say so to the CAG) that his fighters better cover that invasion TF, if he doesn't want to end up counting mittens in Nome, AK.
And yes, the theatre commander could (and probably did) tell the task force commander (who would then say so to the CAG) that his fighters better cover that invasion TF, if he doesn't want to end up counting mittens in Nome, AK.
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
- Capt Cliff
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:48 pm
- Location: Northwest, USA
GOOD POLL!!!!
No problem "dgaad", ya got me to put LRCAP over MY TF! Going to DEFCON 1 or is it 4?
I think Joe98 has hit the nail on the head! In order for Matrix to prosper they need to broaden the appeal for the game. To put it plainly; "No bucks no Buck Rogers!"!!!!
The computer AI does not do a good enough job of manageing it's TF's, especial air combat TF's, ergo either play solitare or PBEM.
But....the disagrees have it, but let's suggest an appeal to a broader market!
One final thing; I don't think Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing, drives rivets on the assembly line or tells them where or how to do it. Isn't this why Hitler lost the war, he micromanaged his armies, especially in '42 and at Kursk??? Now I got to go order toliet paper for the 1st Marine Division at Lunga or I'll be up the creek!
No problem "dgaad", ya got me to put LRCAP over MY TF! Going to DEFCON 1 or is it 4?
I think Joe98 has hit the nail on the head! In order for Matrix to prosper they need to broaden the appeal for the game. To put it plainly; "No bucks no Buck Rogers!"!!!!
The computer AI does not do a good enough job of manageing it's TF's, especial air combat TF's, ergo either play solitare or PBEM.
But....the disagrees have it, but let's suggest an appeal to a broader market!
One final thing; I don't think Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing, drives rivets on the assembly line or tells them where or how to do it. Isn't this why Hitler lost the war, he micromanaged his armies, especially in '42 and at Kursk??? Now I got to go order toliet paper for the 1st Marine Division at Lunga or I'll be up the creek!
Capt. Cliff
The point is that the experienced human player is quite often a better "micro-manager" than the AI so we need to keep at least the micro-management as it is ... or even increase it !Originally posted by Joe 98
The grog player will by nature micromanage.
The ability to micromanage attracts grogs.
For the game to have a wider audience there needs to be automation.
More automation attracts the non-grog.
We need the occasional players / non-grogs to buy more copies to keep our hobby alive.
-
However, Matrix/2by3 should provide more automation options (such as the sub automation) for the non-grogs - even if it is not as efficient as the human player micromanagement.
The usual suspects for such automation :
* Convoy operations
* shakedown cruises (ie : ships are left in shakedown cruises until they reach an day (or night) experience of 45)
* Squadrons Training (ie : training until squad experience = 70)
...
Spooky
Broader Appeal
It's a worthy goal that frequently leads ultimately to fewer customers. It has to be managed carefully so as not to alienate the faithful.
-
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am
Micro-management strictly for the sake of micro-management is usually referred to as being "anal-retentive". A good bit of it in UV is redundant or a waste of resources (time) each and every turn. Being able to micro-manage when it's desirable/needed is fine...having it forced upon you is...anal.
I think of UV as "the game where every officer above the rank of 2nd LT was abducted by Space Aliens". A layered command/HQ system where you can issue operational level "command guidance", or micro-manage as needed would suit me just fine.
I think of UV as "the game where every officer above the rank of 2nd LT was abducted by Space Aliens". A layered command/HQ system where you can issue operational level "command guidance", or micro-manage as needed would suit me just fine.
- Erik Rutins
- Posts: 39653
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Thoughts....
J7B,
I have to say I've played far more micro-management intensive wargames than UV. For its scale and scope, in my experience it's really not bad as far as management. I take 10 - 15 minutes to do a turn in the largest scenarios and that's with looking around and making sure I'm not missing anything.
Regards,
- Erik
I have to say I've played far more micro-management intensive wargames than UV. For its scale and scope, in my experience it's really not bad as far as management. I take 10 - 15 minutes to do a turn in the largest scenarios and that's with looking around and making sure I'm not missing anything.
Regards,
- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/
Freedom is not Free.
I was trying to say to keep the micrmanagement to satisfy the grogs but the option to automate ought to be there for the non-grogs.
So far I have only attempted the smallest scenarios and it takes me an hour to play one turn.
Thats simply too long. Should be a half hour max.
Not sure that I will bother with the larger scenarios and War In The Pacific will be huge.
So far I have only attempted the smallest scenarios and it takes me an hour to play one turn.
Thats simply too long. Should be a half hour max.
Not sure that I will bother with the larger scenarios and War In The Pacific will be huge.
MORE!!!!!!!
If anything there is not enough! I would love to be able to set the waypoints, control the individual ships within a TF ( such as setting some to AAW and others to ASW as in Harpoon as well as being able to set the TF formation itself....which ship screens what and etc).

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
I haven't changed my mind. I'm with juliet7bravo.
If I'm supposed to be sitting in PH working on my tan and the wahines, err..... formulating strategy, I shouldn't have to tell them to put their raincoats on if it's raining or come in out of the bombardment.
I swear they act like a flock of domestic turkeys sometimes.
Still think it's a great game guys.
If I'm supposed to be sitting in PH working on my tan and the wahines, err..... formulating strategy, I shouldn't have to tell them to put their raincoats on if it's raining or come in out of the bombardment.
I swear they act like a flock of domestic turkeys sometimes.
Still think it's a great game guys.
If something's not working you might want to tunk it a dite.
Mojo's Mom
Mojo's Mom
It's pretty obvious that many of us have differing opinions on the level of needed or desired micromanagement. I consider it important to tell my fleets and squadrons what types of ships are priority targets, or the course that they may take to get to and from the target area...going in a straight line isn't necessarily a smart idea...this type of micromanagement I do not consider anal retentive and I take offense when someone suggests as much.
Logistics might be a pain...but it is as necessary as any part of a battle....all the great commanders got involved with their logistics. Who do you think orders the fleet when to replenish...it's not some poor ensign down in the laundry room, or who orders the stockpiling of fuel and supplies in preparation for a major offensive and where to strategically place it...it sure as heck isn't Crapgame from Kelly's Heroes (although he comes close:) It's the good leaders that do all this!
I sure as heck don't want the AI to take my fleet out of operation and begin replenishment at the wrong time or run a supply convoy within LBA range without adequate protection.
So I think what we need here are some game options that allow various functions to be toggled on or off depending on individual preferences (much more tactful way of asking rather than calling ppl anal retentive). I also like the idea of waypoints, that would reduce having to keep track of fleets all the time. I would also like the ability to set up a supply convoy system that allows me to assign transports and escorts to and from specific ports and have it continue along the route I select until I decide to change it. That way I can order supplies and fuel to PM or Luganville or wherever and let all them ensigns do the dirty work...but when necessary...pull them transports out for an invasion fleet.
It still only takes me around 10 minutes or less to do a turn...but then I do 1 day increments...some turns I just click to advance but I like the flexibility of daily input.
Andy
Logistics might be a pain...but it is as necessary as any part of a battle....all the great commanders got involved with their logistics. Who do you think orders the fleet when to replenish...it's not some poor ensign down in the laundry room, or who orders the stockpiling of fuel and supplies in preparation for a major offensive and where to strategically place it...it sure as heck isn't Crapgame from Kelly's Heroes (although he comes close:) It's the good leaders that do all this!
I sure as heck don't want the AI to take my fleet out of operation and begin replenishment at the wrong time or run a supply convoy within LBA range without adequate protection.
So I think what we need here are some game options that allow various functions to be toggled on or off depending on individual preferences (much more tactful way of asking rather than calling ppl anal retentive). I also like the idea of waypoints, that would reduce having to keep track of fleets all the time. I would also like the ability to set up a supply convoy system that allows me to assign transports and escorts to and from specific ports and have it continue along the route I select until I decide to change it. That way I can order supplies and fuel to PM or Luganville or wherever and let all them ensigns do the dirty work...but when necessary...pull them transports out for an invasion fleet.
It still only takes me around 10 minutes or less to do a turn...but then I do 1 day increments...some turns I just click to advance but I like the flexibility of daily input.
Andy

2 leaders
Hi, The player is not Nimitz in PH he is 2 differant leaders. One in Command of SouthPac the other in Coommand Of SouthWestPac
He might consider that he actually goes on board one of his TF's when they put to sea. From the flag plot he directs the TF commander. Or he stays ashore but prior to the TF getting underway he gives very specific instructions to the TF leader. The "micro managment" is merely seeing they are carried out.
The operational commander would be in charge of dictating how his TF's are employed. Unless we are able to program our plans 10 days to 3 months in advance into TF leaders the AI will have no idea what we really want. There fore we have to every day insure it is being done. It's not hard and it does not take that long.
He might consider that he actually goes on board one of his TF's when they put to sea. From the flag plot he directs the TF commander. Or he stays ashore but prior to the TF getting underway he gives very specific instructions to the TF leader. The "micro managment" is merely seeing they are carried out.
The operational commander would be in charge of dictating how his TF's are employed. Unless we are able to program our plans 10 days to 3 months in advance into TF leaders the AI will have no idea what we really want. There fore we have to every day insure it is being done. It's not hard and it does not take that long.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Keep it the way it is.
I like the level of management as it is with an exception or two (you knew there wouild be an exception). I would like the ability to set up ASW patrols the way that CS convoys are set up. Create your SC or DD squadron, set a few way points (which include a port) and the TF just cruises the patrol area and refuels by itself until you give different orders or it finds and reacts to an enemy sub. Kinda like the train-til-you're-done thing mentioned in another post. Sure you can send them out with reaction set ON and retire set OFF but then you have to keep checking them.

I like the level of management as it is with an exception or two (you knew there wouild be an exception). I would like the ability to set up ASW patrols the way that CS convoys are set up. Create your SC or DD squadron, set a few way points (which include a port) and the TF just cruises the patrol area and refuels by itself until you give different orders or it finds and reacts to an enemy sub. Kinda like the train-til-you're-done thing mentioned in another post. Sure you can send them out with reaction set ON and retire set OFF but then you have to keep checking them.

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. "
I disagree: Bring on the micromanagement as long as I can continue to use the "commanders descretion" button. You see, we ALREADY have the best of both worlds. Sometimes I have a specific notion of the target and results I want...ie bomb Rabual airfield only. Sometimes no idea what I want...that's when the guy on the ground, commanders descretion, get's the nod. It's all in the game. You can tweak it to include more variables, I guess, or give a general OPerations order for the commanders descretion mode...but isn't that already being done now?
All Hail Marx and Lennon
Sorry
Hi, Sorry Mojo I don't want you thinking you are not entitled to your view. I was really trying more to state mine then refute yours. I could have done it a more tactfull way. I only meant your not in PH getting a tan your in Noumea or NG getting ate by mosquitosOriginally posted by Mojo
I stand corrected. Domo arigato Mogami and gomenasai.
![]()
I guess my recollections of the game are getting a little fuzzy as I haven't played it in weeks and I didn't read the title of the thread closely enough.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Re: Sorry
Not at all Mogami. No offense taken.Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Sorry Mojo I don't want you thinking you are not entitled to your view. I was really trying more to state mine then refute yours. I could have done it a more tactfull way. I only meant your not in PH getting a tan your in Noumea or NG getting ate by mosquitos
My comments were totally inappropriate for the thread. Glad somebody pointed that out to me. I must learn to stick to the topic. First I need to read it all though.

If something's not working you might want to tunk it a dite.
Mojo's Mom
Mojo's Mom
After I read Joe 98's post in the very, very, early part of Sunday am after staying up all night to continue my UV learning curve, I whipped up the following admitedly, sleep-addled reply but set it aside. Looking at it now and the thread to date, I would like to throw a part of it into the pot.
*****I think you can be a grog without having a desire to micro-manage and you can be a non-grog who likes to micro-manage. There is also the possibility that a player will move from one side to the other based on the actual game or genre ( I certainly have over the years). Perhaps we are dealing with definitions and preferences in style of play. Both styles can be found in grogs and non-grogs alike in my 25+ years of wargamer experience.
What really matters to me is that a game strikes a balance between the two styles. From what we have seen to date, UV can be placed in the micro-management category and that's fine with me. And I agree with you that we need both to keep investing in the hobby.
If I have mis-intrepreted your comment...let me apologize in advance. ****
As mentioned in this thread by Joe 98, I am also surprised at the amount of time it takes for me to work through a turn (I kept the setting at 12 hrs I think). I just hope that it is only an indication of my learning the game and in time, I'll be able to doing things quicker and more efficiently. Either that or I will have to force myself to stop at midnight on week nights and go to bed.
I too am interested in being able to fine-tune the degree of micro-management command activities. There are some great ideas here, epecially use of waypoints. At the moment, I have to direct my TFs around lurking subs and then set their final destination.
After reading the thread to date, I hope that the topic will be of interest to the WitP developers given the fact that WitP will be a much larger game based on UV's game system and engine. I would bet that this topic will come up again when Witp is released.
What I hope can be avoided in WitP, is the girth and massive (although informative) complexity as seen in the old grandfather of Pacific theater board wargames, SPI's War in the Pacific and other large mega-games from that era. I'm sure many boardgamers will remember how long it took to set up the monster games....let alone play...beautiful indeed, but still a monster. In some ways, the extensive micro-management aspects we have today might be its computer equivalent.
BTW, this is a great thread.
*****I think you can be a grog without having a desire to micro-manage and you can be a non-grog who likes to micro-manage. There is also the possibility that a player will move from one side to the other based on the actual game or genre ( I certainly have over the years). Perhaps we are dealing with definitions and preferences in style of play. Both styles can be found in grogs and non-grogs alike in my 25+ years of wargamer experience.
What really matters to me is that a game strikes a balance between the two styles. From what we have seen to date, UV can be placed in the micro-management category and that's fine with me. And I agree with you that we need both to keep investing in the hobby.
If I have mis-intrepreted your comment...let me apologize in advance. ****
As mentioned in this thread by Joe 98, I am also surprised at the amount of time it takes for me to work through a turn (I kept the setting at 12 hrs I think). I just hope that it is only an indication of my learning the game and in time, I'll be able to doing things quicker and more efficiently. Either that or I will have to force myself to stop at midnight on week nights and go to bed.
I too am interested in being able to fine-tune the degree of micro-management command activities. There are some great ideas here, epecially use of waypoints. At the moment, I have to direct my TFs around lurking subs and then set their final destination.
After reading the thread to date, I hope that the topic will be of interest to the WitP developers given the fact that WitP will be a much larger game based on UV's game system and engine. I would bet that this topic will come up again when Witp is released.
What I hope can be avoided in WitP, is the girth and massive (although informative) complexity as seen in the old grandfather of Pacific theater board wargames, SPI's War in the Pacific and other large mega-games from that era. I'm sure many boardgamers will remember how long it took to set up the monster games....let alone play...beautiful indeed, but still a monster. In some ways, the extensive micro-management aspects we have today might be its computer equivalent.
BTW, this is a great thread.