Idea of how to "fix" the "Naval Search" and "Naval Attack"

[Feinder]

Piiska, don't be patronizing, it's most unbecoming. "Stratigic", "Operational", "Tactical" level wargames, they're just semantics that are LOOSELY applied to try to give an idea of what the scope is. Regardless of how they are applied in the real world, ther real world says it all eventually comes down to dollars.

1. Is this a change that is going to get us more players, or will players quit if we dont' put it in? Something that "would be nice" is much farther down the priority list than something that will make players quit, or worse, make players disparage UV to potential customers. Is anyone REALLY going to go to thier friend (a potential PBEM opponent) and say, "UV is a great game! I'd tell you to buy it BUT, you can't explicity tell your air squadrons to search a specific arc and range, so you shouldn't but it!"

2. Will this be one more thing that makes player's heads explode when they try to learn the game? Also important, as UV's learning curve is pretty steep. Fine if you put it in, but now it's just one more thing that players are gonna ask "WTF is this?" Remember that with UV's public release, there are ALOT of new players who have never had any wargaming experience, let alone any knowledge of military history or terminology.

3. And most importantly, "How much time and development resources (aka COST) would it take to put this in if we wanted to? What sort of impact does this have on WitP? Will it push back it's developement schedule?" (also very important questions).

-F-

[Grumbling Grogn]

To claim that its ok for the player to adjust CAP levels and flying altitudes for individual squadrons, while not being able to set up operational areas and target priorities for the same squadrons is simply too much.

Yes, this is my point exactly. Take away the % for CAP. Take away the routing of indiviual supply runs... BUT please give me the ability to prioritize my air assets better in anti-shipping roles. The single most critical aspect of the game system (one screw up, in one battle can cost you the campaign).

But, as for plotting indiviual search zones and arcs... No, not for UV or WiTP. This level of control is just at too low a level of detail IMHO. If all I had to handle was a single TF or two it would be okay (like Carriers at War). I mean this takes the micro managing we do now for supply runs, etc and carries it to a new level where now I have to actually plot "covered arcs" per air unit. Nope, not in a game where I have to control every freaking ship in the Pacific in WWII! If WiTP requires this level of micro managment I simply will not buy it. Good idea, wrong scale IMO.

[Piiska]

To Feinder: I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to write in a way like I was patronising you.

I was actually writing (or trying to write) for people who have not read the threads debating the scope of the game before. These same arguments have been presented millions of times and my posting was intended as a thorough and clear example showing the weakness of the “UV is operational game blah blah” argument. Weakness that has been demonstrated many times before.

I did this because I felt that that argument is more of a hindrance than help when trying to gauge how people feel about the game system in UV.

I address this post to you, but please do not take it personally. I take the liberty to use you as a device to clarify my point and expand on what I said previously. If the tone seems patronising, it is because I’m trying to explain a very complicated issue as clearly and concisely as possible.

Everyone here does not speak English as their first language and sometimes it requires a tone that may seem 'patronising’, just to get a point through. Nothing is as easy to achieve in these forums as misunderstanding. So I’m not insulting your intelligence, I’m just trying to be as clear as possible to avoid misconceptions.

Why I wanted to refute the “UV is operational…” argument?

Because one thing we can pretty safely assume, is that there are plenty of us gamers who feel the level of control is not quite right in UV in regards to target selection and in my case target area selection. Some of us feel it would be “nice” if this would be addressed. That would have a significant impact on the game play -thus the issue is important for the future of UV and WITP.

With my attempt to show the weakness of “UV is operational...” argument, I was trying to drive the discussion forward towards the real issues, such as the ones you present in your latter post.

I for one feel, that in UV my assets are attacking in wrong areas too often and I would like to have my say on where my assets are allowed to strike and what. For me this is what operational planning is.

You like the game as it is, but you feel there might be need for player input in target prioritisation and I think your viewpoint represents the majority here.

Somebody wants to target individual TF, because the player is frustrated with the lack of control. However, most of us feel that such a change would be too much.

And so it goes.

If someone says: “I want target prioritisation, but I don’t want to mess with search arcs, because its too much of a hassle”, it’s a player opinion based on personal preference, and it’s a perfectly good argument.

However, there is no need to justify that argument with illogical ‘scope of the game’ argument, in order to make the “I like this system” argument seem more legitimate.

In relation to what you said about money mattering the most, you are spot on. If there is more “I like system one” voices than there is “I like system two” voices, it would be logical for a company trying to make profit to heed to those calls; unless of course, their decision-making is influence by other motives besides money, such as artistic vision.

So lets voice our opinions based purely on “What I like and why”, instead of trying to come up with weird illogical arguments about the scope of the game.

It’s cool to say: “I don’t like to micromanage and that’s why I’m against this idea”, but its not cool to present arguments that have obviously flawed logic.

That’s all and sorry for being so anal.

Perhaps Pasternakski should appear here and tell me that I need therapy as well…

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Yes, this is my point exactly. Take away the % for CAP. Take away the routing of indiviual supply runs...................

And then the folks who are complaining because they can't attack the TF they want with the assests they want have one more thing to complain against. Let the AI do it and there will be howls of how poorly the AI is handling such things and how I really wanted those supplies to go there and why did I only have half my CAP up over that base and...............

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

There is no need for us to (bitterly) argue over ideas
represented here in UV forum.

We are all fellow wargamers and we immensely enjoy
playing UV.

With our ideas and suggestion we are only trying to make
UV (and thus WitP) better - but the end decision is, as
always on Matrix/2By3.

They have shown on numerous times that they listen to us
and that they always aim to make UV even better. We owe
them big gratitude for that (and their constant support
of product and presence here answering our
questions/suggestions).

The same things applies to my suggestion here. If they like
it and they think it would make UV (and WitP) better - I
am sure they will think of possibility of implementing
it. If it is not possible they will, I am certain, find
some other (perhaps easier) way to do that.


Leo "Apollo11"

[rich91a]

I remember a comment from one of the Matrix programers that if the games results look good and believable it is because the programers are good with numbers.

It seems to me that the problems with Naval Attack are the numbers are not good enough to be believable.

As a strategic commander, we should expect our subordinate squadron commanders to make realistic and useful Naval Attack choices based on their own ability, information in front of them and the resources available to them.

We, as strategic commander, do our utmost to make the resources available in the right places as best we can.

The game represents different subordinates abilities.

I believe the programers need to work with the numbers further to get the subordinate squadron commanders to make more believable attack choices.

One method of doing this would be to program a matrix which represents both sides pre-conflict knowledge. ie what is the likelihood of this number and type of planes at this range and height inflicting significant damage on this type of target(s) against the likelihood of losses to the squadron.

As the game progresses, data could be fed back from the combat reports to refine this matrix.

This would allow the subordinate commanders to learn from experience. They would make better choices on whether to attack or hold off based on past experience.

It would work for both Human and AI Strategic Commanders - the result being more realistic Naval Attacks for the Human and a tougher AI opponent.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Piiska
Perhaps Pasternakski should appear here and tell me that I need therapy as well…

You don't need therapy. Try drugs. Then consider therapy.

[Skyfire7631]

Sorry to bring back this thread : I really like Apollo's idea, but it is probably too complex to implement in UV.

I have an idea that would be much more easier to code, IMHO. Now you tell me if this idea is BS or not

Instead of having arcs, why not just have a way to reduce the effective range of planes. We would just have a setting in % of the normal range. At 100%, planes would behave just as they do right now, but we could impose them not to fly further than a certain amount of their real range (thanks to my wonderful english, I'm not sure I'm very clear here, but I hope you get the idea)

As far as I can see, the Matrix code for Naval attack/search will so remain unchanged (only the range is modified), and this will allow us to avoid sending bombers where we do not want to.

[EDIT]
And to simplify even more, instead of using this on planes, this could be applied to whole bases, i.e. you set the % for the whole base (or TF ???) instead of individual squadrons
[/EDIT]

Now, as I said, this may be complete BS, so just tell me what you think

Regards.

[siRkid]

I have to say up front that I am not speaking for Matrix. These are just my thoughts.

The sector search has little chance of being implemented. I personally like the idea but the coding effort would be cost prohibitive. I agree that the target selection needs to be worked on. I hate watching the pilots of my dive bombers wave at the thousands of enemy troops that are storming ashore while on their way to attack that lonely mine layer. There are a few alternative ideas in this thread that Matrix might consider and I'll add them to the list.

Another game company (when they used to care about the players) added a feature to their tactical combat games that allowed the player to set priorities for opportunity fire by range. It was a very simple thing. Open up a selection box with radio buttons and select. Maybe something like that.


Rick

[Skyfire7631]

Thanks for your comments, Kid

Regards.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Skyfire76
....................

[EDIT]
And to simplify even more, instead of using this on planes, this could be applied to whole bases, i.e. you set the % for the whole base (or TF ???) instead of individual squadrons
[/EDIT]

...........

This would not be too good. If I want all my medium bombers to fly no more than 14 hex range I would not want the entire baes percentage lowered because while my B-24s would only fly 14 (extended range 16), by lowering the entire base % then the B-26 would not fly the 14 hexes of their extended range(probably would go no further than 12 hexes). So it would have to be by group to be most effective.

[Piiska]

Originally posted by Sonny
This would not be too good. If I want all my medium bombers to fly no more than 14 hex range I would not want the entire baes percentage lowered because while my B-24s would only fly 14 (extended range 16), by lowering the entire base % then the B-26 would not fly the 14 hexes of their extended range(probably would go no further than 12 hexes). So it would have to be by group to be most effective.

One needs to be able to set by the group, by the base, or by the type of airplane. Just as the system is now. You can set either one group on naval strike, or all the same type of planes, or all the levelbombers and so on.

Something similar for attack areas as well, please (or what ever change might happen in future).

I though the Apollo's suggestion was good because in most cases you don't have to micromanage anything. Bases in the rear can be left on the normal 360 degree setting with open target priority.

Only in times when planning a major defensive or offensive operation, would one need to do 'area' settings, to point to the assets where they need to operate. Not much unlike today. You would set your bomber groups on 'naval strike' and then point the areas of operation from the map. This would require no more time than setting altitude, or level of effort.

But as said before: Matrix has already heared our wishes; lets leave the implementation for them.

[Skyfire7631]

Originally posted by Sonny
This would not be too good. If I want all my medium bombers to fly no more than 14 hex range I would not want the entire baes percentage lowered because while my B-24s would only fly 14 (extended range 16), by lowering the entire base % then the B-26 would not fly the 14 hexes of their extended range(probably would go no further than 12 hexes). So it would have to be by group to be most effective.

Agreed

Maybe the solution in this case would be to set an absolute range instead of a relative one ?

Regards.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

I know that my proposal is "long shoot" but I nevertheless made it public
here.

It is, most probably, somehow complicated to implement but it would,
ultimately, fix almost all problems we face now with targeting (once and for
all).

With that arc concept done full responsibility on almost every action done by
air squadrons would be firmly in player's hands (though in selected arc the AI
would still pick up targets - but with more limited scope provided by player's
choice of arc this would be more to player's liking).


The ultimate say in this, as always, in on Matrix/2By3 but I hope that
something somehow can still be implemented in WitP (and retrograde in UV).


One can always hope...


Leo "Apollo11"