What ammo restrictions should be placed on carrier aircraft?

[pasternakski]

This is exactly what's wrong with permitting this kind of micromanagement. You have to change the texture of the game in order to allow it, thus forcing players to labor over tactical and sub-tactical decisions that ought, if the final design is to be faithful to the concept, to be handled by the AI subordinates (dummies though they tend to be). Yes, a limitation on CV aerial munitions has to be imposed. Great idea, but why should it become an avenue for building more tedium into a game whose enjoyability could very well be overwhelmed by it?

Don't get me wrong. A lot of the discussion about adding options and weapon systems and modifying game mechanics has been informative, apparently useful to the designers, and probably will result in an improved, more enjoyable product. But the other 90 percent...

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

ORIGINAL: Drex
I don't want to screw around with loadouts.

If you don't want to screw around with loadouts, do not screw around with loadouts, but there must be an option for those who want to screw around with loadouts, the availability of a certain option doesn’t force anyone to use this option, it’s not mandatory. This is the matter of choice, and I think it’s not wise to get rid of ability to choose.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
Second that - simple and at the appropriate level of command. I'm either Hirohito/Tojo or some combination of Chiang, Winnie, Frank, and others, and I'm down here on the hangar deck giving personal orders to arming crews on which bombs to attach to each frickin' plane? Please!

Generally I'd tend to agree with you, but CV vs. CV battles are going to be (perhaps unfortunatelly!!) so incredibly crucial in this game, literally a war winning moments. (BTW, I keep telling that CVs are overpriced game-point wise for like more than a year now)

I can understand players will want to have utmost control over every aspect of CV vs. CV engagements. And I agree that any player that got stomped by, say, 5 consecutive torpedo strikes will feel kinda cheated.

In a game as detailed, as realistic, and as "grognardy" as this, I feel differentiating between torps and bombs is warranted.

Oleg

[SeaMonkey]

Now go easy on me guys for perhaps I will be contributing an inane perspective, having never played UV. What is WitP? Is it a game of strategy (grand, operational) with a tactical flavor? Do we want delegation (optional) or micromanagement also optional? Do we want the possibilty of bad decisions and misguided intelligence to enter into the proceedings? I am of the opinion that this game is so large that micromanagement should only be accepted in lieu of an utterly irresponsible act from the AI. If we choose bomb types what is the possibilty that a player might set up a perimeter of transports around his CV containing TF to use all the torpedoes up or some other device to skew the use of the opponents ordinance. Do we want to get right in the pilot's seat of a TBD and make the decision to not torpedo that transport because there was an unconfirmed report of possible CV sightings somewhere down the line? Am I to assume that my CV containing TF does not have the ability to resupply at sea through a brief retirement to a supply convoy of ordinance/fuel transports I set up from Pearl to support its mission? I believe we have to have confidence in our sub-commanders to a certain extent and accept that intelligence and individual pilot/command decisions won't always be to our liking or accurate, isn't that the way real war is? Yes, I have my reservations about the AI's actions, but isn't that for our developers to get right? If the errors(AI's) apply to both sides, isn't it a wash? I vote for one ordinance.

[Von Rom]

My personal opinion would be to allow for TWO types of ammo: bombs and torps.

There could be an option to either have the AI handle the correct ammo load-outs or the player.

Cheers!

[rogueusmc]

I go with Subchaser on this one. It'll be like when you designate 'ground attack' and give it a target hex,.....when there are no longer ground units there to attack, it goes back to 'commander descression'......same thing can be done with weapons. Use 'commander descression' and let them decide if ya don't wanna fool with it.

[pasternakski]

Oleg, old man, I can't say that I disagree with you, as long as the weapon selection is wholly controlled by the local commander when assigning anti-shipping strikes. I think that this is consistent with the game concept, which is to keep you sitting chewing your fingernails and worrying about whether that heavy brass on your collar is still going to be there tomorrow if you f#ck up.

The primary worry for me is this. The more tactical detail that is added, the more crappy choices my subordinate AI commanders can make. I hate them, but if I am given the power to make those choices, it destroys the entire concept of the game.

If the latter path is taken, you might as well go ahead and turn the whole thing into one giant, miasmic, unplayable, grand tactical morass (this sentence mixes no less than four metaphors, an accomplishment of which I am rather proud).

So, let's not destroy the entire fabric of this game system because we are all so anal retentive that we want to do everything from b1tching at Roosevelt because we're not getting enough good airplanes to welding poor b@stards into a suicide torpedo.

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Drex

Of course Subchaser, we're only voicing our opinions here but will I be penalized in the game if I choose not to specify a particlar ammo? Does the fact that choosing bombs over torpedoes give that player an advantage over the other. If it does, then I have to choose loads and don't get a choice.

Drex, my fault, my previous post in this thread should be moved to “Non torp naval attacks” thread, I was advocating an option to choose between bombs and torps for land based(!) level bombers only, I want to screw around with load outs only here.

I also don’t see any necessity to choose ordnance for particular CV air groups, as I said before it’s TF commander job and you shouldn’t be able to interfere here with your no doubt wise advises. “There won't be any more control added to the bomb load outs” that’s what Joel Billings said above, so don’t worry.

However I still think that detailed ordnance should be simulated for CV air groups, there are more positive moments here despite the fact that some negative are here as well, hope developers will balance the system.

1 ammo point for 1 sortie doesn’t introduce anything new actually, cause those ordn. points will accumulate both torps and bombs when the later ones were available in more then sufficient numbers, and carrier probably will be experiencing fuel shortage sooner than will run out of ammo points. So this doesn’t drastically differ from what we currently have in UV, where carrier air groups do not have any ordnance limits at all. While 4 different types of ordnance bring more realism into the game, this option prevents unrealistic results of naval engagements.

Imagine the situation - Kido Butai (all 6 CV) bounce several US convoys and surface combat TFs somewhere in central Pacific, about 70-100 US ships in overall, now count how many torps Kates will drop while attacking these forces, if they will make 400 or more sorties in a couple of turns, and btw it couldn’t be more than 300 torps onboard on 6 IJN carriers. Can you claim possible results of this slaughter realistic?

Resume –
1) Option #2 doesn’t make the game more complicated as it already is, any additional orders are not required.
2) Option #2 prevents unrealistic outcomes.
3) Option #1 doesn't change anything really.

So what we’re talking about, if you’re looking for as accurate as possible ww2 wargame and not for game Warcraft 3 alike, the choice is obvious. Too bad I can’t vote twice.

[TIMJOT]

I agree with Pasternanski. Look, having the 4 types might seem nice. BUT we all know that the AI is more A than I. In effect it cant be trusted. The only way to make it work would be for human select loadouts and human select targets, which would IMHO make this game unplayable. The one generic strike load out gives the AI a built in leeway it needs to make it all work, without complicating things beyond recognition. I REALLY dont think people understand the SCOPE of this game. It is 10X UV and more. Adding unneeded detail is a slipperly slope I rather not go down. What next, why not differentiate between 16" AP and 16" HP shells, 5"GP and 5"VT, 20mm, 40mm, ect....?

We now have one generic ammo load outs for ships why should it be any different for planes? Just my 2cents

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

I agree with Pasternanski. Look, having the 4 types might seem nice. BUT we all know that the AI is more A than I. In effect it cant be trusted. The only way to make it work would be for human select loadouts and human select targets, which would IMHO make this game unplayable.

AI is doing the same job here as it is already (and successfully) doing while choosing load outs for IJN level bombers, naval attacks – torps, all other missions – bombs
How this all work -

Torpedo bombers:
Use torpedoes for Naval attacks while available (3 sorties), when torps out they switch to large caliber AP bombs.
Use GP bombs for port/airfield/ground attacks and ASW.

Dive bombers:
Use AP bombs for Naval attacks
Use GP bombs for port/airfield/ground attacks and ASW.

Amount of all bombs on board should be enough for 15-20 sorties at least.

No micromanaging required, the only ‘wrong’ decision TF commander can make is to arm torp-bombers with torps to attack minor naval target thus make possible CV battle more troublesome for his forces. If there will be an option to choose “High alert, attack only carriers” mode for carrier TF when you expect CV battle, this shortcoming of this new feature will be eliminated. All you have to do is to keep an eye on ordnance as you monitor fuel, not a very hard task. I can’t see any other serious problems with AI.

[Grouchy]

Voted for: One ammo type - each strike a/c uses 1 ammo each mission
Do have some doubts about 4 ammo types option;

1. Why 4 ammo types ONLY for carrier aircraft?
Land based aircraft have infinite torpedoes?
What about ammo for other platforms such as HE or AP ammo for tanks?

2. WITP is grand strategic, at least for land based air and land units. The 4 ammo types for carrier aircraft tend to lean to "carrier strike" scale direction.

3. The player can't change the loadouts anyway (agree that this is tactical scale anyway) and to be honest I have some doubts if the AI is up to the task. Can already see the torpedobombers suffering losses doing bombruns on enemy shipping because they are out of torpedoes. There goes 2 months worth of replacments...[;)]

[Subchaser]

1. Why 4 ammo types ONLY for carrier aircraft? Land based aircraft have infinite torpedoes?

It’s obvious, airbase has a bit more torpedoes than carrier.

What about ammo for other platforms such as HE or AP ammo for tanks?

Ground combat has the highest level of abstraction in WitP. No need for such insane details, as there is no need to differentiate ammo for ships, in the most cases it’s enough. The chance that there will be situation when such problems will arise for ships and ground units is hundred times lower than for carrier aircraft.

I have some doubts if the AI is up to the task.

The task is trivial, even for AI. Can you point out any possible problems?

Can already see the torpedobombers suffering losses doing bombruns on enemy shipping because they are out of torpedoes.

What are you talking about??? Torpedo run is the most dangerous task for bomber. We all saw this many times, there are always more Devastators return back to carriers when TF they were attacking was beyond their normal range and they were forced to carry bombs.

[rogueusmc]

Whatever is decided needs to be applied across the board for all aircraft. I like to send my aircraft to land bases early in the game. If you land base your carrier aircraft will they be able to asign ordnance where the other squadrons can't?

I like the 'torp or bomb' idea myself.

Either way it can be inserted just like the target destinations for strikes....by default it is 'commander's decision'.....once changed will stay changed until situation (i.e. the expense of ordnance) demands it be defaulted to the next ordnance type in line or to commader's decision.

Rank the ammo for a certain arcraft type kinda like the upgrade paths for the aircraft themselves. A 'down-grade path' so-to-speak. Heavy bombers have one path....medium another....etc. Let the AI use a script in this unless you wanna over-ride it.

That's my 2 bits(worth more than 2 pennies in my mind)

[TIMJOT]

Subchaser. I was refering to how the AI chooses targets and decides how many a/c to send to each target. As it stands it generally sends full strikes when it can ( although sometimes piecemeal ). Problem as I see it. Is the AI wasting your precious two strikes worth of torpedos attacking a gunboat or some other less than optimal target. Players can game the AI into making these mistakes more often as a way to defang there opponents CV TFs. Although it wont stop the AI from making dubious strikes. The generic load out will make up for some of the more aggregious mistakes, by allowing second chances. I want to make it clear I am NOT talking about periodic blunders or snafus, which I whole heartedly believe should be in the game, but rather when the AI seems to become overwelmed and confused into making illogical strikes.

[pasternakski]

Gentlemen, we have now plowed back into the territory I have been lobbing mortar shells into for the better part of two years now. A lot of problems would be solved if a serious effort were made to create a more intelligent artificial stupidity.

[denisonh]

I voted with the "1 ammo" type crowd for the reasons Drex, Pasternakski, and TIMJOT mentioned.

The real reason there should be ammo tracking for Airstrike ammo usage is the decreased sys damage accumulation for ships.

You think CVs get away with bloody murder staying on station with a couple of AOs for 7 or 8 full out airstrikes in UV 2.3, I can only imagine what is possible in WitP.

There should be an abstraction to keep results in line with reality.

A CVs airgroups should perform so many airstrikes at full capability and then at reduced capability after that.

No "bomb/torpedo management" should be required (or possible for that manner).

Keep the mechanism to achieve this within the scope of the game please.

[I wish I could f*cking spell]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I voted for the 4 ammo types also, but if something isn't done about a CV TF launching every aircraft against even on AP then none would be the best.

There won't be any more control added to the bomb load outs and I can't say that we will improve the overkill mentioned here (although I thought Gary did try to put something in to prevent overkill, it might not be working as well as you would like). Keep this in mind when voting.

Well herein lies the danger. For CVs, enemy CVs must be absolute priority in sending strikes. If enemy CV is in the vicinity, all CV aircraft should go after it, completely ignoring all other targets.

O.

[Rendova]

Please forgive me if this has been mentioned already. I voted for the 4 ammo types because I believe it will allow for the best control vs aloofness that is needed in this case. My question though is this. Will ammo be used by planes not finding thier target? or will they return to the carrier with the ammo.... I don't believe that a TBD (or even a TBF) counld land on a carrier with a torpedo, maybe they could but I doubt it. Same for a SBD with a 1000 pounder.
Anyone have any info on carrier based based landing with ordanace? I know that thier landing weights were well below thier takeoff weight, just don't know by how much.

[CMDRMCTOAST]

Good point and if they do comeback is the unspent ordinance added back
to the supply, or can aircraft dump ordinance at targets of oppurtunity on the way back.

[Brady]

"Well herein lies the danger. For CVs, enemy CVs must be absolute priority in sending strikes. If enemy CV is in the vicinity, all CV aircraft should go after it, completely ignoring all other targets. "

Herin lies the problem, in UV ( I hope Witp is smarter about this),if you have anything other than an enemy CV TF withen striking distance of your CV airgroups they will go for the other target! it is madning and so consistant that a viable tactic is to throw a sacrifical TF out their to allow the enemy to go after them so your CV's dont get atacked and your strike hits theirs.

[pasternakski]

Well herein lies the danger. For CVs, enemy CVs must be absolute priority in sending strikes. If enemy CV is in the vicinity, all CV aircraft should go after it, completely ignoring all other targets.

That would be great if it were historical or in keeping with the nature of the game, which is, "I issued my orders and expected them to be carried out to the letter. Unfortunately, they were." The number one problem is with the ineptitude of your AI subordinates, not with the game mechanics. Don't forget the "Neosho" factor, Oleg. You may think you see carriers out there, but they may be derrieres instead. Your CVTF commander has to sort through the confusing and incomplete search data, assess the tactical situation, consult with his moronic staff, and manipulate his Ouija board before deciding how to waste your precious air assets on unworthy targets (he may, of course, get lucky and hit what you want him to, in which case you're a big hero, but it didn't happen that way very often).

That's what makes it fun. It's not chess, where you see everything and plan your sequence of moves from complete information.