Matrix Games Forums

a) Betties from Lunga attack small TF's (AK, AP, TK) docked in Noumea repeatedly, disregarding heavy CAP - WITHOUT any escorts, beyond standard range. They get slaughtered and attack again and again and again...

I can agree with, as I have seen plenty of examples myself.

I agree too, there is no doubt this happens and happens often. Also it is worth mentioning from Lunga to Noumea is at the Betty extended range so they will not carry their torpedoes. You´re throwing stones.

Impossible for the Japanese to control the sea area around Lunga using this base because the bombers will fly all the way to Noumea unescorted to be destroyed easily.

They should only be able to target ships with no CAP, or those within the range of friendly escorting Zeros based at Lunga with the Bombers.

It is supposed to work this way, as the game book says but it does not.


See this recent post and borner can confirm...

My new Betty squadron fly into a Allied CAP of 247 fighters!!...unescorted.[8|]

post no.153
0 to 247

Hi Mike.
Two more... and this time I do have the save files. [:)]

Save 1: A lone B-17 on a naval search mission finds CV Junyo, part of KB. It attacks and hits CV Junyo, putting app. 30 sys damage on her, completly disregarding any CAP and AA.

Save 2: Please review target selection routine.
USN player has several AC TF's in one hex. One IJN strike severely hits CV Hornet.
A second strikes comes in and penetrates CAP, but then attacks same TF. No CV is present anymore (sunk). Most planes just report "cannot locate target" and return. There are at least three more CV's in the same hex...

Save files are on the way.
Cheers,
Chris

ORIGINAL: Ike99

a) Betties from Lunga attack small TF's (AK, AP, TK) docked in Noumea repeatedly, disregarding heavy CAP - WITHOUT any escorts, beyond standard range. They get slaughtered and attack again and again and again...

I can agree with, as I have seen plenty of examples myself.

I agree too, there is no doubt this happens and happens often. Also it is worth mentioning from Lunga to Noumea is at the Betty extended range so they will not carry their torpedoes. You´re throwing stones.

Impossible for the Japanese to control the sea area around Lunga using this base because the bombers will fly all the way to Noumea unescorted to be destroyed easily.

They should only be able to target ships with no CAP, or those within the range of friendly escorting Zeros based at Lunga with the Bombers.

It is supposed to work this way, as the game book says but it does not.

See this recent post and borner can confirm...

My new Betty squadron fly into a Allied CAP of 247 fighters!!...unescorted.[8|]

post no.153
0 to 247

Usually allied 2e bombers run away from high cap. Is this a code issue where the Betties ignore cap in their launch calculations (somewhat like allied 4e bombers) or is it just because of their relatively high experience and morale?

At least this led to the 'set range' mechanism that was introduced in WitP.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


At least this led to the 'set range' mechanism that was introduced in WitP.

what I was thinking. We need some alignment to limit the range of a particular squadron to a particular maximum. This would be of HUGE help controlling (and saving) your LBA assets.

1-Morale, Fatigue, or both.

2-If the target is not the Target set for the air unit, then the expected enemy CAP must not be too great for the expected escorts to handle.

(roughly 1 escort is needed for every 2 CAP, but the ratio is greater for escorts for longer range missions).




1 - I have at least 4 bomber groups with at least 70 morale and next to nothing in fatigue and experience is around 70 or higher.

2 - I am not sure what you mean be target set as I cannot target tf's. [&:]

Thanks for the feedback though.

2 - I am not sure what you mean be target set as I cannot target tf's.

I am not either, I just quote the game book. [:D]

This is not important though as I have said and others, the game book does not follow the ¨roughly 1 escort is needed for every 2 CAP, but the ratio is greater for escorts for longer range missions¨ anyways.

Many unescorted missions.

One other thing that should be looked at is how replenishment at sea is handled. Based on what I've seen it appears the bigger ships in a TF do not top off even though the tankers have plenty on hand.

Look here:

tm.asp?m=1943952&mpage=1&key=replenishment�

Hi Mike.

Did you have a chance to look at the files I send you last week?
Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thank you.
Chris

Not yet.

February 09:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood
Hello...

Matrix Games announced that patch 2.50 would be the last for this game. I did the final patch, 2.50 and fixed all the known bugs, but I would be happy to fix any remaining bugs in UV.

March 09:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Not yet.

April 09: ?

[&:]

failure to communicate

Hello...

In your first save, your assumption that the B-17 attacked, "completly disregarding any CAP and AA" was incorrect. The combat air patrol missed it and although the ships fired at it, none hit. Traced through the code and it worked as programmed. It would have been clearer, if I had printed messages to the screen. For the sake of execution, messages for air search combat are limited.

In your second save, flights were assigned a target that was sinking. That's the way the game works. No bug.

Bye...

Michael Wood


uv001_CombatSave__06_25_42.uvs
Version 2.5
PBEM
Please review routine for naval search:
A lone B-17 on a naval search mission finds CV Junyo, part of KB. It attacks and hits CV Junyo, putting app. 30 sys damage on her, completly disregarding any CAP and AA.

uv001_CombatSave__07_01_42.uvs
Version 2.5
PBEM
Please review naval target selection routine:
USN player has several AC TF's in one hex. One IJN strike severely hits CV Hornet.
A second strikes comes in and penetrates CAP, but then attacks same TF. No CV is present anymore (sunk). Most planes just report "cannot locate target" and return. There are at least three more CV's in the same hex...

Let me know what you think

ORIGINAL: Christof

Hi Mike.

Did you have a chance to look at the files I send you last week?
Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thank you.
Chris

Hi Mike.

First of all - thank you for taking the time to look into this and then type an answer on this forum. I appreciate that.

Let me post a few thoughts regarding what you explained.

a) I understand you are telling me that none of the highlighted "problems" have been bugs, but are "design features" instead.

b) You have labelled us gamers "control freaks" a few times on this forum.
Personnally I don't want to control everything on the board. What I really want is that the results of the programming to be more or less in line with what has or might have happened in reality. That's why we play "historical simulations" in the first place, right?

c) Both issues I posted seem hilarious to me.
Ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?
- A lone B-17 hitting a - non docked - fast carrier with a bomb from 10.000 feet altitute?
- A full deckload of planes approaching a sinking target, with plenty of other more valuable targets around, turning tail and flying home?

Technically you might be correct: "Design Feature", therefore no reason to act.

All I can say is that now I do have some big question marks concerning any future developments - Carrier Force or other - to contain the same sort of comparable "Features" that will severly limit my ability to enjoy the product.

Thank you once again.
Cheers,
Chris

Hello...

In your first save, your assumption that the B-17 attacked, "completly disregarding any CAP and AA" was incorrect. The combat air patrol missed it and although the ships fired at it, none hit. Traced through the code and it worked as programmed. It would have been clearer, if I had printed messages to the screen. For the sake of execution, messages for air search combat are limited.

In your second save, flights were assigned a target that was sinking. That's the way the game works. No bug.

Bye...

Michael Wood

All I can say is that now I do have some big question marks concerning any future developments - Carrier Force or other - to contain the same sort of comparable "Features" that will severly limit my ability to enjoy the product.

Save 1: A lone B-17 on a naval search mission finds CV Junyo, part of KB. It attacks and hits CV Junyo, putting app. 30 sys damage on her, completly disregarding any CAP and AA.

I don´t know the details of what Christof is saying but Mike, Naval Search does not work correctly. I can´t see anyway a single B17 on a search mission could penetrate a 6 fleet carrier task force with 150 Zeros flying a CAP over it and score a hit, and at 100 altitude too.

This happens in UV when the Allied bomber crews gain experience after some months. After 4 months of flying the naval search mission they are hitting EVERYTHING out to extended range floating. CAP or no CAP.

See Nomad vs Bigbabba AAR..

this 4E on naval search hit everything and no CAP or AA fire can hit them. can you do something about them, ken?

What bigbabba says here is almost totally correct.

Now he exagerate some, sometimes they will be hit by flak but this rair and the flak seems much less effective no matter what ships are in the task force. I don´t see CAP effecting these 4E naval search missions at all.

I also tested this from the allied side and the crews flying the naval search missions, do not gain any substantial fatigue. They are flying many hours over open ocean searching, hundreds of miles, they hit all the way out to extended range and then their fatigue is 15?! They do this day after day no problem.

The entire naval search system needs reworked.

You said you are playing a PBEM?, if you are the Allies put all your bombers on Naval Search for 4 months and you will be hitting a huge percentage of every Japanese ship sailing down from Truk.

Do this and you´ll understand the problem.

Here is a good example, my last turn with Bigred. I go through his Carrier TF CAP, through his Land based fighters CAP and score a hit.

I´m exploiting this ¨design feature¨

This needs changed.

Hello...

Although you seem displeased, I appreciate your measured response. Not all forum posters are capable of such.

a) I am glad you understand. At this point, game design changes for Uncommon Valor are not possible. Resources are not available for that purpose. However, as I am currently working on a related game, I do consider design concerns.

b) Well, I am a control freak, even if no one else here is. Not sure that Uncommon Valor is so much a simulation as it is a game. The distinction is one of granularity (our flight model, for instance is much more of a game model than a flight simulator). In a one day turn, it is not easy to know where in the hex each ship is. Three carriers might be in the open, while a fourth might be hiding in a squall, when the enemy bombers show up. The carriers might be ready for the attack or might be launching the first flights and have bombs and torpedoes all over the deck. A superior naval force might be spread out all over the hex in a night attack and be defeated piecemeal. Reading of military history has shown me that wild, ridiculous, unbelievable occurrences are more the rule than the exception. If the battle of Leyte Gulf occurred in a game as it did in history, the Japanese player would immediately be online complaining that the game was not realistic!

c) There were several problems with the modeling of search aircraft in Uncommon Valor and War in the Pacific. Due to scale and need of speed of execution, they were very difficult to address. More than a small amount of time and effort went into producing the existing model. But, limitations of the model are known to the developers and there are a number of changes which could not be made in previous games, which will apply in Carrier Force:

- Fewer planes will be searching a given arc.
- The player will be able to launch more CAP and stagger the altitudes more appropriately to attack search aircraft, although that may reduce ability to intercept incoming strike missions.
- CAP will likely be able to attack the search plane more than once during interception process. Although if the search plane pilot can find a cloud or two to duck in and out of, he can be very difficult to eliminate. If he can duck out over the task force he might just plant one from Angels 10 or even Angels 20, depending on naval bombing skill and luck. A low morning fog near the task force might even let him approach unseen at 100 feet, with really good piloting skill.
- Improved weather modeling may reduce attack capacity. Of course, it may also reduce interception abilities.
- Improved pop-out information may allow players a better understanding of exactly what is happening.
- Importantly, air crews will have a different experience factor for searching than for bombing stationary targets or naval targets, so flying a lot of search missions will make crews keen eyed, not crack bombardiers. In fact, unarmed cargo planes can be used for search missions and could eventually get very good at finding enemy shipping, but not so good at bombing them with SPAM.
- Flights in CF will not select a target until a later phase, during execution. But, the message "cannot locate target", really means the ship is sinking and is a way of telling the players the ship sank. If Battle of Midway happened in the game, a number of flights would get that message, even though the ships took a couple hours to sink. In real life, they just dropped the bombs on them, anyway, because they weren't getting the pop-up. I may work on that for CF and let them drop the bombs.

Thanks for Your input...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Christof

Hi Mike.

First of all - thank you for taking the time to look into this and then type an answer on this forum. I appreciate that.

Let me post a few thoughts regarding what you explained.

a) I understand you are telling me that none of the highlighted "problems" have been bugs, but are "design features" instead.

b) You have labelled us gamers "control freaks" a few times on this forum.
Personnally I don't want to control everything on the board. What I really want is that the results of the programming to be more or less in line with what has or might have happened in reality. That's why we play "historical simulations" in the first place, right?

c) Both issues I posted seem hilarious to me.
Ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?
- A lone B-17 hitting a - non docked - fast carrier with a bomb from 10.000 feet altitute?
- A full deckload of planes approaching a sinking target, with plenty of other more valuable targets around, turning tail and flying home?

Technically you might be correct: "Design Feature", therefore no reason to act.

All I can say is that now I do have some big question marks concerning any future developments - Carrier Force or other - to contain the same sort of comparable "Features" that will severly limit my ability to enjoy the product.

Thank you once again.
Cheers,
Chris

Hi there,
As a keen amateur naval air-warfare historian & former RAF pilot,  I would like to add my two-penneth.
Individual planes getting through massive CAP and AA fire completely un-detected were rare,  but I can think of three occasions in the Pacific War where this happened.
First was battle of Santa Cruz in October '42, where some Enterprise SBD's, actually on search & report, encountered (I think the IJN carrier Zuiho) and, completely undetected by CAP or spotters, managed to put a couple of 500lb bombs into its flight deck,  rendering it inoperable for the battle that was rapidly unfolding
Then there was the start of the Lete Gulf operations in late summer '44, where a determined sole D4Y Judy on search,  waiting patiently in cloud cover whilst the battle was raging around it,  finally got the opportunity and dive-bombed the Princeton just as it was starting to recover aircraft, put a small AP bomb through the flight-deck and was away before a shot could be fired.  This bomb started a series of cataclysmic fires until the Princeton's torpedo store went up with a might explosion,  completely destroying the ship and badly damaging the light cruiser Birmingham which had come alongside to assist.
Finally, in '45 there was the case of one of the British Armoured Carriers,  Illustrious (or might have been Indomitable), which, despite heavy CAP and multi-AA gunners with itchy trigger fingers,  was totally surprised by a loan Kamikaze - what seems more incredible is that his first dive was from the wrong position, so he pulled up, went around & then came in again, still nobody bothering to fire - according to reports I remember everyone was just so surprised the plane had appeared 'as if from nowhere' hitting the lift with major force but failing to inflict fatal damage (good old armoured flight deck)

Three examples of proof where individual planes could get through saturated CAP and AA kill-zones & cause completel surprise.  If anything,  saturating your defence with CAP seems no guarantee of a cast-iron defence or shield

Re strike planes coming back fully laden after failing to spot their allocated target because it was sinking/had already sunk though strikes me as a bit unrealistic - what about 'Targets of Opportunity'? Particularly if there were plenty of juicy alternative targets within visual range (ie same hex)

Bump

ORIGINAL: borner

Yes, it is very hopeful. The editor would be great to allow us to adjust some things as well!


Mike, was my file received?

I doubt it. LOL

Joe Billings Yes, Mike Wood and Justin Prince both had real life interfere with their work on CF, so it's not going to happen.