Matrix Games Forums

Why not just leave them on Naval Search at 100%?

Have you found some little secret? Tell All !!!

I find moral and fatigue on Naval Search keeps them happy and flying with maybe 1 operational loss a month.

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Why not just leave them on Naval Search at 100%?

Have you found some little secret? Tell All !!!

I find moral and fatigue on Naval Search keeps them happy and flying with maybe 1 operational loss a month.

Well, they throw out an occaisonal 1-3 ship naval strike when the enemy shows up.

Since I rarely have B-17s set to Naval Attack, the searchers get a strike in now and then.

I give them a rest, and put them back on duty.

Originally posted by TheElf
Hey Mike,
I didn't miss the point, I just disagreed with it. What you are advocating is LIMITNG this wonderful game so that people who DO take advantage of these little loopholes... can't. What you don't realize is that there are few players out there that know how to use their assets properly, and your suggestion hurts their gameplay too. Lets fix the problem not implement restrictions.

I DO however AGREE with the Spirit of the point. Do I think a B-17 squadron should be the scourge of Japanese shipping at 200 feet above the wave tops?...No.



MY point is, if the low level attack is easily abused by certain players without the appropriate game consequences (i.e. heavy toll on morale, A/C, Aircrew fatigue, high AAA, Air to air, & operatioanl losses etc.) for the untrained units that attempt it, then lets fix THAT! Let us not just do away with the function altogether. It should be SO uncomfortable for the player that chooses this method of attack with inappropriate assets, that he VERY quickly comes to the conclusion that it is better to use them the way they were intended to be used. There has to be some common ground we can come to an agreement on. Make altitude control a toggle switch. Allow those people who don't want it to turn it over to CDR Oneandzero.

If the argument is made that Altitudes are too time consuming and labor intensive for a game in the scale of WitP, then give ME the ability to to choose altitude control, and my PBEM buddy the ability to choose AI altitude control. For 90% of the bitches regarding this game this is the ONLY way to make everyone happy. And isn't that what we really want? Because if we aren't... Gary isn't happy, 2x3 ins't happy, and you won't have many people who want to play PBEM anymore.

The bottom line is. I think it would be great if the "Low Level anti-shipping/skip bombing" Mission was limited to the units that ACTUALLY did it, as a "Specialty mission" if you will. But I also believe that Level Bombing of shipping should be possible, at ANY altitude with appropriate consequences. Why you ask? Because if it is done right, my Zeros should pounce on those B-17s, B-26s, and any other LEVEL bomber and drive them into the sea. My AAA units should have a field day, and that LB units morale should plummet, such that the next time the Allied commnder asks them to do it, they give him the bird and tell him to eabfd.

The reality of it is, it won't be up to us, its up to the folks at 2x3. All we can do is complain and make suggestions. Thank God for that.

Don't take this personally if you disagree, Everyone has valid points on these forums, and eveyone knows their history, else they wouldn't be here.

Regards,

Elf

Actually, I have no problem with anything you said in your
comments on my ideas. I like to have player options open, and
restricted only by reality. I'm willing to grant people that early
in the war some shipping was attacked by Heavy Bombers flying
below 5000 feet. But it was single bombers, or very small groups
who were doing it---not the 8th Air Force!

All of your points about various missions are true. And it would
be great if 2by3 would reprogram the entire air system to force
more historical results (and therefore more historical play). My suggestion was made because it's pretty obvious that 2by3 is
not willing to engage in major re-programming at this stage in
the process. They'll "tweak it", but thay don't have the time or
the manpower to do everything necessary to "fix it right".

So I suggested an 'END AROUND' by putting all the problems
of altitude in the hands of the Base Commanders. They already
pick which targets to "naval strike", and players have learned
to live with that. Then 2by3 could hard code more appropriate
usage of aircraft by types and missions. Historically the medium
bombers did attack most targets at lower levels than Heavies.
And Fighter-bombers, in general, attacked from lower still. And
this would be the "general programming".

I didn't mean everything would be fixed in concrete---just that
it would be controlled in a more rational and historic fashion.
Some Medium bomber squadrons (the historical ones) would be
specialized for low level attacks---and the "Base Commander"
could and would use them that way against appropriate targets.
It was simply a way to simplify 2by3's problem of "We need to do
something about the abuses of altitude" with an answer that
they COULD program into the game.

Politics has been called "the art of the possible". I was just
"politickin'" for a "cure" that might be possible.

I'm curious:

I haven't seen this listed as a feature of the game, but I was wondering if there will be several different command levels as there were in the orginal PacWar?

In other words, as the Allies, will we be able to command one theatre, while the AI retains control of the other Allied theatres in the Pacific?

This might be a way to level the playing field while playing against an AI Japanese, where mistakes can be made that are beyond our control, and we must try to win the game, while controlling a smaller theatre of the conflict.

Originally posted by Von Rom
I'm curious:

I haven't seen this listed as a feature of the game, but I was wondering if there will be several different command levels as there were in the orginal PacWar?

In other words, as the Allies, will we be able to command one theatre, while the AI retains control of the other Allied theatres in the Pacific?

This might be a way to level the playing field while playing against an AI Japanese, where mistakes can be made that are beyond our control, and we must try to win the game, while controlling a smaller theatre of the conflict.

Me, too. I've been worried about this ever since I saw the map divided up into zones (I was hoping for weather zones), and a Matrix guy (don't remember which one right off the top) explained that this was done so that you could assign control to the AI by geographic area. The AI control thingy is big, but I think that lack of command and control division of responsibility by HQs would be an even bigger failing. I note that HQs in UV have only modest command and control responsibilities and restraints, and some HQs (particularly naval ones) are only good for providing support points to ground units.

If the UV model is followed strictly and all WITP amounts to is two guys pushing a bazillion little men, ships, and airplanes around over the entire Pacific at will, I'm gonna be disappointed.

Originally posted by pasternakski
Me, too. I've been worried about this ever since I saw the map divided up into zones (I was hoping for weather zones), and a Matrix guy (don't remember which one right off the top) explained that this was done so that you could assign control to the AI by geographic area. The AI control thingy is big, but I think that lack of command and control division of responsibility by HQs would be an even bigger failing. I note that HQs in UV have only modest command and control responsibilities and restraints, and some HQs (particularly naval ones) are only good for providing support points to ground units.

If the UV model is followed strictly and all WITP amounts to is two guys pushing a bazillion little men, ships, and airplanes around over the entire Pacific at will, I'm gonna be disappointed.

Hi, The zones are dual purpose. Each zone is a weather zone where all the weather and climate are the same.(Not each hex. Like in UV one hex can be close while the one next to it is open) Also each zone can be placed under AI control (each zone will have it's own built in objectives for AI games and humans can reset/redefine these for zones the AI is to control for the human. Objectives can be both offensive and defensive in nature. (You tell the AI defend this base and attack towards that base)

HQ: HQ will only effect subordinate units. So having a HQ on a base with units from another HQ serves no purpose. HQ have an effective range. They work best when say a Japanese Area Army HQ is placed in a central location with the Army HQ placed in range. Then the divisions/subunits of the Army are placed in range of their HQ. (Division HQ are part of the full sized division. If the unit is broken down (each division can break down into 3 equal units) The HQ/support portion is divided among them.

TF will belong to a HQ. But most important to bases for naval units is the controlling HQ's impact on base efficiency.

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, The zones are dual purpose. Each zone is a weather zone where all the weather and climate are the same.(Not each hex. Like in UV one hex can be close while the one next to it is open) Also each zone can be placed under AI control (each zone will have it's own built in objectives for AI games and humans can reset/redefine these for zones the AI is to control for the human. Objectives can be both offensive and defensive in nature. (You tell the AI defend this base and attack towards that base)

HQ: HQ will only effect subordinate units. So having a HQ on a base with units from another HQ serves no purpose. HQ have an effective range. They work best when say a Japanese Area Army HQ is placed in a central location with the Army HQ placed in range. Then the divisions/subunits of the Army are placed in range of their HQ. (Division HQ are part of the full sized division. If the unit is broken down (each division can break down into 3 equal units) The HQ/support portion is divided among them.

TF will belong to a HQ. But most important to bases for naval units is the controlling HQ's impact on base efficiency.

Thanks, Mog, this is mildly reassuring.

I still think that the HQ command and control model is going to be insufficient. For example, major HQs were created to control the war effort in certain areas or theaters. Subordinate HQs carried out the dictates of the superior one and were constrained from independent operation outside the scope of their command. I just don't see how assigning responsibility on the basis of geographical area without these further constraints on command liberty is going to work as a reflection of historical doctrine and command and control problems. Will HQs be free to move from one place to another without penalty? Will subordinate HQs be completely unrestrained in operating within the command area of a superior HQ to which they are not subordinate?

Are command or operations or whatever the WITP term points going to flow from superior headquarters to subordinate ones, thus checking the unrestrained ability of subordinate headquarters to operate anywhere at will? What are the constraints on freedom of movement and command, if any? The "political points" information you gave on another thread is helpful, but I don't quite understand how they work in tandem with operation points.

How does naval C&C work? What are the dynamics of air units assigned to air HQs (and reassignment)? Are there any penalties for "sloppy" C&C practices other than reduction in efficiency of ground units subordinate to a particular HQ when they are too far away from the HQ?

I can see right now that I won't be delegating any responsibility for many areas to the AI (maybe I'll let it handle the polar ice cap, where there's nothing it can screw up).

Okay, I'll shut up now. I guess I just see too much possibility for insubordination.

Oh - and, please, no more random popup no-fly ghostbuster planes. I want to see weather (I know I'm not going to get this one, but I'm fighting the battle anyway).

Hi, Well for one thing. Airgroups that are not within range of THEIR higher HQ will not recieve replacements. (Ground units as will only get replacements in range of their HQ but this does not really prevent their being so deployed. (many players will not worry about the Tarawa garrision getting replacements)
However this should keep units in China where they belong.

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Well for one thing. Airgroups that are not within range of THEIR higher HQ will not recieve replacements. (Ground units as will only get replacements in range of their HQ but this does not really prevent their being so deployed. (many players will not worry about the Tarawa garrision getting replacements)
However this should keep units in China where they belong.

That helps. What if the air groups' or land units' HQ is not within some prescribed range of its superior HQ - and so on up the line to the top? Also, how is "range" defined? Raw numbers of hexes? Communication lines traced across land hexes, particularly those with roads or railroads in them?

You see where I'm headed with this, of course. I guess when you've been an officer and a gentleman (by act of Congress, by gawd) in the Unaked Snakes Air Farts, you become sensitive to these kinds of considerations.

Hi, You need the whole line. (The knee bones connected to the...)

Communication lines traced across land hexes, particularly those with roads or railroads in them?
RR really improve the range. Jungle with no trail really shorten it. (down to 1 hex)

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, You need the whole line. (The knee bones connected to the...)

Communication lines traced across land hexes, particularly those with roads or railroads in them?
RR really improve the range. Jungle with no trail really shorten it. (down to 1 hex)

Mogami: many of your comments are reassuring.

With a monster like WiTP, it will be fun to take charge of one theatre while the AI handles the other theatres (hopefully, this will be tweaked and refined by you hard-working betas).

I won't mind too much by AI snafus, provided they are in line with possible historical screw-ups. I'm also hoping that the AI will even pull off a few brilliant moves (Midway anyone?).

This, I think, should provide a good SP challenge while playing against the AI Japanese (and vice-versa).

Also, it would be great if the game could provide for as many options as possible to make the game tough in SP. In UV I'm currently playing as the Allies with only 70% force commitment while the Japanese have 200% force commitment and I'm having a blast

Cheers!

opps wrong thread. The delete button does not work.