Not sure I like this aspect....

[Ron Saueracker]

Someone posted this before but, wow, ever annoying. Jap ships travelling faster than airplanes and blasting the crap outa PM before even seeing them. Three times now it's happened! Can't be right.

Also. Can't seem to get my aircraft to attack Jap barges, no matter what height they are given or what level of Nav Search etc.. Any suggestions oh learned ones?:)

Sure could use more detail in sighting reports. Direction and speed would be a start, but might not be necessary given the situation in the first paragraph.

Been playing all day, literally. Man this here baby is addictive and fascinating. Hurray for UV (Uncommon Value might be a good nick)!:D

[von Murrin]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Someone posted this before but, wow, ever annoying. Jap ships travelling faster than airplanes and blasting the crap outa PM before even seeing them. Three times now it's happened! Can't be right.

The only ships that can do that are the fast IJN BB's and any CA's. Either way, you can deploy a surface TF in PM and a CV TF just below Gili. If you do that, the damage caused in the surface action will leave them vulnerable to the CV's. In all my (limited? )experience, the Japs never try this more than twice if you pound them in such a manner.

Also. Can't seem to get my aircraft to attack Jap barges, no matter what height they are given or what level of Nav Search etc.. Any suggestions oh learned ones?:)

Fighter-bombers on naval attack will kill them quite nicely. Subs work too, but the surest way is PT's.

Sure could use more detail in sighting reports. Direction and speed would be a start, but might not be necessary given the situation in the first paragraph.

Agreed. I can still remember the first time I savaged a TF, and found out that they went the other way during the night. Not entirely ahistorical, but even a useless course and speed report would make me feel better.

Been playing all day, literally. Man this here baby is addictive and fascinating. Hurray for UV (Uncommon Value might be a good nick)!:D

LOL
Just responding here so that I can say this:

Ooo, look! I did a detailed posting! :p

[Reg]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Someone posted this before but, wow, ever annoying. Jap ships travelling faster than airplanes and blasting the crap outa PM before even seeing them. Three times now it's happened! Can't be right.

Originally posted by von Murrin


The only ships that can do that are the fast IJN BB's and any CA's. .....

This is a consequence of the scale of the game turns. Many hours can elapse between the ship spotting and the organisation of a aerial strike (it's impossible to maintain squadrons at the alert levels achieved by a carrier airgroup in the midst of a naval engagement). During this time the targets can steam quite a distance, possibly out of (or into) the range of the strike aircraft if they are fast enough.

Did you know that the Japanese cruisers were spotted by a Hudson on the way toward what was to become the Battle of Savo Island*. The result of this engagement could have been very different (maybe) but the Hudson belonged to SWPAC. Because Operation Watchtower (a SOPAC operation) was so secret, they had no idea that Allied ships were in the area so the sighting report did not receive the priority it could have as nobody realised the significance of the spotting. The advantages of 20/20 hindsight!!!

The real world problems of the decision cycle (gather information, analyse, act) appear to be well simulated by this game.

Cheers,
Reg.


* The Shame of Savo, Bruce Loxton, 1994.
ISBN 1 86373 650 6.

[Ron Saueracker]

I read somewhere that on top of all the desk jockey screw ups with this report, the Hudson crew went and had a leisurely "cuppa" tea before filing their report!:)

Seems that the scale must cause this and the way the phases mesh, perhaps. Was quite the shock initially. What was even worse was PM mission were cancelled while IJN TF was in the same hex.

[corbulo]

I am having the same trouble getting a naval attack on bombardment TF right next door! I set all level bombers on naval attack alt 1000. What should naval search setting be in this instance, or does it matter? I set it to 0, because I thought, if they cant find enemy ships in the same hex, they are out of it.

[Didz]

Originally posted by von Murrin


The only ships that can do that are the fast IJN BB's and any CA's. Either way, you can deploy a surface TF in PM and a CV TF just below Gili. If you do that, the damage caused in the surface action will leave them vulnerable to the CV's. In all my (limited? )experience, the Japs never try this more than twice if you pound them in such a manner.

I think I am the annoying that person that first raised this issue in my thread 'Bombardment TF's not only cloaked but warp drives too'

The bottom line (eventually: admitted by the game designers) is that this is an exploitation of a feature in the turn phasing combined with the turn length/ground scale issue and the fact that surface/air detection is only tested at final destination.

The net result is that a TF can use its entire 12 hour night movement to close undetected with an enemy base and then because Surface Movement takes place before Air Attacks it can use the entire of its next daylight move to escape back out of air range again. Therefore a BB capable of 30 knots can leap a massive 824 miles (27 hexes) without risk of detection by enemy aircraft enroute.

So! any TF can pass directly through opposing surface forces and air umbrella's without risk of being detected providing it has a fast enough cruising speed and none of its end phase destination hexs are occupied by an enemy TF or lie within a air umbella.

This option is not limited to BB, CA and DD class vessels nor is it limited to TF's on Bombardment Missions. In fact any TF can do this its just that it becomes more noticeable with Bombardment Missions in which BB and CA vessels predominate.

My main objection to this feature is that it would be physically impossible to achieve historically (even with Fast BB's) and after some lengthy debate I think this point has finally been accepted.

This is probably the biggest issue I have with UV and unfortunately there is no easy solution.

Reducing the length of the game turn would put a stop to it simply because the TF's would not be able to cover enough distance between Air Attack Phases to get out of range.

Alternatively, testing for detection every time a TF crossed a hexside and allowing mid-phase interdiction would also work.

But both of these solutions would mean a major rework of the game engine and I don't see it happening. Therefore, I think we will be forced to live with this problem and no doubt veteran players will soon learn to exploit it in Email games.

My main hope is that the problem is not duplicated in WiTP.

[Ron Saueracker]

I was not referring to you as annoying:)....just the anomaly. Perhaps an extra search and combat cycle could be included easily(? )

[Wilhammer]

The perfect solution would have to have been done at game conception, Si-Move.

If you play CM or the World at War series, you know what I mean.

In real life, planes move and ships move at the same time. No surface phases or air phases exist.

I think it is a very good suggestion if the turn were to be at least broken down to something like 4 or 6 hour execution phases.

I would still like to make the point that this is a great game.

However, the lack of most everything happening in betwen the start and end points of movement do provide weakness and exploitation of the game system.

[Ron Saueracker]

UV. Yup, great game Willhammer. But wouldn't Si Move be a nightmare at the scale and breadth we all know WITP will be? It would take longer than the actual war I'd think...

[Didz]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I was not referring to you as annoying:)....just the anomaly. Perhaps an extra search and combat cycle could be included easily(? )

Sorry! I'm getting used to being the odd-man out in these discussions as most people seem willing to ignore that fact the this would simply not be possible historically.

The consequences of this feature pop up all over the place not just in Bombardment missions as the turn length/ground scale/phase sequence/Detection combination has a negative impact on a lot of different area's. It certainly affects surface v surface combat as well as air v surface and ASW operations.

The situation is made even worse by the fact that in most cases you have to switch 'React to Enemy' off to avoid the AI making stupid moves.

I just hope the WiTP design team are reading these threads and taking notes.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
UV. Yup, great game Willhammer. But wouldn't Si Move be a nightmare at the scale and breadth we all know WITP will be? It would take longer than the actual war I'd think...

Hmm! Yes this reason has been made elsewhere and not being a programmer I can't really comment other than to wonder how, if it so difficult, other games seem to achieve exactly that result without being dreadfully slow.

If it came to a choice between a game that works in terms of detection and combat and one that kept careful track of how many kills, missions, and decent nights sleep each of my personally named pilots had had since the start of the campaign. I would prefer to have the detection routines working.

[Wilhammer]

Perhaps Si-Move would be too much to ask for, but why not something like continous time like Airborne Assault?

In that system, time is broken up into minutes, and everything moves at once, and combat happens as folks encounter each other, and units fade in and out of spotted status.

It is like Si-Move, but it plays like Real Time. The player can decide when to pause a game or to give orders during play.

A naval operational level game could do something similar.

Break the execution of a turn into smaller chunks, and instead have a daily planning phase.

I advocate the 6 hour method. The reason is that it neatly devides the night in half. To plan a bombardment (or high speed transport run), in the real thing, the prime consideration was you had to be out of air range before you did your run, and out of it after the run. This almost always meant you had to be at the target at midnight.

I know it gets dark after 6 PM, but day time operators would be in a retirng for night mode, so one could expect reduced activity during the dusk (and dawn) hours.

[Dirtweasle]

It does change the way you think of things that is for sure. Where reasoning alone tells you ought to be able to do X, the mecahnics of the game make it impossible. Untill I realized this was the problem I could'nt believe my air crews were so ill trained!

The associated problem of surface engagements only possible at end of turn locations, (or also at port hexes durring a turn?) is another factor that is a problem for me to grasp. It just seems to me to be a very wrong thing.

This is particularly true if you are used to playing CM where there is a more natural, intuitive flow. I guess I am spoiled by CM where sightings and fire are calculated throughout the turn.

If you are not "spoiled" by that type of system, I suppose the way UV works in this repect would never bother you.

[Wilhammer]

The question was asked, "How to exploit it in PBEM?".

Theoretically, since both of the humans are aware of it, it can be watched for.

Taking a quick look at a map, a good way to try to exploit might be this:

Have a Bombardment TF in Shortland.

Orders, Do Not Retire, do not react to enemy.

Have this goup steam to a fixed point north west of Shortland, about 12 hexes north of Lunga during the day.

Reset to allow retirement. The TF jets in and should be back at Shortland before the next day cycle.

The only way to absolutely interfere with this is to keep a surface TF in the Lunga Hex.

Countermeasures:

Mines.

Subs in Lunga. A lucky torp hit might slow that TF down for the return and put it in air range.


In, out, and likely unscathed.

A similar thing can be done against PM, but you will need to provide at least long range cap as the fleet will wind up in the Solomon Sea and potentially in Carrier Range, and still in unescorted bomber range from PM.

[Wilhammer]

Also,

I have been exploring another way of using this against the AI, but since I am in my first PBEM game, I have not tried it against a person.

Surface Ship Commerce Raiding, "The Graf Spee Scenario".

The battle in NG is hot and heavy. The forces of the allied side are all committed to the fight.

No reserves in the rear.

The Japanese player (me) , taking those long ranged CAs and BBs, cruises on the far right hand side of the map, to the north of the Santa Cruz Islands.

The mission, setup a night time dash into Luganville.

I used two AVs to patrol ahead so they could use their spotters to detect surface targets. Being inconsequential targets themselves, and knowing the AI would not keep planes piled up this far to the west, I could be reasonably assured they would be unmoleseted.

They were.

They also helped guarantee that might BB/CA force would remain undetected by detecting first those forces that might spot it first.

So, I came in, undetected, encountered 4 minesweepers, which were smashed one after the other as they gamely intercepted my force, and then I encounter a very large convoy of APs and AKs, unloading.

I pulverized them.

I dashed out, and came back the next night to finish the job.

Thus, the future thrust on the Solomon Islands was pre-emptively aborted by the IJN.

The second strike might be suicide against a human, but one could expect the first one to be wildly succesful.

The everlasting effect would be to shorten the amount of time the Allies have to counter attack in the Solomons, and force the player to keep an anti0Naval air reserve off the front and far to the rear, weakening the front.

[elmo3]

Wilhammer

I don't see where you have exploited a flaw in the game system with this example. Rather you noted that your opponent had overcommitted in one area so you hit him where he was weakest. Great tactics only.

Your opponenet could have handed you your head, within the current game system, if you had overlooked a reserve force your AV's had failed to spot it. If an enemy combat TF had been in L'ville or even if one had been in the area with Patrol/React orders you could have been in for a tough surface fight and your cripples would have been subject to LBA attacks the next morning.

elmo3

[Wilhammer]

That is the discussion I wanted to happen.

Is it in fact an exploitation?

It was certainly easier to pull off, I can tell you that.

I could only guess that Louganville had no A/C, so knowing that the game only cared about my end points, I was aware that any threat against my ships, no matter what was based there, was not a concern, as I would arrive in the dark, and be out of most bomber's effective range in the day.

PBYs and B-17s do not frighten the Surface TF commander.

The AVs, being much slower, and being aware they could not see things all the time, were in the region scouting the port and surrounding areas for a couple of days before I was ready for the dash.

The big CAs carry their own search planes, so that helped as well.

Granted, if an enemy TF was there that I thought contained anything larger than a DD, I would switched to another plan.

An enemy surface TF of sufficient size does prevent this manuever.

My only concern was enemy TFs, not the planes, if any had been there.

BTW, I also used the AV's scouts as recon to take pictures of the AB, and the AVs functioned as bait. They did get attacked by some P-400s, but the damage was light. Against my Bombardment TF, P-400s are just targets.

BTW, one can think of the ge0-military relationship of Louganville to Noumea to be much like that of Lunga/Tulagi to Rabaul.

That perception is worth exploring as a strategy.

Given tankers and a good facility at Shortland, and a minr one at Tulagi, one could stage a daring offensive on Louganville and make IT the PM of the game. The goal woudl be to sieze or Neutralize Noumea as much as possible.

I don't know [YET] how effective this might be, but Louganville could be a key to a dangerous strategy, for the loss of Noumea or its isolation could cripple the Allied war effort.

And imagine the LBs of Rabaul flying out of Louganville...

[Von Rom]

Why not allow for "Opportunity Attacks"? This would be similar to SPWAW: If a ship, TF, or air group comes within range of an enemy TF (such as carriers with aircraft set to naval interdiction), then an engagement would take place interrupting movement during that turn cycle. Combat would be resolved, then those ships would keep moving (if they can).

Would a feature like this be that difficult to implement? This type of system seems far more realistic, then allowing an enemy TF to steam unmolested under the noses of nearby friendly forces. . .

Just a few thoughts. . .

[Snigbert]

I recall in the book 'Guadalcanal, a Definitive History' there was more than one sighting of the Japanese task force on its way to Savo Island...or it could have been the Hudson. I know planes from SWPAC spotted them but it was not communicated to the correct people.
The part of this incident I found humorous, was one of the planes that spotted the Japanese task force identified them as '2 Southampton Class Cruisers'. I guess nobody told them that there werent any British ships in the area, but it gives you an idea of how tough identifying ships from the air must have been.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Wilhammer

I advocate the 6 hour method. The reason is that it neatly devides the night in half. To plan a bombardment (or high speed transport run), in the real thing, the prime consideration was you had to be out of air range before you did your run, and out of it after the run. This almost always meant you had to be at the target at midnight.

I know it gets dark after 6 PM, but day time operators would be in a retirng for night mode, so one could expect reduced activity during the dusk (and dawn) hours.

I also favoured the 6 hour turn solution for the same reason but the poll which was taken showed that 70% of players were happy to keep the one day turn despite the problems it creates.

This doesn't quite satisfy the 80:20 rule but is probably near enough that the design team will feel justified in ignoring it. The amount of work required introduce a shorter turn option might not be considered necessary to satisfy 30% of the user base.