Suggestion: Naval Air Missions

[Mr.Frag]

A minor change that would resolve the issue with mass suicides of air units trying to kill a ship in a base hex:

Change Naval Attack/Search to not fly into Base Hexes at all.

Change Port Attack/Recon to handle Base Hexes specifically.

This required no UI changes at all making it simple to add without major coding work.

The advantage of this is fairly obvious:

(a) Units do not suicide into hexes that are very likely to have large amounts of AA & CAP.

(b) Attacks into base hexes become hex based (targetted) attacks, which allows the player to allocate proper levels of support to suppress the CAP (targetted escort). The support for targetted attacks already exists with Recon/Port/Airfield/Ground attack commands. Nothing needs to be added here except possibly a slight change to port attack to allow targets that are not docked to be hit.

(c) Individual sea planes no longer get slaughtered wholesale just because your ships stepped a little too close to the base.

(d) Targetted base attacks are an operational choice, not a random thing that a local commander is going to choose. (fits with the UV concept of a rear commander calling the shots)

(e) Allows people to step back from the random naval attack/search missions and not loose sleep over suicide attacks where a flight of rare bombers run off and do something quite silly due to their range. Being in a position to not base certain bombers at PM just because they'd commit suicide is not an operational thing, it's a glitch in the AI.

From the computer's AI side of the fence, you can simply ignore this change having it continue as it does now.

To keep it completely simple, just add a base hex check code piece to the Naval options (ie: ship spotted = true && base hex != true = Valid target else keep looking).

I understand this is a fairly hot topic with people very devided on exactly how much control they have over things, but this option doesn't change the operational concept by allowing players to go to where the random naval attacks are now picking specific TF's that may or may not be there, it shifts what should be an operational choice back into the hands of the operational staff. Perhaps offer it up as a mini patch just for feedback with just that change offered?

[Drongo]

If I understand what you are suggesting :

What about the following cases.

a) During a CV vs CV battle, you set the aircraft missions for what you anticipate the next day (fighters on escort/CAP, bombers on naval attack/search). The enemy CV force (currently at sea), moves to a friendly port in the following turn. Your pre-set airstrikes will now fail to recognise the enemy CV TF as a viable target since it is in a port location. The enemy CV TF would have no such problem in return.

b) You anticipate an enemy TF will move into port in the coming turn so you order a port strike. The enemy ends his move one hex short of the targeted port. Your strike passes harmlessly over the enemy TF and attacks the port (taking losses that you may not have wanted unless it got you a chance to hit the TF).

There would be a lot of situations where the players would be just as frustrated since you don't know what the enemy will actually do.

I would have thought you would still need an "attack enemy TF anywhere (at sea or port)" button, especially for CV vs CV battles.

Whatever is done, I agree with you that a simple solution would seem the best.

[Mr.Frag]

Originally posted by Drongo
If I understand what you are suggesting :

What about the following cases.


a) During a CV vs CV battle, you set the aircraft missions for what you anticipate the next day (fighters on escort/CAP, bombers on naval attack/search). The enemy CV force (currently at sea), moves to a friendly port in the following turn. Your pre-set airstrikes will now fail to attack as the CV TF is in port. The enemy would have no such problem in return.

Fairly simple here, this is where the CV two step comes into the picture and auto-moves your CV's. This feature is already in the game now, and can only be bypassed by having the CV follow another TF. Additionally, it would be quite simple to bypass this base check for CV based aircraft vs land based aircraft if players found that this was a big problem opposed to the suicidal losses in a Base Hex (I commonly park my CV's at PM and put all fighters on LRCAP over the Base and totally decimate the AI flights out of Rabaul until the AI has thrown away all their Nells & Betties. AI just keeps on sending them in ever increasing numbers to try and hit the CV's that have an INSANE number of CAP located over their head.)

b) You anticipate an enemy TF will move into port in the coming turn so you order a port strike. The enemy ends his move one hex short of the targeted port. Your strike passes harmlessly over the enemy TF and attacks the port (taking losses that you may not have wanted).

This is exactly what Matrix is trying to rule out! You should not be anticipating that the TF will have exactly enough move points left to make the port. This is completely unrealistic at a theater level to be able to do this. This is a tactical reaction and should NOT be a valid justification.

There would be a lot of situations where the players would be just as frustrated since you don't know what the enemy will actually do.

I disagree. Knowing flat out that Naval attacks will never attack a port/base hex unless specifically ordered to do so by you lets you get on with your life and play the game without getting ticked off about suicidal ai actions that you obviously never wanted to have happen and deal with bases properly, via operational level planned attacks of coordinated aircraft, bombardment, and troop landings.

I would have thought you would still need an "attack enemy TF anywhere (at sea or port)" button, especially for CV vs CV battles.

Why? CV's will auo-move due to their react to enemy CV's up to twice per turn unless locked in follow TF mode or DOCKED in port. This means that moving a CV into a port hex doesn't mean it will not step back out to play with the other CV group, which still allows CV vs CV attacks to happen unless you, the operational guy in the rear specifically order your CV's to dock or escort the other TF at all costs (again, operational level orders vs local reactions of the commander on the scene).

Whatever is done, I agree with you that a simple solution would seem the best.

It was as simple as I could think of as a solution that Matrix could implement in less then an hour of coding time and be able to offer up as a "what if we tried this approach?" fix before some of us start committing suicide instead of our pilots doing it for us :rolleyes:

[Drongo]

Posted by Mr.Frag

Fairly simple here, this is where the CV two step comes into the picture and auto-moves your CV's. This feature is already in the game now, and can only be bypassed by having the CV follow another TF.

It wouldn't be a problem in player vs AI games but the fact it can be bypassed (and quite easily so) means that it would be in PBEMs. Players would be expected to do whatever they can to maximise their chance of winning the critical CV vs CV battles.

Additionally, it would be quite simple to bypass this base check for CV based aircraft vs land based aircraft if players found that this was a big problem opposed to the suicidal losses in a Base Hex (I commonly park my CV's at PM and put all fighters on LRCAP over the Base and totally decimate the AI flights out of Rabaul until the AI has thrown away all their Nells & Betties. AI just keeps on sending them in ever increasing numbers to try and hit the CV's that have an INSANE number of CAP located over their head.)

OK, Naval Strike missions from CVs would keep the "attack enemy TF anywhere (at sea or port)" ability (ie Naval Strike as it currently is now). That means only LBA is affected. This also means that (often large numbers of) LBA bombers may not have a chance of taking part in a critical engagement on a critical day because the player guessed wrong on whether the enemy forces would be at sea or in port. At least the current UV routines don't require any second guessing in these circumstances.

This is exactly what Matrix is trying to rule out! You should not be anticipating that the TF will have exactly enough move points left to make the port.

I never said you had to anticipate a TFs move points. What I said was that you anticipate whether the enemy TF is heading for port and set your mission accordingly. If the enemy TF has not reached port (for whatever reason) next day, but you thought it would and therefore set your LBA on Port Attack, your LBA would ignore the TF as a target since it is still at sea.

This is completely unrealistic at a theater level to be able to do this. This is a tactical reaction and should NOT be a valid justification

Based on my understanding of your suggestion, by having Naval Strike missions (LBA only) target only ships at sea and Port Attack missions target ships in harbour, you would have a situation where the Theatre Commander is restricting the tactical flexibility of his subordinate. For example, the local commander cannot deal with a target because it is currently in open ocean and he has been ordered to attack only ships in a port location with his air assets.

Knowing flat out that Naval attacks will never attack a port/base hex unless specifically ordered to do so by you lets you get on with your life and play the game without getting ticked off about suicidal ai actions that you obviously never wanted to have happen and deal with bases properly, via operational level planned attacks of coordinated aircraft, bombardment, and troop landings.

I am in complete agreement with the idea of stopping long range bombers routinely committing suicide by making unescorted attacks on ships in well defended enemy harbours (due to the fact that they are the easiest targets to find). Your solution would work well for those times when you just want to leave your LBA on Naval Strike to hit targets of opportunity.

However, I still feel it would create a lot of player frustration at those times when things have gone hot and a critical operation is underway. This would come from the need to have to often guess correctly as to whether the enemy will be in a harbour or at sea the following turn. That is why I thought there would still be a need for an "attack enemy TF anywhere" option available to both CV air and LBA. You can't pick a TF as a target but you do need to know that the TF will be a potential target (if so desired) for a naval strike, regardless of its location (but assuming it's in range).

[CapAndGown]

Allow me to point out one more problem with your suggestion:

The Japs have Gili-Gili and Rabual while you as the Allies have Port Morseby. Gili-Gili does not yet have an air field, so you want your bombers to attack convoys moving into Gili-Gili. Does this mean that the naval attack option will miss these transports once they reach Gili-Gili? Conversely, will the base attack option mean that they will be ignored even though instead of sailing to Gili-Gili they continued on and now are just 4 hexes away from Port Moresby ready to invade?

A simple solution would be best. But this is not it.

[Mr.Frag]

Based on my understanding of your suggestion, by having Naval Strike missions (LBA only) target only ships at sea and Port Attack missions target ships in harbour, you would have a situation where the Theatre Commander is restricting the tactical flexibility of his subordinate. For example, the local commander cannot deal with a target because it is currently in open ocean and he has been ordered to attack only ships in a port location with his air assets.

I was not suggesting that ONLY LBA were subjected to this change. I stated if there was a problem found with what you identified, then Matrix could quickly flip flop it to ONLY LBA with a one line code change.

You folks replying to me seem to have completely forgot the secondary mission target when dealing with Naval options no longer flying into a base hex ... Gee, why not set the secondary misison to PORT??? attack to deal with that option

That would deal quite nicely with your "it will not attack the ships that *just* ran into the port hex on me".

The key here is that it puts risk management back in the hands of the commander. If he chooses the added risk, he can add the secondary mission to go for it. If he wants to play it safe, he chooses the rest option.

I know it is not a perfect solution, but it is something that can be implemented now vs after some future game it released which offers priorities and such...

[Drongo]

Posted by Mr.Frag

You folks replying to me seem to have completely forgot the secondary mission target when dealing with Naval options no longer flying into a base hex ... Gee, why not set the secondary misison to PORT??? attack to deal with that option

Well, Mr.Smug, using a Port Attack as a secondary mission is a piss poor replacement for a standard UV Naval Attack mission.

Firstly, it will only occur in the afternoon phase of a turn (enemy CV's in the port location could well have done their job by then with their unresticted use of naval attacks (vs ships) or airbase attacks (vs airfields) to knock out LBA.

Secondly, the friendly aircraft (set to a primary mission of Naval Attack) could well have incurred heavy fatigue in the morning by striking at available targets of opportunity, leaving them less effective when they attempt to go after the main targets (in the port location). That is assuming the fatigued a/c go in at all.

Thirdly, you must select a port location for the mission. What if there are several possibilities that the enemy could be going to (especially in the Solomons, like Lunga/Tulagi etc.). If you dont select a port location, your a/c may choose to attack any port.

Finally, how is the new Port Attack mission going to work in practice?
Does it split its attack between the port itself and the TFs in harbour? What if a player doesn't want 50% (whatever) of his attack air wasting their bombs on the port when the TFs are his real target.
Does it ignore the port if TF's are detected in harbour. What if the player's operational need is to hit a port prior to an invasion (to knock out the coastal batteries, etc) but is frustrated by the enemy player creating multiple, single ship TFs of low value ships (like barges/PT boats/etc) to draw off the attackers.

I was not suggesting that ONLY LBA were subjected to this change. I stated if there was a problem found with what you identified, then Matrix could quickly flip flop it to ONLY LBA with a one line code change.

I did take note of what you said. I mentioned "LBA only" because (IMO), your solution would seem too restrictive to be applied to the free-wheeling CV battles that I have normally experienced and therefore would not be considered as a possibility. I also think the idea of a second patch (to remove CV aspects of the first) would be avoided by Matrix at all costs. Whatever solution is accepted, it should be fully workable from the start (hopefully).

I'm not objecting to your idea in theory, just in its current form. It could well open up another can of worms for the players to have to swallow.