Matrix Games Forums

Well matrix you have managed to do it.....what do I mean?,I mean your steadfast insistance that admiral tanaka be killed off very early in the game,I have 3 pbem games going an by setting up a task force an having tanaka be the default commander this was simply a milk run with a couple of destroyers escorting a tanker to lunga an in your infinite wisdom having him throw his life away when a cruiser force shows up an whacks the destroyers the tanker survived but not tanaka nooooo...I have had this stupid bookeeping chore on more than several occasions put his head on the block an lucikly sometimes I catch him sneaking on to a small TF before it leaves port other times he limps into port with me shaking my head wishing there was a better way to keep him OFF! these
kind of TF'S....this one was a total game killer for me not even three weeks into the campaign an know I don't even feel like playing it anymore....WAY TO GO!

I feel for you Matt. I too hate the auto TF commander thing. It would be much easier if it were the other way. I have lost Tanaka, Scott, and many others by not remembering to check who is in command. The problem is that when I make a combat TF I have no problem remembering to check and get the right commander but when I create a transport TF with a couple of escorts I often forget to check.

Hi, Well I feel for you however it is well known each TF selects a leader when formed. It's your fault for not changing leaders.
In WITP when a TF is formed the senior ship captain is default TF leader
(You'll have to click and pick to assign an Admiral so there will be players who complain when important TF's have a captain in command instead of an Admiral because they forget to select a leader)

I've killed Tanaka, Scott, Lee and other good leaders hundreds of times in PBEM games because players forget to change leaders. (I've sank SC/PC/AV/AP/AK and killed valuable leaders. I've posted dozens of times in AAR/War room not to do this. This feature of TF creation should be one of the first things players learn. I haven't lost a leader by mistake in over 50 PBEM games. When I create a TF the very first thing I do is leader selection.

So it's not really matrix's fault. In WITP someone will post a problem with TF leaders when program does not assign one automaticly.

BillBrown wrote:I feel for you Matt. I too hate the auto TF commander thing. It would be much easier if it were the other way. I have lost Tanaka, Scott, and many others by not remembering to check who is in command. The problem is that when I make a combat TF I have no problem remembering to check and get the right commander but when I create a transport TF with a couple of escorts I often forget to check.

Not sure where to start!

First I have to say that I hope Matt decide to continue our game.
Nothing's worse than simply quitting on your opponent

Then I would like to support the idea posted earlier about leaders starting out as blancs. Their true capabilities should emerge as they fight and survive.

In May 42 Tanaka was a blanc - a well placed torpedo would have stopped his career before anyone know his name.

The way it is today, players preserves and protect their best leaders until they got an important battle to fight. This is very unrealistic and would have prevented them from ever gaining the experience needed to become great leaders........

Here's the story of the demise of a 'not so Tenacious Tenaka'

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
DD Sazanami, Shell hits 17, and is sunk
DD Mochizuki
DD Oite, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
TK Hoyo Maru

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans
CA Minneapolis
DD Anderson, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Russell, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Phelps
DD Dewey
DMS Zane


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
DD Mochizuki, Shell hits 20, on fire, heavy damage
DD Oite, Shell hits 47, and is sunk
TK Hoyo Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 1
CA Minneapolis
DD Anderson, on fire
DD Russell, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Phelps, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Dewey
DMS Zane


----------------------------------------------------------------------

This was the second night engagement at Lunga - 2 Jap DD's were sunk just a few days ago. As we can see all Jap ships were hit - Tanaka went down fighting on the bridge of his destroyer....

Matt Erickson wrote: kind of TF'S....this one was a total game killer for me not even three weeks into the campaign an know I don't even feel like playing it anymore....WAY TO GO!

Well, I feel for you but at the same time I think you're over-dramatising this episode. In real life admirals could have been killed by all kinds of accidents (check out how many generals and admirals died in aircraft accidents miles behind the front, or even car accidents!). Remember how Yamamoto died.... Geez, British ASW ace Walker died of cardiac arrest caused by overstrain - how would you like to see this simulated in UV?

So, chalk this one to bad luck, rationalize as if Tanaka died in aircraft crash and continue... IJN has many other good surface commanders too.

PS. I have never killed important enemy admiral leading transport TF in PBEM, nor have had my admiral killed that way... Yes it's micromanagement issue, but we love UV because of micromanagement, no?

O.

Hi, Rear Admiral Willis "Chin" Lee also died of a heart attack. (1945 while working on anti Kamikaze tactics during battle for Okinawa)

I had tanaka on another task force that kust got back to truk and...i disbanded it an created the cargo ship TF I guess he just jumped in his supersonic betty bomber and snuck on this TFin rabaul...no worries just an spur of the moment hissy fit on my part trying to get these turns out quickly was probably my biggest fault..too bad too I had big plans for him with large scale surface engagements in the future,hes also a good invasion leader too he will be missed,dont worry I wont bail outta the game.send you a turn now as I jst got back from the golf course straightened out my hook today

Matt Erickson wrote:I had tanaka on another task force that kust got back to truk and...i disbanded it an created the cargo ship TF I guess he just jumped in his supersonic betty bomber and snuck on this TFin rabaul...no worries just an spur of the moment hissy fit on my part trying to get these turns out quickly was probably my biggest fault..too bad too I had big plans for him with large scale surface engagements in the future,hes also a good invasion leader too he will be missed,dont worry I wont bail outta the game.send you a turn now as I jst got back from the golf course straightened out my hook today

Took out your frustration on the little white ball I see.

Here's something you can do next time for leaders you want to keep out of the auto-select routine. Just keep a single-ship TF in some out of the way port with him as the admiral. Then when you need him, switch him out with the ship's captain, and presto! he teleports to where you want him. In the meantime he's assigned so he won't get auto-selected. Silly? Sure, but no more so than the way these guys teleport around the map.

I think you miss a lot of the fun in UV if you don't pay close attention to assignment of TF commanders (although I wish the information from the database was much more easily accessible. All you get in the commander screen is "aggressiveness" and "leadership." It seems to me that there's a lot more to it than that).

In any event, it's an important decision (yes, at an operational level) who to put in charge of a TF. Do you want to risk your best commander on this mission? If not, who is an adequate substitute. Suppose Tanaka's away with a couple of Kongos stalking transports, and suddenly you have to scrape up a surface force to counter a newly detected threat. Whom do you choose?

It's one of my favorite parts of the game, but, hey, who am I?

(BTW, I agree with those who have expressed a desire for flagships and assignment of the TF commander to that ship).

bilbow wrote:Took out your frustration on the little white ball I see.

Here's something you can do next time for leaders you want to keep out of the auto-select routine. Just keep a single-ship TF in some out of the way port with him as the admiral. Then when you need him, switch him out with the ship's captain, and presto! he teleports to where you want him. In the meantime he's assigned so he won't get auto-selected. Silly? Sure, but no more so than the way these guys teleport around the map.

I have to force myself to check each Tf commander and then I assign low-rated cmdrs to routine TFs. Don't commanders improve with experience? It is a procedure that has to be learned like checking your cap levels, etc.

This is my take on the TF selection problem that I wrote in an earlier post:

One major flaw in the way the computer picks task force commanders is that it automatically picks the best commander for whatever fleets it builds next. While we as humans put our best commanders in our best fleets. Shouldnt the ai do this as well? In other words we would not ever put Tanaka in charge of transports but because of the way the ai is set up this happens a lot. I always put my worst commanders in charge of transports and other unwanted jobs and save my best commanders like Tanaka, Kono, Yamaguchi and others for my best surface and air fleets. Why not have the ai programmed to do this as well? In other words have the lowest rated commanders automatically picked for the transport jobs and the best rated commanders picked for the surface and air fleet jobs. Seems to me this would only strengthen the ai in combat and it would make the computer do the same thing most of us humans do. Anyone else agree???

Seems like it would not be too hard to program.

Low level skilled commanders: transport, replentishment, mine-laying, etc.

High level skilled commanders: Surface combat and air combat only.

I would definitely like to see something like this in WITP!!!

Hi, Because in WITP it costs Political points to assign/replace leaders TF's have default leader assigned. The senior ship captain is TF leader unless the player changes it. For many types of TF the senior ship captain is the correct choice.
Political points are used to assign leaders, change the HQ of units/bases.
(Presently in Alpha testing it would require 33 days worth of PP to transfer an infantry division out of China or Korea to allow it to load on transports for use else where. (you could also break the Div down and transfer 1/3 of it every 11 days)
Since leaders require PP players will make 3 changes from how they do UV

1. They will maintain TF's. Once a TF has been established it is cheaper PP wise to kept it (you can still add or subtract ships).
2. You will think about who is in command of TF's (since leaders will be assigned longer they will not be in the pool to select) This will prevent leaders being assigned by mistake. Rather then disbanding a TF in one base and creating another TF in a new base (and using the same leader)
Whole TF's will relocate.
3. Missions will be assigned more for operational needs then "Easter Egg"
(where player says "Well I have these ships I guess I'll make a TF and go bombard Lunga") You won't want to mess with TF's as much.
Of course there is always the old steal all the ships from one TF for use in another (just leaving 1 ship to maintain the TF and save the PP) But this duplicates the fact that the leader whose ships are being borrowed retains a flagship and a command.

Mogami wrote: (Presently in Alpha testing it would require 33 months worth of PP to transfer an infantry division out of China or Korea to allow it to load on transports for use else where. (you could also break the Div down and transfer 1/3 of it every 11 months)

Are you saying it will take 33 months worth of all of your preparation points just to move one division? That's ridiculous. That's the same as saying that the troops in Korea are stuck in Korea for the rest of the war. Why even bother putting them on the map then?

Hi, I was wrong I don't know what I was thinking. It would be 33 days worth of PP not months. (But then again this is only Alpha version.)
(Or maybe it's 66 days worth I can't remember if its 100 per day or 50 per day. The div cost 3300 PP.
Anyway the units in Korea are important. A good portion of Japans production is located in Korea and the Soviet Union has units on the border that one day will be active.
It would also cost the same number of PP to change a div from 14th Army to 15th Army. The only difference is 14th Army units can move where they want. (they just have a problem maintaining contact with HQ, this impacts their readiness and replacements)
I've corrected the post, thanks for pointing it out.

hello...I thought good an hard about this an my best thing is ...well it's probably in witp anyways, is to..when you make a task force the first menu screen is to pick a leader,I know ,I know what a novel concept..I'm guessing geez you know what kinda of job it's gotta do so picking that right leader outta be easy,anyways just my 2 pennies...hitting that little white ball did a load of good thankyou,unfortunatly it caused the tendinitis in my elbow to flare up again,I swear to god I CANNOT win for losing ...anyways I just banged one of his subs with three count'em THREE diffrent bombers an gotta a confirmed kill,guess the first one kept him on the surface the second slowed him down an the third coup de' gras'ed him...cheers.This game is like Karma what goes around comes around...oh yeah I got a letter from yamamoto he said expect somethink big for christmas ..I hopwe it's early an I hope it's BIG :p