Against a balanced enemy task force, only a major combined air strike has any chance of success. However, the AI continually sends sorties of less than ten aircraft against carrier and surface TF's, as well as against bases. All this does is waste aircraft, but more importantly experienced pilots in doomed and futile attacks.
I can understand why the AI does it...there is a hard-coded minimum stricke of 4 aircraft like in Carrier Strike, so as soon as a few planes return to service from search or repair, the AI it throws these at the enemy. While this might be done against a shattered enemy force or a lightly defended transport TF, it is ridiculous and unrealistic against major surface groups.
I would suggest a preference option allowing the minimum aircraft for a strike based on target taskforce characteristics. The player can then set the minimum number of aircraft against each mission type combined with AA rating. eg 20 planes for air mission enemy taskgroup below 3000 AA and 30 above.
Part of the intel process would be to set an estimated enemy taskgroup AA ratingand mission. Eg. If a fleet carrier is present the mission would be air, if major surface elements surface, if transports, etc. Intel error may result in an understrength strike, but them the breaks.
As it is, I can lose 20% of my air strength in these futile air strikes.
Can anything be done about those 4 plane sorties
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
While I suppose the teeny strike forces attacking the enemy could be due to the reasons you stated, I always figured it was due to strikes being broken up due to poor navigation, getting lost etc. It was pretty common and historical for a/c strike groups to get seperated in bad weather and end up coming at the enemy in small groups, or missing their escort.
-
CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
Excuse me if i missed something, but are you implying that the historical actions at Midway and Santa Cruz did not occur because they were futile? :rolleyes:swagman wrote:Against a balanced enemy task force, only a major combined air strike has any chance of success. However, the AI continually sends sorties of less than ten aircraft against carrier and surface TF's, as well as against bases. All this does is waste aircraft, but more importantly experienced pilots in doomed and futile attacks.
I can understand why the AI does it...there is a hard-coded minimum stricke of 4 aircraft like in Carrier Strike, so as soon as a few planes return to service from search or repair, the AI it throws these at the enemy. While this might be done against a shattered enemy force or a lightly defended transport TF, it is ridiculous and unrealistic against major surface groups.
And what historical reality is this supposed to model? Do you really think that a carrier commander could control what happened after the planes left the deck? There are such things as cloud banks, poor navigation, misidentification, etc.swagman wrote: I would suggest a preference option allowing the minimum aircraft for a strike based on target taskforce characteristics. The player can then set the minimum number of aircraft against each mission type combined with AA rating. eg 20 planes for air mission enemy taskgroup below 3000 AA and 30 above.
I've played other Gary Grigsby games extensively, but relative to UV, Carrier Strike and War in the Pacific are relevant, since UV is plainly a design deriviative of these, both in terms of overall concept, detail design and mechanics.
In those games, I have witnessed the AI throwing rag-tag uncoordinated strikes of remant planes to their doom, and it is made clear in those games this is a result of repairs and returning search aircraft.
I know UV handles broken airstrikes just as occurred at Midway...however, the air components were I believe squadron size at Midway...what I am talking about here are 4 or 8 aircraft, often from more than one squadron. Was historical for 3 fighters to follow those 4 dive bombers, rather than their own squadron commander. I am not suggesting the carrier commander control the air-strikes after they leave the deck, I am instead pointing out that after receiving a report of several carriers from his returning mauled main strike, would that carrier commander continue to send strikes of 4 or 8 planes just to see each one smashed. At least the way I played was to harbour my resources...wait for those 12 search SBD's to return, grab some returning repairs and put up a single strike of 30 aircraft, rather than 5 between 4 and 8 planes each..
I admit I haven't checked the actual time stamp of the minor strikes compared to major strikes, however I assumed that they are separate attacks...however, this question is really irrelevant, since the strikes often target different objectives that are multiple hexes apart (ie a hundred or more miles). A broken strike would normally continue to the objective co-ordinates, although rarely it might be redirected.
I see this as a flaw in the game mechanics. Sure you can come up with excuses for it, but I do not believe these minor strikes relate to components of a major one.
In those games, I have witnessed the AI throwing rag-tag uncoordinated strikes of remant planes to their doom, and it is made clear in those games this is a result of repairs and returning search aircraft.
I know UV handles broken airstrikes just as occurred at Midway...however, the air components were I believe squadron size at Midway...what I am talking about here are 4 or 8 aircraft, often from more than one squadron. Was historical for 3 fighters to follow those 4 dive bombers, rather than their own squadron commander. I am not suggesting the carrier commander control the air-strikes after they leave the deck, I am instead pointing out that after receiving a report of several carriers from his returning mauled main strike, would that carrier commander continue to send strikes of 4 or 8 planes just to see each one smashed. At least the way I played was to harbour my resources...wait for those 12 search SBD's to return, grab some returning repairs and put up a single strike of 30 aircraft, rather than 5 between 4 and 8 planes each..
I admit I haven't checked the actual time stamp of the minor strikes compared to major strikes, however I assumed that they are separate attacks...however, this question is really irrelevant, since the strikes often target different objectives that are multiple hexes apart (ie a hundred or more miles). A broken strike would normally continue to the objective co-ordinates, although rarely it might be redirected.
I see this as a flaw in the game mechanics. Sure you can come up with excuses for it, but I do not believe these minor strikes relate to components of a major one.
AI
Hi, The AI is being made smarter in WITP, Hopefully it will pass back into UV. But it still can send little strikes. In UV the AI knows the amount of CAP and will fly or abort based on that. Aircraft do not repair during a turn.(and fly in later phase) (there is a repair phase at end of turn) Strikes are launched during AM and PM phases recon/patrol aircraft that fly AM phase will also be flying PM phase so they are not available for strike. Astrike should never be smaller then 3 aircraft. (below that group leader will not launch) If 2 or more groups decide to launch at same target you can get as many strikes as groups (or they can combine into 1 larger strike)
This is based on weather and distance and group morale and leader ratings among other things. After you place a air HQ at the base you should start seeing better strike composition. (The Japanese begin with a HQ at Rabaul. You'll notice their Rabaul strikes are usally better organized then strikes from other bases)
So to get larger strikes use a HQ, rest the groups up to high morale and hope for close range targets.
This is based on weather and distance and group morale and leader ratings among other things. After you place a air HQ at the base you should start seeing better strike composition. (The Japanese begin with a HQ at Rabaul. You'll notice their Rabaul strikes are usally better organized then strikes from other bases)
So to get larger strikes use a HQ, rest the groups up to high morale and hope for close range targets.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Part of the issue involved :
1. The AI is coded to reflect a relatively accurate HISTORICAL outcome, using relatively historical tactics. To test the AI, the coders simply let the game play itself. The AI of both nationalities are using comperable routines that produce relatively historical results. Remember here, the AI is trying to produce historical results.
2. Players know they need to concentrate their forces. Remember that historically, the use of airpower vs. fleet units was still in it's infancy. The only US experience with aggressive of airpower vs. naval units was Billy Mitchell bombing a pair of BBs (which actually p1ssed off the Navy, he was USAAC). CVs were seen generally as the SCOUTS of the fleet, not as their major offensive asset. The British had used CVs in the Atlantic and Med vs. Bismark and the Italians with some success. But even so, none of these engagements saw the scale, impact, or even necessity that was to be proven in the Pacific. The greatest threat to naval vessals in the Med and North/Norwegian Sea, was actually from Land Based aircraft, not from CVs. Coral Sea was the 1st time that large numbers of aircraft attacked a fleet. Had the BBs at Pearl been available, naval strategy in the Pacific would likely have begun very differently (using the BBs as the core, instead of CVs; I believe it would still have ended with CVs tho). The in the official debrief of Coral Sea, it was decided that strikes needed to be larger, coordinated better, and that ships needed more AAA. Tactics in 1942 had no problem attacking with 6 plane flight. By 1943 however, you did see the concentration (and greater coordination) of air attacks. Players already know this, and will tend to put together a massive fleet in order to accomplish it; which furthers compounds the next point...
3. Players know exactly what resources they're going to get (or not get) and when. They know the limited area in which their units can/will be deployed. They also have a fairly good idea of the enemy's disposition and arrival of the enemy forces. Players have played UV many times, they know generally what will be facing them regardless of the specific intel. They also have their OB arrival chart, that tells them exactly when other fleet units will arrive, and they will plan accordingly. Historically, our counterparts had much less to work with. The only got one chance "to play the game". Their intel was actual, and not based upon prior knowledge from "playing the game" previous times and discovering "the game arc" that ultimately unfolds.
So I guess that's the the long way of saying, 4 - 8 plane flights were -not- ahistorical. The AI is trying to play a historical game. Players will ulitimately sabotage a historical strategy, because of thier knowledge of dispostion and tactics.
-F-
1. The AI is coded to reflect a relatively accurate HISTORICAL outcome, using relatively historical tactics. To test the AI, the coders simply let the game play itself. The AI of both nationalities are using comperable routines that produce relatively historical results. Remember here, the AI is trying to produce historical results.
2. Players know they need to concentrate their forces. Remember that historically, the use of airpower vs. fleet units was still in it's infancy. The only US experience with aggressive of airpower vs. naval units was Billy Mitchell bombing a pair of BBs (which actually p1ssed off the Navy, he was USAAC). CVs were seen generally as the SCOUTS of the fleet, not as their major offensive asset. The British had used CVs in the Atlantic and Med vs. Bismark and the Italians with some success. But even so, none of these engagements saw the scale, impact, or even necessity that was to be proven in the Pacific. The greatest threat to naval vessals in the Med and North/Norwegian Sea, was actually from Land Based aircraft, not from CVs. Coral Sea was the 1st time that large numbers of aircraft attacked a fleet. Had the BBs at Pearl been available, naval strategy in the Pacific would likely have begun very differently (using the BBs as the core, instead of CVs; I believe it would still have ended with CVs tho). The in the official debrief of Coral Sea, it was decided that strikes needed to be larger, coordinated better, and that ships needed more AAA. Tactics in 1942 had no problem attacking with 6 plane flight. By 1943 however, you did see the concentration (and greater coordination) of air attacks. Players already know this, and will tend to put together a massive fleet in order to accomplish it; which furthers compounds the next point...
3. Players know exactly what resources they're going to get (or not get) and when. They know the limited area in which their units can/will be deployed. They also have a fairly good idea of the enemy's disposition and arrival of the enemy forces. Players have played UV many times, they know generally what will be facing them regardless of the specific intel. They also have their OB arrival chart, that tells them exactly when other fleet units will arrive, and they will plan accordingly. Historically, our counterparts had much less to work with. The only got one chance "to play the game". Their intel was actual, and not based upon prior knowledge from "playing the game" previous times and discovering "the game arc" that ultimately unfolds.
So I guess that's the the long way of saying, 4 - 8 plane flights were -not- ahistorical. The AI is trying to play a historical game. Players will ulitimately sabotage a historical strategy, because of thier knowledge of dispostion and tactics.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
And they usually evade the 10 P-39s too!Nomad wrote:Wait until you have three Betty bombers come in, evade all Flak and put 3 torps into your ships. Then you wont think they are so useless.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
I'll try the suggestions to improve air ops.
The question of the computer playing with historical constraints and lack of knowledge, while the human player has the benefits of ahistorical information and history comes to the crux of the point that concerns me. I do note however that the computer often does not play with historical task group formations, as it consolidates carriers into a single taskgroup if the start the game in the same hex.
There are two games options being discussed, the first is a historical simulation, the second one is a game influenced by the knowledge, information available and skills of the human player.
UV works as a historical simulation when played AI against AI. Fine, but human players don't want to simply watch the game being played for them. They buy the game in order to participate. If the game is played H2H or PBEM, it works too, because then both players have the save advantages.
However, a human player against the AI, the game fails it seems to me, because it can't work as a simulation because the human has the advantage of foreknowledge, etc. Hence, one needs to look at playability, and I think playability would be improved by changing the management of these little strikes.
As Feinder said, at the start of the war small strikes may have occurred, with each carrier acting independently with their own taskgroup. But quickly, US carrier groups usually had 4 CV/CVL in order to concentrate air power. Does UV reflect such historical changes of strategy.
The question of the computer playing with historical constraints and lack of knowledge, while the human player has the benefits of ahistorical information and history comes to the crux of the point that concerns me. I do note however that the computer often does not play with historical task group formations, as it consolidates carriers into a single taskgroup if the start the game in the same hex.
There are two games options being discussed, the first is a historical simulation, the second one is a game influenced by the knowledge, information available and skills of the human player.
UV works as a historical simulation when played AI against AI. Fine, but human players don't want to simply watch the game being played for them. They buy the game in order to participate. If the game is played H2H or PBEM, it works too, because then both players have the save advantages.
However, a human player against the AI, the game fails it seems to me, because it can't work as a simulation because the human has the advantage of foreknowledge, etc. Hence, one needs to look at playability, and I think playability would be improved by changing the management of these little strikes.
As Feinder said, at the start of the war small strikes may have occurred, with each carrier acting independently with their own taskgroup. But quickly, US carrier groups usually had 4 CV/CVL in order to concentrate air power. Does UV reflect such historical changes of strategy.
-
CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
UV will still be a very viable game. Quite frankly, WitP is much too big for me. And I like the smaller hexes in UV (30 miles instead of 60 miles)WarChild wrote:Mogami.
When WITP comes out, why would we play UV instead of WITP? From what I see and read WITP is an upgraded UV with simular strat and tactical game play but over a larger area and time frame.
I'm with you Cap. I love UV, and no doubt will buy and love WitP as well.cap_and_gown wrote:UV will still be a very viable game. Quite frankly, WitP is much too big for me. And I like the smaller hexes in UV (30 miles instead of 60 miles)
But with the backfitting of the improvements to UV it will be an even greater game, and one that can be achieved in a reasonable time as PBEM (God only knows how long a game of WitP will last.....).
The South Pacific is where the most CV battles were fought, and the most even sided combat fought during the war was at any point.
No doubt worth keeping around and keep playing PBEM.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Many of us will put aside UV when WitP comes out but there are many who do not want to play on a large canvas like the whole Pacific Ocean with hundreds of units. Its alot of work which is fun for us, Kevin, but a turn-off for others. thus UV will continue on with its own following.WarChild wrote:Mogami.
When WITP comes out, why would we play UV instead of WITP? From what I see and read WITP is an upgraded UV with simular strat and tactical game play but over a larger area and time frame.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
You worded that wrong Drex, it should say:Many of us will put aside UV when WitP comes out but there are many who do not want to play on a large canvas like the whole Pacific Ocean with hundreds of units. Its alot of work which is fun for us, Kevin, but a turn-off for others. thus UV will continue on with its own following.
Many of us will put aside UV when WitP comes out but there are many who will die of fright and return to UV. I would suspect that a lot of folks will switch to WitP BUT stay with the smaller campaigns at the UV sized levels.
While there may be a few people who can keep up with UV PBEM turns at 1+ a day, I think WitP complete turns will be more in the 2-3 a week level. It will take that long just to figure out what has changed since you last hit end turn. Almost need a "Post-It" note ability on units as a reminder of why you were doing something.
I stand corrected Mr. Frag.Mr.Frag wrote:You worded that wrong Drex, it should say:
Many of us will put aside UV when WitP comes out but there are many who will die of fright and return to UV. I would suspect that a lot of folks will switch to WitP BUT stay with the smaller campaigns at the UV sized levels.
While there may be a few people who can keep up with UV PBEM turns at 1+ a day, I think WitP complete turns will be more in the 2-3 a week level. It will take that long just to figure out what has changed since you last hit end turn. Almost need a "Post-It" note ability on units as a reminder of why you were doing something.
However I'm not so sure WitP will be anymore daunting that PacWar was and I could get out a turn or more a day with that game. As with UV, the longest turn is the set-up and after that the action will center on one main area.Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
As long as WitP behaves better than UV (and I can find a PBEM opponent) I doubt that I would go back to UV. However, if improvements from WitP are backfit to UV and it behaves better than WitP...well, I will still play WitP but maybe UV will be chosen a little more often.
My assumption is that there will be more growing pains with WitP because of the size of the game. UV has gotten over that stage and should inherit the better parts of WitP so it should still be a viable game.
My assumption is that there will be more growing pains with WitP because of the size of the game. UV has gotten over that stage and should inherit the better parts of WitP so it should still be a viable game.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
-
BruceAZ_MatrixForum
- Posts: 613
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: California
Amen. Plus I think they have the range of 7,355 hexes and carry a 6 pack filled with multiple torpedoes that have special homing devices for anything that looks like a CV...Nomad wrote:Wait until you have three Betty bombers come in, evade all Flak and put 3 torps into your ships. Then you wont think they are so useless.
Maybe we are back to that bug and windshield thing again?
