Matrix Games Forums

I played through Scenario 18 and it was a cakewalk at Historic level, so I thought I'd try the more difficult fictional Scenario 19, also at Historic difficulty.

At the beginning of the game I load up troops and supplies for Port Moresby from Brisbane and send my carriers to PM for air support. I also move all my level bombers and fighters from Australia to PM for maximum air coverage.

So here come the JP TFs to take Buna, Gili Gili, Tulagi and Lunga. My TFs are plowing toward PM and the carriers get there just after the first transports carrying the necessary air support to support the greater number of planes now operating from PM (340 total).

BTW, I have my carriers set to "do not react" and "do not retire" and all other TFs set to "do not retire". My bombers are all set on "Naval Attack" with "Airfield Attack" as their secondary target.

Now comes the wierd part. The JP carriers approach PM and now parked 5 hexes away. And what do my carriers do, but advance one hex away from PM and the protective air umbrella, where they obliterated by JP carrier planes, despite having 70% CAP level at 15000 feet. And what do my land-based Army and Navy bombers do? Instead of attacking the tempting 3x CV TF just five hexes away, they go for milk runs over Lae and Buna.

I have two questions:

1. Is there anything I can do that I didn't already to prevent this undesirable behavior? I tried targeting the TF, but it said I couldn't target enemy TFs directly, is there something I'm missing? (I've printed and read the major FAQs as well as the manual.)

2. If this is just the way it is, is WITP better? I mean, this is pretty pathetic decision making as far as target value goes and I can't imagine what kind of formula would make such target decisions unless there was a serious bug in the implementation.

I can handle losing my carriers from my own decisions, but to have the game directly disobey the specific orders I've given it is completely unacceptable. I enjoyed Scenario 18, because this never came up where I had such a confrontation after I learned about the "do not respond" command. But this is frustrating and I don't spend $50 or more on a game only to be frustrated because things don't work right.

If this is the best that Matrix games can do I'll avoid them in the future.

ORIGINAL: sdj420

I have two questions:

1. Is there anything I can do that I didn't already to prevent this undesirable behavior? I tried targeting the TF, but it said I couldn't target enemy TFs directly, is there something I'm missing? (I've printed and read the major FAQs as well as the manual.)


You were outclassed by superior fighter pilots that have 70% to 80% experience levels.
You have to train your pilots up to a sufficient experience level to have an affect.

setting your planes to 70% cap meant your SBD'S and TBF'S were probably slaughtered
upon arrival at the IJN fleets.
set cap to 40% to 50% levels to allow for fighter support.
and don't attack the IJN carrier fleet to early in tthe game as they have the experience
and momentum at this point in time. ( they are taking over half the pacific at this period)


2. If this is just the way it is, is WITP better? I mean, this is pretty pathetic decision making as far as target value goes and I can't imagine what kind of formula would make such target decisions unless there was a serious bug in the implementation.


The LBA probably would not attack an enormous carrier fleet without huge fighter support
as it is suicide.
I will base a fighter sqdn and an SBD or TBF sqdn with the LBA and chances are they will
join in with the experienced carrier pilots.
You have to attack the IJN carriers when they are fatiuged and you are well rested and
with good morale, preferebly when they have been thinned out in there ranks a bit and
been in combat for several day's and you are very fresh and experienced.


I can handle losing my carriers from my own decisions, but to have the game directly disobey the specific orders I've given it is completely unacceptable. I enjoyed Scenario 18, because this never came up where I had such a confrontation after I learned about the "do not respond" command. But this is frustrating and I don't spend $50 or more on a game only to be frustrated because things don't work right.

If you think you are frustrated now try playing a PBEM game and you will have the japanese at brisbane in 4 months.
there are so many aspects to this game series that it is mind boggling, training, fatiuge,
Morale, logistics, fuel, aggressive commanders who overide your do not react settings
Malaria, etc. etc. etc.


If this is the best that Matrix games can do I'll avoid them in the future.


UV and WITP are the best strategic, tactical and logistical war simulation games on the market. ( these are not shoot um up games as they are designed for the long haul)

I have been playing UV for almost two years now with only 8 months of PBEM time
under my belt I will never play thru against the AI again as a solid PBEM player is far
better than the AI can ever imagine. ( playing either side against you)
I still have a lot to learn in these games and can hold my own against moderate players
which I consider myself to be after almost two years.
WITP is mind boggling in size and takes a good 7 - 12 hours to make your fist move
but there is nothing to compare to the shear size and complexity of this game on the market.
most war games are put on the shelf after a 6 month period as they get boring after
you know all the ins and outs of the game.
I will be playing WITP and UV for the next five years or more and I can not say that about any other game on the market.

So I suggest you find a new or moderate player to PBEM against and learn the game the way it is meant to be played, get your clock cleaned a few times, ask questions and
see if your mind changes in six months time as that is how you learn this game.

then appoligise to matrix.

UV and WITP are the best strategic, tactical and logistical war simulation games on the market. ( these are not shoot um up games as they are designed for the long haul)
I agree with CMDRMCTOAST

I love this game. I’ve been playing UV now for two years at the historical level. Every time I start a new game a learn something new. Fighter CAP, Fatigue, Experience, Altitude, and other “in the box” characteristics effect AC combat. I’ve learned that often the hard way. If UV has one fault it is too realistic. And that’s what I love about this game. Even choosing the wrong commander can tip the scales in a battle.

There are times when situations arise that I find are great learning situations (these situations I saved in a separate folder), like when carrier task forces meet. Every once in a while I reopen these situations and play around with settings of altitude and cap percentages and so on. What I’ve found is this, you can replay a turn with the exact same setting and each time you will get different results. Here lies the realism. You may find that a US squadron gets lucky and lands all its bombs on an IJN CV, or maybe a commander may have issued the order to change the torps on the planes to bombs when they are unexpectedly attacked by torp planes and caught with bombs on the flight deck, or maybe there is a radio malfunction and a spotted CV is not reported during the battle (not likely to happen but could occur none the less).

For example in the early going of Scenario 17, I have a situation where the IJN CVs are giving Gili Gili a hard time.(IJN has 2 CVs and 1 CVL against 2 US CVs). The first time I played this scenario I got lucky and I mean very luck. As the allies I sank 2 IJN CVs and minor damaged to the 1 CVL while losing only 1 US CV . I have never been able to reproduce these result with the same settings every time I play those 3 turns over again. The IJN TFs will win the battle 85% of the time. I’ve had results such as: US 2 CVs sunk to 1 IJN CV sunk (and other may/or may not be damaged) or US 1 CV sunk and second CV badly damaged to IJN 1CVL sunk and 1 CV badly (or minor damaged). The best I could reproduce is a draw. I’ve seen IJN CVs with 20+ reported bomb hits make it back to Truk. Every time I replay those turns I’m amazed. Very realistic.

But rest assured, there are some carrier settings that work better than others. If you read the forums you too will improve your game play. The UV players here are very helpful (simply great[&o]). I’ve learned so much from them. I’m in the same boat as CMDRMCTOAST. I don’t know of many computer games that I’ve been playing for two years and have had so much fun watching the battles and anticipating outcomes. Somewhat as the commanders in real life who issued the orders from above. Staying up till 3:00 a.m. planning the enemies demise or having to explain to your wife the next morning why you had to simply play just one more turn. A great game (and/or wonderful hobby).

Thank you both for the replies.

>> You have to train your pilots up to a sufficient experience level to have an affect. <<

Do I do this by having them fly escort missions for bombers? What if the target is undefended, do they still get experience?

>> setting your planes to 70% cap meant your SBD'S and TBF'S were probably slaughtered upon arrival at the IJN fleets. <<

They never made any attempt to attack the IJN fleet. That's the problem. I can accept that the carrier group commander was aggressive and wanted to move toward the enemy fleet to engage in battle, despite the fact he was already in range and despite the fact that he was leaving an umbrella of about 100 CAP fighters to where he only had about a third that number, but wouldn't he have told the air group commanders that he wanted to strike the fleet? And if the air group commanders thought they couldn't take on the enemy fleet, wouldn't they have told the carrier group commander? It just seems that the computer is being schizophrenic or is just making each decision without regard to other decisions it has just made.

>> set cap to 40% to 50% levels to allow for fighter support. and don't attack the IJN carrier fleet to early in tthe game as they have the experience and momentum at this point in time. (they are taking over half the pacific at this period) <<

Roger. I've restarted the game and had my carriers only shadow the area and, after raiding PM for a while, the JP fleet withdrew without ever getting attacked by my LBA. I was able to keep my losses to three small AKs by breaking up all the transport TFs into single ship TFs.

>> I will base a fighter sqdn and an SBD or TBF sqdn with the LBA and chances are they will join in with the experienced carrier pilots. <<

Thanks, I'll try that. There were A-24s there, but I guess you can't expect Army pukes to attack warships.

>> You have to attack the IJN carriers when they are fatiuged and you are well rested and with good morale, preferebly when they have been thinned out in there ranks a bit and been in combat for several day's and you are very fresh and experienced. <<

Roger. Let them raid some, take losses from LB CAP and then hit them.

>> If you think you are frustrated now try playing a PBEM game and you will have the japanese at brisbane in 4 months. <<

LOL, I figure if the AI is kicking my butt, then PBEM is out of the question.

>> UV and WITP are the best strategic, tactical and logistical war simulation games on the market. <<

But do they do a better job of making decisions, and especially coordinated decisions? If the commander is going to place his fleet in harm's way, his pilots should be told to do the same, I'd think. I can't imagine Halsey taking his carriers in somewhere and his pilots saying, "Gee, it looks kinda dangerous, sir. Whatcha say we hit this undefended airfield instead of those carriers that are going to hit us unless we hit them first?"

>> I will never play thru against the AI again as a solid PBEM player is far better than the AI can ever imagine <<

I understand, but my problem isn't with the enemy AI being too weak. It is with the mandatory AI of my ships that causes them to do other than I wish.

>> WITP is mind boggling in size and takes a good 7 - 12 hours to make your fist move but there is nothing to compare to the shear size and complexity of this game on the market. <<

7-12 hours per move? Why is that? I noticed many inefficiencies in this game's interface, though there are some considerations to streamlining the number of mouse clicks needed to play the game (such as the "set all planes" functions). But I assumed that with its larger size, WITP would have to have some more considerations to efficiency (such as a way to break up a 15 ship TF into single ship TFs with the same orders without having to make about 50 or so clicks). Is the WITP interface as difficult and mouse click intensive as this one is?

>> So I suggest you find a new or moderate player to PBEM against and learn the game the way it is meant to be played <<

Not until I can figure out all these little tricks and mandatory AI foibles that cause my forces to do things I don't want them to do. I can handle as much humiliation as the next person, but I'm no glutton for punishment.

>> Fighter CAP, Fatigue, Experience, Altitude, and other “in the box” characteristics effect AC combat. I’ve learned that often the hard way. If UV has one fault it is too realistic. And that’s what I love about this game. Even choosing the wrong commander can tip the scales in a battle. There are times when situations arise that I find are great learning situations (these situations I saved in a separate folder), like when carrier task forces meet. Every once in a while I reopen these situations and play around with settings of altitude and cap percentages and so on. <<

Roger, I'll start paying attention to who the commander is and try something other than the default altitudes, etc. and will defintely try the "save situation" routine to explore the behaviors of the mandatory AI more. But I still don't see how it is realistic for the carrier and air group commanders to make uncoordinated decisions or for the air group commander to override the targeting orders of the carrier group commander (who moved the ship toward the enemy carriers, with the obvious intent of targeting them with his air units). That just seems like its either a bug or, more likely, independant decision making, with each decision being a separate and unrelated "roll of the dice".

>> What I’ve found is this, you can replay a turn with the exact same setting and each time you will get different results. Here lies the realism. You may find that a US squadron gets lucky and lands all its bombs on an IJN CV, or maybe a commander may have issued the order to change the torps on the planes to bombs when they are unexpectedly attacked by torp planes and caught with bombs on the flight deck, or maybe there is a radio malfunction and a spotted CV is not reported during the battle (not likely to happen but could occur none the less). <<

Is there someplace it is telling you these things? I haven't seen anyplace with that detailed of a combat report. Unless there is a report of this somewhere, how do you know it isn't just that the rand() function returned a 77 instead of a 42?

>> If you read the forums you too will improve your game play. The UV players here are very helpful <<

Yes, I am doing so and yes, the players here are very willing to help answer questions. I've also read all the player created FAQs I could find and printed out the two biggies for constant reference, along with the game manual.

And again, thank you both for your answers and your patience as I figure out the "slop" or "play" in the game's controls.

Is there someplace it is telling you these things? I haven't seen anyplace with that detailed of a combat report. Unless there is a report of this somewhere, how do you know it isn't just that the rand() function returned a 77 instead of a 42?

Like many old board war games I'm sure this is probably just a die roll with odds being calculated and outcomes being based on these odds. (Pacific War by Victory Games Inc was one such game and Third Riech by Avalon) I was just quoting examples of what might be occuring. And no there is no place were you will see reports this detailed. I was stating things that could happen in real life but that are unlikely which might turn the tides of a battle. (Watch the movie Midway)
You, like I (and I'm sure others) would like to see that at the least a message stating the planes took off and have obeyed your orders somehow. Is this a bug? I'm not sure. I have seen dive bombers attack without escort in the middle of CV battles and get chewed up (this did happen in real life). Yes it is strange that the CVs close the gap but do not launch attacking aircraft. Maybe a message stating that "18x SBD Dauntless-Coundn't Find target returning to CV Enterprise" would have been better. Then we could chaulk the problem up to inexperienced pilots but still be pissed as our CVs were massacred. At times I feel that the AI is punishing me for a poor decision. It also cheats (read the forums).
However, the first few months I had the game I would periodically switch sides midgame. I noted what the AI used its planes for and the settings it had for these aircraft. I found this real helpful[:D]. One thing I learned was that the AI can set cap at 55%. What is so special about this number? Maybe better odds in rand() function returning a 77 instead of a 42. Try it, you can't set CAP at 55% (If you do let me know how[&o]).
A lot of games have there quirks. Every play CIV III, another great game. 1 Hoplite fights off 8 Legionnaires in the last city that Greece owns. Why? Because its super human.[X(] No, the AI cheats. Does the game suck. No. Civ III is an excellent game. So is UV by matrix. Take it from an old guy like me, who had to follow supply routes by hand on a map that filled an entire wall to play games like UV, in the good old days. (The original WITP fit on one 3 1/4"" diskette and I have it buried somewhere-I wish I could find its manual). This game is a momentous step forward in programming and game play. Yes its not perfect but its definetly not bad. As for myself I'm hoping to play a PBEM game one day. Cheers and hopefully this has helped.

>> However, the first few months I had the game I would periodically switch sides midgame. I noted what the AI used its planes for and the settings it had for these aircraft. I found this real helpful <<

Excellent idea, thanks!

BTW, I'm an old board wargamer from back in the '70s and have a couple boxes full of AH and SPI games that I'll never play again (War in the East, Advanced Squad Leader, Air War, etc.). It was fun but terribly tedious and computer wargames are generally better. However, sometimes the computer interface can be just as tedious (though less messy) than the board games. For example, I counted it out and it takes a minimum of 7 mouse clicks to split a single AK out of a transport TF and give it the same orders as it had before. To break up a 10 ship convoy thus takes a minimum of 63 clicks. Yowza! There's got to be an easier way.

I was just about set to buy WITP but now I'm a bit concerned that it will be an even more tedious process because of its larger scope. CMDRMCTOAST saying it takes 7-12 hours to make a move is truly frightening. That would be most of one day's available gaming time!

I would suggest that you make sure your CV squadrons do not have any secondary tasks. Set Naval Attack as primary role, and Rest as secondary. It seems to me less chance of snafu's this way.

Regards

ORIGINAL: sdj420


BTW, I have my carriers set to "do not react" and "do not retire" and all other TFs set to "do not retire". My bombers are all set on "Naval Attack" with "Airfield Attack" as their secondary target.

1. If you have an aggressive commander assigned to your carrier group, then they are very likely to ignore your "do not react command" If you are in a position where you want your carriers to be cautious then you must assign a cautious commander. This is a purpose design into the game. Works for surface forces as well. The designer did not want players to be able to totally micromanage events, because carrier battles in the South Pacific were if anything, unpredictable.

Now comes the wierd part. The JP carriers approach PM and now parked 5 hexes away. And what do my carriers do, but advance one hex away from PM and the protective air umbrella, where they obliterated by JP carrier planes, despite having 70% CAP level at 15000 feet. And what do my land-based Army and Navy bombers do? Instead of attacking the tempting 3x CV TF just five hexes away, they go for milk runs over Lae and Buna.

I have two questions:

1. Is there anything I can do that I didn't already to prevent this undesirable behavior? I tried targeting the TF, but it said I couldn't target enemy TFs directly, is there something I'm missing? (I've printed and read the major FAQs as well as the manual.


As said before, use a cautious commander. You may not target specific TF, the computer does it for you. Sometimes this works beautifully but then again not. There are a lot of factors involved, threat level, spotting level, taget CAP, weather. The only thing I can promise you is that sh*t will happen. You must remember that this was the first time ever in history for major carrier battles. In May and June of 42, neither side was very good at it, and a lot of things did not happen as planned. The designers want this to happen in the game as well.


2. If this is just the way it is, is WITP better? I mean, this is pretty pathetic decision making as far as target value goes and I can't imagine what kind of formula would make such target decisions unless there was a serious bug in the implementation.

I can handle losing my carriers from my own decisions, but to have the game directly disobey the specific orders I've given it is completely unacceptable. I enjoyed Scenario 18, because this never came up where I had such a confrontation after I learned about the "do not respond" command. But this is frustrating and I don't spend $50 or more on a game only to be frustrated because things don't work right.

Don't jump to hasty conclusions. The game works very right most of the time. You have a lot to learn grasshopper. This is an excellent game but not easy to master.

If this is the best that Matrix games can do I'll avoid them in the future.

Yes, and it is pretty dang good. I am a student of the South Pacific campaign and have yet to experience a game that does it so well. WitP is better is some ways but the scale is massive and you should master UV first.

Here are some tips.

1. Stop playing the AI and start playing humans via email. I can see you are already developing some bad habits.

2. Against a competent human in scen #19 it is impossible to fight for and hold PM against the initial strength of the Japanese. You should fight for it but only enough to do some damage and delay the Japanese. Don't lose any squadrons or major ships.

Here are some nevers for #19.

Never send you carriers to fight for PM. The Japanese will whup your butt 90% of the time. They got more of em and better pilots at the start. You are just going to get "punked". Your damaged carriers that do not sink will have a long way to go home and are just sub bait.

Never fight Japanese carriers until you have all six American carriers in theater. Once again, a smart Japanese player will use his carriers in mass and you just can't stand up to them.

Never fight Japanese carriers until all your wildcat squadrons have upgraded.

Never fight Japanese carriers until all your devestators have upgraded to Avengers. (might as well go into battle with your arm cut off).

Until you are powerful enough to go on the offensive (we are talking lots of experienced LBA-perhaps, November or December) Never fight your carriers at any distance from a safe large port. The idea is to save them for later battles.

Scen 19 is different as the Japanese get some really serious stuff. You can not fight the battle historically. You simply need to hold on to the five auto-victory hexes. You goal is to attrition the Japanese, taking as little loss to your own forces as you can. If you are still alive and kicking on the 1st of January, 1943-then you should win. It is the best scenario and the most balanced between equal players.

And what do my carriers do, but advance one hex away from PM and the protective air umbrella, where they obliterated by JP carrier planes, despite having 70% CAP level at 15000 feet.

1) Don't try to use your CVs in a coastal hex; they will only operate half of their aircraft, due to havin limited maneuvering room available to conduct launch/recovery operations.

2) Want your CVTF to stay where you put it? Create an SCTF, set it to Patrol/Do not retire and Do not react in the hex you want the CVs in, then set the CVTF to follow the SCTF. Slightly gamey, but hardly an exploit.

3) Set up a rotation of fighter squadrons from PM (or any other handy base) to fly LRCAP over the CVTF. Every little bit helps.

Thanks for the additional replies. The list of don'ts for Scenario 19 is very useful. I'll just use my carriers against transports and avoid getting anywhere near the JP carriers or Betties until I can get some better fighters and experience for the pilots I have.

>> 1) Don't try to use your CVs in a coastal hex; they will only operate half of their aircraft, due to havin limited maneuvering room available to conduct launch/recovery operations. <<

Thanks, I didn't know that!

>> 2) Want your CVTF to stay where you put it? Create an SCTF, set it to Patrol/Do not retire and Do not react in the hex you want the CVs in, then set the CVTF to follow the SCTF. Slightly gamey, but hardly an exploit. <<

Excellent idea! That is EXACTLY the answer I was looking for as to how to nullify the mandatory AI.

>> 3) Set up a rotation of fighter squadrons from PM (or any other handy base) to fly LRCAP over the CVTF. Every little bit helps. <<

Roger, thanks.

As for PBEM, I might try it once I learn the basics of controlling the game and have played at least a couple of scenarios through to the end.

Good points from irrelevant.

As for #3 however, I believe that land-based LRCAP over CV TFs incurs a heavy penalty in effectiveness, to the extent that it makes the tactic almost useless. There will certainly be a few more fighters over the TF, but you must weigh the slight advantage gained against very high fatigue levels and op losses.

The answer: plaster their bases and send their carriers to the bottom with swarms of torpedoes and a hail of AP bombs. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Blitzer

The answer: plaster their bases and send their carriers to the bottom with swarms of torpedoes and a hail of AP bombs. [:)]

We should all take this advice..[:D][:D][:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: sdj420

>> However, the first few months I had the game I would periodically switch sides midgame. I noted what the AI used its planes for and the settings it had for these aircraft. I found this real helpful <<

Excellent idea, thanks!

BTW, I'm an old board wargamer from back in the '70s and have a couple boxes full of AH and SPI games that I'll never play again (War in the East, Advanced Squad Leader, Air War, etc.). It was fun but terribly tedious and computer wargames are generally better. However, sometimes the computer interface can be just as tedious (though less messy) than the board games. For example, I counted it out and it takes a minimum of 7 mouse clicks to split a single AK out of a transport TF and give it the same orders as it had before. To break up a 10 ship convoy thus takes a minimum of 63 clicks. Yowza! There's got to be an easier way.

I was just about set to buy WITP but now I'm a bit concerned that it will be an even more tedious process because of its larger scope. CMDRMCTOAST saying it takes 7-12 hours to make a move is truly frightening. That would be most of one day's available gaming time!

The 7-12 hours is mainly for the IJN player's 1st turn in WITP. In 1 of my PBEM games going the date is 22 Dec 41 and as the IJN player my turn takes about 20 min to do. In WITP you have to plan and think way ahead of schedule compared to UV. So you might have 2 out of 10 turns take awhile (an hour or so) to plan and organize your next weeks worth of action.

Just for the record, my record so far for first turn setup for WITP is 27 hours. But I filled half a legal pad with notes and checklists. Now a 1st turn setup takes about 3 hours or so for PBEM.

I find that I also plan operations of a sort during portions of the game. However, I do find that when I play daily turns, there are a few days were nothing really happens of importance. I was wondering 2ndACR, are your turns cycles daily, weekly????? What about in PBEM what do most people use for turns (daily, weekly???)?

To clarify on WITP I was only refering to the first turn taking 7 - 12 hours
although now it is maybe 3 or 4 for the first turn having learned where everything is
and having a strategy of some sorts.
turns may take 15 - 45 minutes depending on what is going on ( and there is a lot ).

Another bump....

Also who was the fleet commander. Mitscher always moves toward an IJN fleet and Spruance usually. McCain (father of the Arizona senator ) probably would not. The risk with Mitscher is that he moves when you do not want him to. For the IJM Yamaguchi will move and I think Nagumo won`t....

This game can be a serious addiction...Late at night waiting for the last PBEM turn....Sleep or wait 20 minutes for another shot of excitement..

WITP looks just too big and long for my tastes....Who will play a 4 yr game?

There is also a rule (don't have the manual in front of me now) that Air combat task forces can move 1 hex toward spotted enemy carriers even if do not react is set. It depends on the agressiveness of the commander.

I would also echo the suggestion to run a game for a while in H2H get all the Us and IJN cv's then try various cap settings to see what is the most effective against what combinations of CV's if you set your cap too high your bombers will not attack the enemys cv's (they will fail there escort check) to little and you do not have an effective enough cap.

WITP turns take about 15 min as the allies in 42-43 average. As the IJN about 30 min ave. The 1st turn for both sides is a PAIN but it is worth it. Once you get a handle for it.