Naval Attack Can't Select any Target!

[sfatula]

Yes, I completely get that I cannot order an attack against a specific TF. I did not say that, you are reading something into what I said or assuming. As a commander, I can (and historically did) say please attack the ships around and near Guad, who knows what they are, who knows where they may exactly be around that area, who knows if you might attack the ships I actually want you to attack. And I see no reason at all this could not be done. Search arcs approximate that order. Random extensions make sense to allow for uncertainty, etc.

But it's absurd to defend going to PM instead. Not defensible at all. Not even remotely in the area.

[Yaab]

Yet, the point is a an air group will gravitate towards stationary TFs. I have several messages saying "failed to find" when Nells from Rabaul were trying to attack TFs moving between Milne Bay and Port Moresby, just to attack a TS sitting in Port Moresby hex under a CAP umbrella.

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I'm not going to be able to agree with you. Intelligence seemed a lot more "iffy" than it might seem in the game. Nimitz didn't give Spruance tactical instructions. Nagumo was on his own. A fleet commander is expected to do his job and not keep requesting orders from above. Play the game. It's not a shoot 'em up. Do the appropriate preparations and send your fleets to sea. That, I believe, is what the game designers were shooting for. Other games might be fun and etc. but this one doesn't do that. Take this game for what it is and kwityerbiscuits. It won't be changed to suit everyone's idea of what it should be.

This eagerness to defend the game at all costs makes no sense.


If in real life a squadron or a air group have orders to intercept shipping around Guadalcanal they would do that. They will not go to Port Moresby.

Why in game you can give orders to land bomb Guadalcanal and squadron doesn't go bomb Port Moresby instead while in sea attack that happens?

In real life, there are operational sectors, geographic areas of operation defined. They will not be respected 100% obviousy but it is not free for all.

Search arc for attack with a leak value would have fixed this issue. Yes i know the game will not be changed. And this thread would have died with this: It is a mistake in otherwise great game which have lots things right. Deal with it.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Dili
Yes i know the game will not be changed. And this thread would have died with this: It is a mistake in otherwise great game which have lots things right. Deal with it.

This is BS.

It was no mistake but a design decision. Not perfect, but the design team chose the better of two possible options. If you care to think for some seconds you might find out why. If you don´t like to, don´t. It has been explained on this forum ad nauseam over the years.

[sfatula]

One mans design decision is another mans bug. I fail to see any issue with that. It's called a disagreement. People do that. It doesn't mean they are stupid. Different goals = different methods.

I'd love to read more, but, have yet to find a good reason for the decision. Not that anyone needs my approval of course, but, it does help to understand. All of the reasons in this thread for the way it is are not reasons at all IMHO, not the slightest bit convincing or even reasonable. If anyone has a link to the specific discussion providing said reasons, it might prove useful. Just have not found it yet. I would love to read it!

I personally *like* not having every unit do everything I want, that's just not reasonable either. But, PM vs Guad is hard to imagine as something intended, it's indefensible in my mind, at least at present. Perhaps it was intended, maybe I will find the thread one day. Maybe, it will even be convincing, who knows. Or at least more understandable. Perhaps lots of you have read it, I have not. I am newer. But, a student of the Pacific war.

If it's a design decision due to the desire to get things done and out in some given timeframe, I get that, and I would not call that a bug either. But, that does not mean a newer version of the game shouldn't improve upon it. We should all want to improve things.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: sfatula

Yes, I completely get that I cannot order an attack against a specific TF. I did not say that, you are reading something into what I said or assuming. As a commander, I can (and historically did) say please attack the ships around and near Guad, who knows what they are, who knows where they may exactly be around that area, who knows if you might attack the ships I actually want you to attack. And I see no reason at all this could not be done. Search arcs approximate that order. Random extensions make sense to allow for uncertainty, etc.

But it's absurd to defend going to PM instead. Not defensible at all. Not even remotely in the area.

No you cannot "say" that in this game. You can sit in front of the computer and think it, you can say it out loud, but there is no such order that you can give. The game as it currently is allows you to specify "Naval Attack" and a range limit, and even obedience to the range limit might have a chance element built in.

Search arcs do not approximate that order. Using search arcs in that way is a smart attempt to try and get the game engine to do what you want but it is not sure to work, as you know.

No one is defending the game's decision to send the strike to PM "instead", because there was no "instead". You did not give or approximate that order. The game just doesn't have any mechanism to give or approximate such an order. The work-around that you tried will sometimes have the desired effect and sometimes not.

[sfatula]

All semantics, you are picking on words instead of meaning. I completely and totally understand there is no way in the game as is to specify such an order, really. We are completely and totally in agreement on that point, and always have been, after my very first message in this thread. I am speaking from the point of view of a game enhancement to accomplish such a command desire, to attack ships near Guad, towards it, however you wish to state it. Which I do not believe is unreasonable. And fully expect that the order may not be exactly as I intended, and, that they may attack a number of hexes outside of what I wanted, that's great and understandable. This may differ from what others are saying, though, I would think most people would get the end goal here. I see nothing wrong with wanting an enhancement. An enhancement may not be possible, perhaps no more enhancements will be done, I have no idea. I know nothing about that at this time, too new to know who is who, etc.

What appears to happen is one has a desire to enhance the game, and another has a desire to explain why the game is the way it is and why that isn't wrong. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Why it is as it is may be fine and reasonable, but that doesn't negate that there can be weaknesses (which may have been known but accepted at the time), and, things could be improved. Anything wrong with that?

So, we have one "side" trying to defend the design as is. And we have another side trying to suggest an improvement. The improvement side could well be wrong, who knows, and this is where the discussion should center. Would such a change work, and if so, is it even within any realm of possibility. If it would not work, just asking for a reasoned explanation of why it would not, what bad side effects would it have. Just don't see any, yet. It does appear to me that some are saying there is no problem at all the way it works and it should always work that way as it's perfect, and some including me disagree with that.

[Encircled]

Its WAD

I wouldn't want to change the randomness at times that makes this game so good, but if you think it will enhance your gaming experience, then by all means knock yourself out!

[witpqs]

No playing with semantics here. When you claimed you gave those orders, that was playing with words. And I pointed out that I would like to be able to specify arcs with attack orders. I have asked for and lobbied for many enhancements and outright changes. Some were accepted, some were not. Explaining how things currently work is not opposing an idea for change. It allows people to discern between reports of bugs ("this is not working as intended") and enhancement/change suggestions ("add this" or "change the way this works").

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Dili
Yes i know the game will not be changed. And this thread would have died with this: It is a mistake in otherwise great game which have lots things right. Deal with it.

This is BS.

It was no mistake but a design decision. Not perfect, but the design team chose the better of two possible options. If you care to think for some seconds you might find out why. If you don´t like to, don´t. It has been explained on this forum ad nauseam over the years.

Do you think it makes sense that the player can specify search sectors and not attack sectors?
Does it make sense that player can choose the land bombing objectives but not a still much less precise targeting for sea ?

Why for you it is the better option when goes farthest of what happens in real life?

[walkerd]

Have to say while I really like the random nature in much of the game, this feature of targeting ships "parked" at a major base with serious CAP is an issue. I believe the issue is players "gaming" this mechanic, I doubt it was ever considered when writing the code.

I would never do this and would prefer to play people who do not play like that.

[BattleMoose]

You very often have ships parked in a naval base under a large cap, for a multitude of different and good reasons.

So much complaining about semantics. To cut past it, the underlying issue is that it is not possible to give reasonable orders to pixelated pilots who are too keen to read the orders as writ and throw away their pixelated lives and pixelated assets.

Range set to 8! That must mean we, this group of 24 dive bombers MUST attack that SINGLE XAK that is defended by a CAP of 200 fighters! YEEHAW!

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

You very often have ships parked in a naval base under a large cap, for a multitude of different and good reasons.

So much complaining about semantics. To cut past it, the underlying issue is that it is not possible to give reasonable orders to pixelated pilots who are too keen to read the orders as writ and throw away their pixelated lives and pixelated assets.

Range set to 8! That must mean we, this group of 24 dive bombers MUST attack that SINGLE XAK that is defended by a CAP of 200 fighters! YEEHAW!

Now you've gone and done it!

Every time I have Dive Bombers headed for a difficult target, I am going to hear a "YEEHAW" in the background.

Thanks. I appreciate the additional sound effects.

Regards,
Feltan

[Encircled]

There are things you can do to minimise it happening.

Not failsafe (would be completely unrealistic that) but they certainly minimise it

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: sfatula

One mans design decision is another mans bug. I fail to see any issue with that. It's called a disagreement. People do that. It doesn't mean they are stupid. Different goals = different methods.

I'd love to read more, but, have yet to find a good reason for the decision. Not that anyone needs my approval of course, but, it does help to understand. All of the reasons in this thread for the way it is are not reasons at all IMHO, not the slightest bit convincing or even reasonable. If anyone has a link to the specific discussion providing said reasons, it might prove useful. Just have not found it yet. I would love to read it!

I personally *like* not having every unit do everything I want, that's just not reasonable either. But, PM vs Guad is hard to imagine as something intended, it's indefensible in my mind, at least at present. Perhaps it was intended, maybe I will find the thread one day. Maybe, it will even be convincing, who knows. Or at least more understandable. Perhaps lots of you have read it, I have not. I am newer. But, a student of the Pacific war.

If it's a design decision due to the desire to get things done and out in some given timeframe, I get that, and I would not call that a bug either. But, that does not mean a newer version of the game shouldn't improve upon it. We should all want to improve things.

Ok just to clearify a few things.

My comment was not directed at you but at a player who is part of the community for so long that he should know better.

From the discussion here it is clear that you are a new player getting accustomed to the game by familiarising yourself with the mechanics and by learning how to play using the small scenarios. Since this is the baseline to form your opinion it is understandable that your conclusions miss the big picture. I do not have an issue with that. The games´ learning curve is steep and many players spend years playing before grasping some aspects of the game and their context.

The heart of the game is not the Guadalcanal scenario. The heart of the game is the grand campaign, spanning the entire pacific war - versus the AI but really excels when playing against another human - and supports turn lenght longer than 1 day. This is where the design focus needs to be, and this is the baseline from where design decisions have been made.

Have you ever wondered why there is no Midway Scenario (at least not an officially published one)? Because the tactical elements of - and the decisions made before - that battle had so much influence on its´ outcome that a replication of the actual events would be unlikely bordering impossible ingame. That does in no way mean that Midway-like events are impossible in the grand campaign, actually all grand campaigns played have their Midway-like events at some point in time, but not at that specific location for those specific reasons.
Some of the above applies to the Guadalcanal scenario as well. Not to the extent of rendering unplayable - far from that - but they are situations. Note that this scenario is one of my all time favourites.

So, getting back to the original topic: Implementing sector designation for naval attacks would - taking the speed of naval vessels, the vastness of the map, the option to execute turns spanning several days, the limited available intel, the creativity of players, and as a result the amount of uncertainty into account - cause a lot more problems than it would solve.

What I am saying is, no, from a tactical point of view the decision was not perfect. But it was a decision made to support the core game accepting the drawbacks in very specific situations that arise if players fail to take game mechanics into account when they set up their forces.

To sum it up, yes I understand why a new player like yourself reaches conclusions like you did, but I would ask you to take into account that you yet know only a fraction about what WitP is about and how it has to be played.

That the absence of a feature to designate naval attack sectors is not a bug and no design mistake. This is not a PoV thing.

If some of the experienced players insist on calling it a mistake, they just delay the learning process for new players about how specific game concepts are designed, why, and how to cope with it. That was the reason for my first post.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
If some of the experienced players insist on calling it a mistake, they just delay the learning process for new players about how specific game concepts are designed, why, and how to cope with it. That was the reason for my first post.

In the interest of the learning process, and for the enlightenment of thick old-timers, like yours truly, could you explain the problem that search arcs in naval attacks would create? I mean, they seem to work for search and ASW (the latter sometimes resulting in attacks on enemy ships) in the very context you describe (several day turns, speed of vessels, size of the map...), what is so specific about naval attacks?

Again, it is not about making naval attacks less random, or allowing to target specific task force, but trying to prevent the range limitation from being the only parameter one can act upon, which right now means that if the enemy hold a base 5 hexes away, he has the possibility, by capping it heavily to pretty much interdict naval attacks at 5 hex or longer range in all directions.

Francois

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
If some of the experienced players insist on calling it a mistake, they just delay the learning process for new players about how specific game concepts are designed, why, and how to cope with it. That was the reason for my first post.

In the interest of the learning process, and for the enlightenment of thick old-timers, like yours truly, could you explain the problem that search arcs in naval attacks would create? I mean, they seem to work for search and ASW (the latter sometimes resulting in attacks on enemy ships) in the very context you describe (several day turns, speed of vessels, size of the map...), what is so specific about naval attacks?

Again, it is not about making naval attacks less random, or allowing to target specific task force, but trying to prevent the range limitation from being the only parameter one can act upon, which right now means that if the enemy hold a base 5 hexes away, he has the possibility, by capping it heavily to pretty much interdict naval attacks at 5 hex or longer range in all directions.

Francois

With regards to search arcs, and please note this is a personal opinion not backed up by any design considerations, it serves a different main purpose as would be the case for attack arcs.

The main purpose there is to focus limited search assets to cover the angle where it is required most, or to avoid wasting those ressources on areas where not needed (classic is any WC base where a 360° does not make sense.

Defining attack areas on the other hand would make the already complex tactical attack setup even more complex (remember you would need to do this on a per squadron basis) – while at the same time stuffing one loophole by opening others. Example would be low value targets far away attacked while high value targets closer – and more a threat – to a base remain untouched, or an attack not taking place because a TF moves into a hex close to but not in the attack arc.

If it is solved not by arcs but by excluding hexes (I am not even sure this would be possible within the limitations of the game engine), an example would be the permanent option to attack targets far away although heavy CAP is in LoS between the base of origin and the target (the drawback of the air attack point-to-point system).

Apply that to all potential tactical situations possible on the different map areas within a given timeframe of (e.g.) 4 naval movement phases, including CV combat, and including the fact that you will not know beforehand how your opponent will position his task forces or where he will show up to what purpose. Also take into account that LRCAP can be used to create CAP traps same as before, even with the enhanced functionality taken into consideration and the new exploits possible by that in PBEM.

Basically it means a lot of investment to partly mitigate one issue but create others.


Anyways guys, we are talking about a core code developed in the 90´s. There is only so much you can do and the AE team pushed it way beyond limits already.

One can always hope for WitP II with a new engine that makes it possible to remodel how the air war works completely. But we all know how big the chances for that to happen are atm.

[pelthunter]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

I know Halsey never risked getting sent of to Manchura but your post reminded me of him and the battle of Leyte gulf. Here is a quote from wiki that I think sums it up pretty well.

"Searches by my carrier planes revealed the presence of the Northern carrier force on the afternoon of 24 October, which completed the picture of all enemy naval forces. As it seemed childish to me to guard statically San Bernardino Strait, I concentrated TF 38 during the night and steamed north to attack the Northern Force at dawn.

I believed that the Center Force had been so heavily damaged in the Sibuyan Sea that it could no longer be considered a serious menace to Seventh Fleet.["

If you consider these comments, it can argued that something was seriously wrong with Halsey's attitude.

"Searches by my carrier planes.... completed the picture of ALL enemy naval forces." Yet his staff ignored at least two attempts to relay contradictory and alarming reconnaissance data, especially those by Independence night recon.

"It seemed childish to me..." to screen major part of fleet? One might argue, that while bullish attitude can be good trait in a commander, now it was a recipe for disaster. He abandoned his post and went for a personal glory hunt. What made this decision so critically flawed was the fact that he also failed to form the blockade group he suggested in his messaging.

Total disaster was averted by exceptional actions and sacrifice of the Taffy screen units and Kurita deciding to disengage at critical moment.

But then again, history can be interpreted in so many ways.

[fcharton]

Hi LoBaron

Thanks for the reply.

Since the air game doesn't really model flyover, I think attack arcs would be the only reasonable solution. And I am not sure the code change wouldn't be that big. Right now, when a squadron is on naval attack, the AI choses a target among all detected TF in range. With an attack arc defined, this selection would either be filtered or weighted according to the position of the target, and the interface code to define arcs is already there. In other words, so long you use arcs and not hexes, and let the target selection be decided by the engine, I don't think you change the game paradigm.

As for the issues, I see attack arcs as a relatively rare need. They would only be used in specific cases (long range bombers in range of a large enemy port), and most of the time, you would just not bother. And then, if you chose to set arcs, as with many other special features in AE, there are risks (and counters, in this case, having a second squadron on short range attack without arc).

In my opinion, the main risk is potential abuse by defining very small arcs, which might allow for "indirect targetting" of a base or TF. But then, I don't think it would work for a TF (since TF move), and for a base, the cure would be CAP, as is done now...

But again, I do agree with others that this is not a game breaker, just something that might be nice to have.

Francois

[geofflambert]

I have not read everything up til here because of my ESL abilities as a gorn, and it all gives me a headache. I have mentioned restricting search arcs to limit the available targets to a certain area, but you have to be sure to do that with any land based search units and your surface fleet FPs as well. You'd probably want to reduce the discovery level down by not flying over the base for a week or more. That's something you can do now, but I wouldn't. Perhaps they could within the engine's parameters add an option of "Naval Attack excluding base hexes". I wouldn't object to that if it is possible but I'm not sure I'd ever use it either.

I've been in your position before, complaining about the ability of the enemy bombing to cause port/airbase damage and preventing the engineers from fortifying even when you're not planning to use either as you expect to lose the base anyway and just want to draw things out. I don't complain about it anymore.