Matrix Games Forums

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!War in the West Wacht am Rhein AAR Deal of the Week Panzer Corps: Allied Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/13/2008 3:45:32 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
I've just been informed (on the WitP forum) that the presence of Allied radar doesn't negate an IJN Long Lance attack in WitP, so that feature could be incorporated in CF.

In fact, many TF features found in WitP should be added to CF; I have no objection to UV becoming like WitP as long as its scope doesn't dramatically increase.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 91
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/13/2008 4:42:44 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3750
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Aww, com on Joe don't ya wanna get carpal tunnel like the rest of us.....WitP is THE MOST click intensive game I have ever played which is saying a lot considering it is not a "real time clickfest".

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 92
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/13/2008 6:05:36 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
I don't want to go all the way HB, but one WitP player -- who does UV in between PBEM turns -- said he missed all the WitP TF options.

Re click-fests: Waterloo, Napoleon's Last Battle, was a real-time trauma if you played the entire battle; too many things to do and places to be all at the same time, just like a real battle.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 93
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/13/2008 8:05:37 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Are they never intercepted at all? Could have sworn there was a chance any plane flying into an area that has cap could be shot down.


No, at most it will say, plane ¨X¨ damaged by flak. ¨Yorktown reported hit¨....for example. CAP does not effect these missions.

(in reply to OG_Gleep)
Post #: 94
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/13/2008 11:37:36 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4672
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Did we ever mention the inability of CAP to protect air transports from being intercepted over the base that they're protecting?

I'd like to retract this as my CAP did splash enemy ac before they got to the C-47s.

< Message edited by tocaff -- 5/14/2008 12:12:41 AM >


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 95
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/13/2008 11:42:21 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

I've just been informed (on the WitP forum) that the presence of Allied radar doesn't negate an IJN Long Lance attack in WitP, so that feature could be incorporated in CF.

In fact, many TF features found in WitP should be added to CF; I have no objection to UV becoming like WitP as long as its scope doesn't dramatically increase.


It certainly does in UV.

12) Rewrote naval combat code to allow for surprise attacks. Combat Japanese task forces that have ships mounting the Long Lance torpedo will now try to sneak up and surprise attack with a volley from every able ship, then retire to reload, before normal combat occurs. Combat Japanese task forces that do not contain ships with the Long Lance torpedo and combat Allied task forces may also make surprise attacks, gaining a free round of combat, firing limited shots, before normal combat occurs. To make a gun surprise attack, the side attacking must make skill rolls to properly line up the ships and coordinate fire, and radar or spotting rolls, while the other side fails the radar or spotting rolls. To make a Long Lance attack, the Allied side must either fail a radar or spotting roll or fail a skill roll (required to turn into the torpedoes) and the Japanese side must make skill rolls to line up the ships in proper formation and coordinate the attack. Surprise attacks can be devastating for the surprised task force sometimes and sometimes of little value, depending on a lot of skill rolling.

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 5/13/2008 11:46:02 PM >

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 96
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/22/2008 3:53:14 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

I've just been informed (on the WitP forum) that the presence of Allied radar doesn't negate an IJN Long Lance attack in WitP, so that feature could be incorporated in CF.

In fact, many TF features found in WitP should be added to CF; I have no objection to UV becoming like WitP as long as its scope doesn't dramatically increase.


It certainly does in UV.

12) Rewrote naval combat code to allow for surprise attacks. Combat Japanese task forces that have ships mounting the Long Lance torpedo will now try to sneak up and surprise attack with a volley from every able ship, then retire to reload, before normal combat occurs. Combat Japanese task forces that do not contain ships with the Long Lance torpedo and combat Allied task forces may also make surprise attacks, gaining a free round of combat, firing limited shots, before normal combat occurs. To make a gun surprise attack, the side attacking must make skill rolls to properly line up the ships and coordinate fire, and radar or spotting rolls, while the other side fails the radar or spotting rolls. To make a Long Lance attack, the Allied side must either fail a radar or spotting roll or fail a skill roll (required to turn into the torpedoes) and the Japanese side must make skill rolls to line up the ships in proper formation and coordinate the attack. Surprise attacks can be devastating for the surprised task force sometimes and sometimes of little value, depending on a lot of skill rolling.



No way, we been down this road a few times but just because the allies were in disarray at Savo doesn't mean the code should be written up that way for the whole conflict.

The United States Navy was pushing the envelope and learning things daily about radar. Japanese surface shipping didn't sneak up at Savo and couldn't sneak up on the USN anytime going forward. I think you're confusing dissaray on the Allies part as sneaking up. Since were speaking on hypotheticals, an argument could be made that the Allies should get some info on Japanese shipping since the japanese codes were broke and some info on movement was being read.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 5/22/2008 3:54:12 PM >

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 97
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/22/2008 4:04:22 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Would it be possible for DEs/DDs to be used strictly as ASW?  I was thinking along the lines of  a TF with an ASW assignment set to follow a task group with a different task and if an enemy submarine is spotted in a hex nearby the ASW group sails to the area and engages.

Just a thought.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 5/22/2008 4:05:08 PM >

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 98
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/22/2008 4:42:31 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

I've just been informed (on the WitP forum) that the presence of Allied radar doesn't negate an IJN Long Lance attack in WitP, so that feature could be incorporated in CF.

In fact, many TF features found in WitP should be added to CF; I have no objection to UV becoming like WitP as long as its scope doesn't dramatically increase.


It certainly does in UV.


That's the whole point, Ike. I've already suggested some type of graded die roll that would decrease -- not negate -- the chance of a LL over time depending on crew experience, wx, ship position, etc. But if it works well in WitP, it should be able to work in UV/CF.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 99
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/22/2008 6:19:54 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

That's the whole point, Ike. I've already suggested some type of graded die roll that would decrease -- not negate -- the chance of a LL over time depending on crew experience, wx, ship position, etc. But if it works well in WitP, it should be able to work in UV/CF.


So it would seem I wasn´t so wrong after all.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 100
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/22/2008 6:52:16 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

So it would seem I wasn´t so wrong after all.


As far as I was concerned, it was never a question of you -- or anyone else -- being wrong. Many UV players just don't like the idea of Allied radar reducing the probability of an IJN LL attack to zero since it never worked that way historically, esp. during the early days of the war.

Not only were there problems w/the new technology, but even accurate radar info didn't always get passed up the chain of command.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 101
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/23/2008 2:04:29 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Java Sea and the 100 plus missed LLs provide witness that the IJN sufferred from problems as well as the Allies. Yes the IJN won Savo but if you read Richard Franks chapter on Savo you see that it was many more factors than just "radar" that led to the allies defeat. I believe how the game accounts for "experience" in both navies comes close to accurately modeling the conditions that were present at the time.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 102
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/23/2008 2:35:13 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
I'm not talking about what happens during a LL the attack, but the probability of it happening in the first place; this probability shouldn't be negated (i.e., = "0") by the presence of one ship in an Allied TF equiped w/radar regardless of whether its crew is experienced or not.

I'm just asking for an algorithm to better determine the probability of an LL attack, not the effectiveness of that attack.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 103
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/23/2008 3:53:57 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Okay , sorry for the confusion Joe D.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 104
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/23/2008 6:39:29 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
Not a problem, but for the record, some Allied WitP players complain about "drive by" LL attacks, even late in the war, so not everyone will be happy if this change is adopted -- I just want to see both sides get a fighting chance and a better game.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 105
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/24/2008 2:31:45 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Not a problem, but for the record, some Allied WitP players complain about "drive by" LL attacks, even late in the war, so not everyone will be happy if this change is adopted -- I just want to see both sides get a fighting chance and a better game.



That may be were we differ I'd like to see conditions and specs modeled almost as they were or as close as can be.
There was no chance the IJN could sneak up on U.S. forces towards the end of the Solomons Campaign.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 106
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/24/2008 5:48:18 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

... There was no chance the IJN could sneak up on U.S. forces towards the end of the Solomons Campaign.


Again, it shouldn't be "zero" probability, even for a highly improbable event; the odds should just be (greatly) against such a surprise, but not eliminate it entirely, taking into account inclement wx, fog of war, experience, etc.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 107
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/28/2008 9:21:58 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
An intrinsic defense value for large population centers representing local police forces and hastily assembled emergency militias. (Australian cities) This would prevent 40 men by submarine from being able to capture major towns.

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 5/28/2008 9:23:09 PM >

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 108
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/28/2008 11:19:05 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4672
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night or non CV trained units can't be used on CVs for examples.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 109
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/29/2008 3:51:30 AM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night or non CV trained units can't be used on CVs for examples.

No question that should be addressed.

On another note

Would it be possible to have DD/DEs set as ASW for its primary mission.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 5/29/2008 3:56:13 AM >

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 110
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/29/2008 8:18:45 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night


Japanese carrier pilots were very well trained for night carrier operations and had a system for night landings. Before you type in the code have a research.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 111
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/29/2008 2:00:53 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3750
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Build in a unit's historical limitations to prevent the KB from operating it's ac at night


Japanese carrier pilots were very well trained for night carrier operations and had a system for night landings. Before you type in the code have a research.



After 1942 "very well trained Japanese Pilot" is an oxymoron.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 112
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/29/2008 2:24:47 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
There is a difference between night operations as far as taking off and landing and a night attack. Where is there any evidence of a successful night attack by Japanese Naval Air? There is none. With that knowledge the game going forward should be fixed.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 5/29/2008 2:26:05 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 113
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 5/31/2008 4:09:52 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4672
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
I'm sure that the guys doing the work and testing on CF have and are doing their homework. 
IJN CV night ops?  Were they trained for it?  Maybe....Did they do it?  When & where?  Night navigation was poor, bombing accuracy was poor and interception was also poor and all of this was with LBA.  Later in the war the USN had dedicated night squadrons, the IJN had empty flight decks.  

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 114
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 6/1/2008 1:30:52 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3655
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
Re Battle 360, later in the war, Enterprise a/c had success w/night ops because they had radar; w/o radar, air night ops is hit and miss, emphasis on the latter.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 115
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 6/1/2008 3:13:39 AM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I think Japan tried it at the Coral Sea. I agree, it is too unrealistic to think about. I had never conisdered it in the UV games, but not allowing them is going to be a house rule I insist on going forward.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 116
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 6/12/2008 8:16:03 AM   
Hornblower


Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline
bump

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 117
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 6/16/2008 3:40:44 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
Historic radar sets for the Japanese ships that were equipted with them....

quote:

JN CL KUKA and KITAKAMI classes are fitted with type 13 radar sets each. And CVE SHINYO & KAIYO have type 21 onboard. However, KITAKAMI class cruisers will arrive very late in the game - if ever. And the two CVE classes aren´t available in Sc17 and Sc19 camapigns.

Historically, on BB ISE a Type 21 set was installed by May 1942. And IIRC one of the japanese fleet carriers also has radar by 1942 already. I think it was SHOKAKU. Unfortunately you don´t get any upgrades as japanese player when sending ships back to the homeland.

(in reply to Hornblower)
Post #: 118
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 6/16/2008 5:31:04 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
Furthermore an upgrade path for ships that have been sent back. Several vessels of the IJN underwent refit & radar/weapon modifications early in 1943 historically. UV only supports the Allies in this regard. At least it seems like that, or did anybody ever get an upgraded ship back from Tokyo???

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 119
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 6/17/2008 9:36:45 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2119
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
As mentioned in the thread regarding planes diverting from damaged carriers. Is it possible to add to emphasis on diverting to an airfield with air support if at all possible?

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117