please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message


borner -> please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/3/2009 4:45:13 PM)

I had posted about this in the old carrier force thread above, but thought it would be more visable to Matrix in a new thread

In a game I am playing as the US, Japan sent a carrier TF (4 carriers) to cover a bombardment group with LR CAP. a US carrier TF was in the area. The carrier fight happened first, with Japans carriers ending up far away from where they were ordered. I have to assume they reacted even though set not to. 3 us strikes, with the first two flying unescorted even though all carriers were set to escort with 50% cap. No strikes against the US, probably due to high US cap ( plus land based cap), and zeros set on LR CAP for a bombardment group. This TF started 7 hexes away from it's target, and although this close, was still at the base come daybreak to get hammered by US air.


Several problems here... TF's not following orders, unescorted strikes, and movement ranges of TF's. It seems half the times TF's do not go as far as ordered, and the other half they go far beyond what the movement radius circles say they should be able to go.

A bit of unpredictability is OK in a game, but repeacted examples to this degree really take away from things in IMO. It is something I hope is addrssed in CF.

I ask that other who have strange results or similar issues to post here as well.


regards.




fuelli -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/3/2009 7:52:37 PM)

Movement range depends on orders, settings and distance to the destination hex. They can vary between cruise speed and max speed depending on the factors mentioned above. Not sure but if for example a SC TF is set to retirement allowed and is on its way to its home port and less then 25 Hexes away from it it will travel with max speed instead of cruise speed. For details read 8.3 and 8.6 in the manual.

Carrier Task forces will always (or at least depending on leader aggressiveness not sure about that as well) move 1 hex towards an enemy carrier TF per PM and AM phase even when set to "not react to enemy". See 8.23 in the manual.




pasternakski -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/3/2009 8:47:29 PM)

To avoid the dreaded "unwanted carrier TF reaction toward enemy carriers resulting in losses and cursing too horrible to mention," you have to form a surface TF and order the CVTFs to follow it (everybody on do not retire and do not react). It's an awkward workaround, but it works every time.

I also hope that this is addressed in CF, but I've gotten used to the technique, and it has the added benefit of sometimes drawing off enemy airstrikes that were intended to put gaping holes in your carriers and resulting in gaping holes in a few surface combatants instead. I probably won't change tactics in any event (and I intend to look at CF closely before buying it, as I have not seen enough information on it to decide whether it will be a sufficient upgrade to UV to justify the expense).

My real problems with UV (and WitP, for that matter) have been that they do a poor job of defining your role as a player. In UV, for example, you have exact control over altitude assignments for air groups, yet you have no ability to give orders to strike groups setting priorities for naval targets. Furthermore, your bombers can fly outrageous distances to hit relatively worthless targets, when you really want them to beat up something much more threatening and close at hand (this was ameliorated to some degree in WitP, of course, with maximum range setting, but still...)

Did I mention what a PITA it is to see your TF commanders tossing their orders over the side and running like cowards from enemy carriers that haven't even been spotted and are often a thousand or fifteen hundred miles distant? Yes, you can give "do not retire" orders, but that often affects the execution of missions (minelaying and bombardment, for example).

Personally, I think any commander who disobeys orders and makes a run for it in the face of the enemy ought to be summarily hanged from the highest yardarm in the fleet.




borner -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/3/2009 8:50:14 PM)

well said... I love to see my Bettys pass up close targets to fly 20 hexes and get hammered




pasternakski -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/3/2009 9:18:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

well said... I love to see my Bettys pass up close targets to fly 20 hexes and get hammered

Yeah, you know?

As far as some of the other stuff, in both UV and WitP, bombardment and fast transport have been goofy. I try to make it a practice of giving orders to bombardment TFs immediately on forming them in port, then let them dance around in odd ways until they complete their mission and return. This prevents the old "Well, looky at my BBs sitting there at the enemy base as the sun comes up. I'm sure they'll get a warm welcome from the LBA" effect most of the time - but not always.

Fast transport works fairly well once, again, if you give your orders right away on forming the TF, but don't let them repeat the run without disbanding the TF and starting fresh. Other unfortunate things happen that make my use of fast transport very rare, such as inexplicable losses to the troops being transported (it's almost like losses are taken according to the same dynamic that applies to air transport, but I haven't looked closely enough to see if it's true).

Other stuff. How about those silly transport TFs that, when set on "retirement allowed" always hesitate four hexes from their destination the day before actually going there? Of course, you can order them not to retire, but then, they won't automatically start to unload immediately on arriving at their destination.

And so forth. And so on. There's more, of course, but I hate to sound like I have concluded that these games are poorly designed and executed in many significant ways, but I have concluded that these games are poorly designed and executed in many significant ways.

I came by most of my grey hair naturally, but playing - and trying to understand - UV and WitP have contributed greatly to the aging process.




borner -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/3/2009 10:09:31 PM)

AMEN!!!!!






fuelli -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/4/2009 8:48:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski




Other stuff. How about those silly transport TFs that, when set on "retirement allowed" always hesitate four hexes from their destination the day before actually going there? Of course, you can order them not to retire, but then, they won't automatically start to unload immediately on arriving at their destination.



Transport TFs do automatically unload when arriving at night while set on "Do not retire". Do Transport TFs start to unload automatically when they arrive at day when set on "retirement allowed?




borner -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/4/2009 1:47:46 PM)

no, that is not the case..... I am in a game that just had two invasion TF's arrive and they did not start to unload, while set to do not retire. Usually yes, but not always.




fuelli -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/4/2009 1:50:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

no, that is not the case..... I am in a game that just had two invasion TF's arrive and they did not start to unload, while set to do not retire. Usually yes, but not always.


Did they surely arrive at night? Maybe they had to replenish and could not reach the target hex in the night phase.




bigred -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/5/2009 3:00:00 AM)

I suspect the distance from the target hex determines the unload rate.




MemoryLeak -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/21/2009 9:33:13 PM)

I bought UV and WiTP the day they were released. THey have been on the shelf for a couple of years now. I still regularly read UV and WiTP forums. Each time I think about getting them down and dusting them off for another try all I have to do is read a thread like this with all of the work-arounds and inconsistencies and frustrations and I turn off the closet light and go back to other games. It is a noble attempt at the long sought-after all-encompassing WWII Naval war game but it drives me crazy to try and play it. I'd rather poke myself in the eye with a pencil than play it again.




borner -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/22/2009 3:45:20 AM)

I feel your fustration, but overall it is still enjoyable. (but could be much better)




Krec -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/22/2009 8:39:57 AM)

Leak,   come on man ,  you got to love this game,  just because its not perfect doesnt mean you cant have fun.   i enjoy the hell outta UV.  i am waiting for AE then ill pick up WITP too.  There simply is nothing better then these 2 games when it comes to the Pacific Theater.  I always plan for the worst and hope for the best. 

Krec  




JeffroK -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/22/2009 9:04:43 AM)

Krec,

I always plan for the worst and hope for the best. 


The key to success.

Too many count rivets & bullets and make sure they have just enough. And if I'm 10ft inside max range my attacks should all work out 100%

Then they complain about "die rolls"




Krec -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/22/2009 8:23:53 PM)

That is why i enjoy the game so much.  What are the odds of the outcome of Midway or Pearl Harbor or Coral Sea.  This is warfare and nothin is certain.  If i wanted certain,  i would play chess.  IMO  what makes a really good wargame game is the amount of uncertainty to try and reflect real life.  I dont dwell on certain percerved shortcomings i adapt to what works best for my task with what i have ,  factoring in the worst and  hoping for the best is part of the equation. [;)]

Krec




borner -> RE: please address in carrier force - Matrix please read (1/23/2009 4:27:31 AM)

In many ways I agree. Not being able to fine tune your actions by having exactly the right number of planes and ships is a very nice feather. I just wish key units like CV TF's followed orders a bit better.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625