Game pace question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Game pace question

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 >> Game pace question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Game pace question - 5/3/2002 10:28:32 AM

mdpeyrot

Posts: 42
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: Plattsmouth, Nebraska
Status: offline

One of the things that bothered me about Pacific War was the pace was unrealistic. Building up supplies was a cinch, objectives could be changed on the fly or ignored, etc. This led to an unhistoric flexibility that didn't do justice to the organizational undertaking of planning operations.
Is there anything in UV that simulates the planning delay that realisticlly occured between inception and exection of an operation ?

Post #: 1

- 5/5/2002 12:38:21 AM

shall9

Posts: 25
Joined: 5/4/2002
From: Watkinsville, GA
Status: offline

From what I've seen, and I haven't compared this historically, in the game you have all the supplies you need that show up at your home base (or bases). Getting them to the front lines where you need them is the problem. You have a limited number of transports that have to be protected, especially when docked and unloading supplies. It takes time to build up supplies at a base.

_____________________________

See you later honey, I'm off to conquer the planet.

(in reply to mdpeyrot)

Post #: 2

Planning delays... - 5/5/2002 1:47:47 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

You can set each execution period to be from 1 to 7 days (or continuous, pause when necessary to issue orders). Joel and I often played with 2 day turns, I've also played 3 day turns PBEM.

This adjusts the pace of operations and the control level in a way that simulates the planning delays inherent in this time period.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to mdpeyrot)

Post #: 3

follow up - 5/5/2002 2:39:04 AM

mdpeyrot

Posts: 42
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: Plattsmouth, Nebraska
Status: offline

Thanks for the response. I don't think I phrased my question very well. Here's an example of what I mean about too much flexibility.

Say I have a Marine division, a bunch of supplies, and adequate transport sitting in a port (along with all necessary escorts, support, etc.) Can I, on any given turn, throw this force at any of a dozen tartgets in range at the drop of a hat?

Or

Is there some game mechanism that requires me to choose the target several turns in advance to simulate the time spent planning and organizing the operation. A raiding force would have a smaller delay than a full-fledged invasion.

I guess I don't understand how changing the number of days per turn acomplishes this. IIRC, PacWar had the HQ's set an objective that affected the number of op points a fleet received. That was a good idea, but you could still just change the objective at the last minute. As well as being too flexible, this enabled the Japanese player to spoof the allied intel very easily.

Thanks,
Mike Peyrot

(in reply to mdpeyrot)

Post #: 4

- 5/5/2002 3:40:35 AM

reapagan

Posts: 136
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline

During the long campaign whatever assets you have at a base are yours to use immediately, other than the time needed to load troops and supplies, provide adequate sea and air escort and move to your destination to unload your troops or attack, there is no planning delay. Long term operational planning is factored into the game by the way assets such as replacements and reinforcements are scheduled to arrive. You know generally when these assets become available and have to plan your operations on that basis.

Mike Rea

(in reply to mdpeyrot)

Post #: 5