Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

UV: a dead end?

 
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 >> UV: a dead end? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
UV: a dead end? - 8/28/2002 12:05:41 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		I have read many posts here a) anticipating WitP and b) stating that no more development of UV will be done except bug fixes because development is focused on WitP. While many of you might want to play out the whole war I am only interested in this particular theater. I bought UV because I wanted to play this theater and if WitP had come out instead I would not have bought it. So I hope that UV is not finished. For instance, it would seem that many players agree that jap torp doctrine in night battles is not adequately modeled. I would like to see that fixed so the japs can recreate Savo and Tassafaronga. Other people are suggesting ideas all the time on this forum as well. I would hope to see many of the better ones implemented in UV, not just in WitP. I would be very disappointed if I had bought a dead end product.

Bottom line: I like UV so far, have a few problems here and there, don't want to buy WitP, and want some of these things addressed in the game I own, not one I am not going to buy.
Post #: 1
- 8/28/2002 1:03:57 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Matrix is still supporting and releasing updates to PacWar and have no doubt that they will still be supporting UV but, updates will be slowing down.

There are still a lot of things I would like to see in UV but, may have to wait until the release of WiTP for some of them.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 2
Re: UV: a dead end? - 8/28/2002 9:49:16 PM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]I have read many posts here a) anticipating WitP and b) stating that no more development of UV will be done except bug fixes because development is focused on WitP. While many of you might want to play out the whole war I am only interested in this particular theater. I bought UV because I wanted to play this theater and if WitP had come out instead I would not have bought it. So I hope that UV is not finished. For instance, it would seem that many players agree that jap torp doctrine in night battles is not adequately modeled. I would like to see that fixed so the japs can recreate Savo and Tassafaronga. Other people are suggesting ideas all the time on this forum as well. I would hope to see many of the better ones implemented in UV, not just in WitP. I would be very disappointed if I had bought a dead end product.

Bottom line: I like UV so far, have a few problems here and there, don't want to buy WitP, and want some of these things addressed in the game I own, not one I am not going to buy. [/B][/QUOTE]

While I like your idea, I doubt your going to see specific Tactical level operations and battles ( Savo, etc ) in this game. The code just does not support that and I doubt WITP will either.

Even the ship VS ship Toyko Express battles in UV are highly abstracted.

Over the years there has been much talk among Fans of combining Grigsby`s " Carrier Strike" as a module within PacWar to play out the CV vs CV tactical battles but nothings ever come of so I suspect it`s not do-able.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 3
- 8/28/2002 11:10:42 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		UV patches will continue, but at a greatly reduced rate come mid September when WitP work increases. Changes made to improve the system for WitP will likely be made in UV. What isn't likely is changes that would only go in UV but not WitP that are not bug related. UV is not an online subscription game in which we get ongoing revenue, so I don't see how we can be expected to continue to change a game other than to fix bugs. This game has already had more features added after release than 99% of the published products in the world. That's my $.02.

Joel

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 4
Comment... - 8/28/2002 11:27:09 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		I have to agree with Joel. There will always be someone who wants something added or changed in UV. It stands as an excellent wargame that has had support well beyond the norm since release to bring it as close to perfection as humanly possible. I would hope that the effort Matrix and 2 by 3 have put in here has been appreciated rather than taken for granted.

I don't follow how a game that was outstanding out of the box and has seen not only bug fixes but feature additions on the order of 50 or so per update is a "dead end". By your definition, which games are not "dead ends"?

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 CapAndGown)
Post #: 5
- 8/28/2002 11:35:39 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		Cap

I don't think we're going to see anything like what we have with the Panzer Campaigns. That, for those not familiar with it, is a series of WWII grand tactical games based on the same game engine. As a new game comes out the older ones are updated with the newer code. If UV were the first in a "Carrier Campaigns" series then I think it would be fair to ask for enhancements to be retrofitted to it as the series progressed. However I don't think the game was ever touted as being the first in a series.

IMO if we get the necessary bug fixes and any appropriate enhancements that are part of WitP then that is fair. On your specific example of IJN night torpedo doctrine being modeled properly, that certainly would be something that should be done correctly in WitP too. So if Matrix/2by3 decide it needs fixing then it would be fixed in both games if I read Joel correctly.

elmo3

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 6
Zigackly. - 8/28/2002 11:39:37 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

Yep, you've pretty much got it.

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 CapAndGown)
Post #: 7
- 8/29/2002 12:17:29 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
[B]Cap

I don't think we're going to see anything like what we have with the Panzer Campaigns. That, for those not familiar with it, is a series of WWII grand tactical games based on the same game engine. As a new game comes out the older ones are updated with the newer code. If UV were the first in a "Carrier Campaigns" series then I think it would be fair to ask for enhancements to be retrofitted to it as the series progressed. However I don't think the game was ever touted as being the first in a series.

IMO if we get the necessary bug fixes and any appropriate enhancements that are part of WitP then that is fair. [/B][/QUOTE]

To be perfectly honest to Matrix and 2by3 we (or at least - I) must say PzC (Panzer Campaigns) are wwwaaaayy more "generic", and I would dare say - more simple, than UV.

Indeed, PzC is more like "series of scenarios" for the same engine, than it is a "game series". I guess it's very easy to "retrofit" new fixes to what is basically identical game engine.

I expect UV and WITP to be lot more different than average games from PzC series are between themselves.

I agree with you elmo that if they do what is announced in this thread, that would be perfectly fair. What bothers me is number of new bugs some of patches manage to introduce, and disregard for some pretty old and nasty bugs (ie. I don't get the impression they are being fixed).

O.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 8
- 8/29/2002 12:29:01 AM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]

...snip...What bothers me is number of new bugs some of patches manage to introduce, and disregard for some pretty old and nasty bugs (ie. I don't get the impression they are being fixed).

O. [/B][/QUOTE]

Erik nicely addressed the issue of new bugs being introduced in the "Should i buy this game" thread.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 9
- 8/29/2002 1:50:29 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the replies.

Yes, I am thinking of Panzer Campaigns which has been steadily evolving over the years. I would also mention that TOAW was an evolving system until Norm Kroger was cut out of the loop by the new owners of Talon Soft. I guess this with the wargamer community being small as it is I have come to expect this level attention. Let me add that one reason I bought the game was because of the support level Matrix and 2x3 have shown on this board.

The designers comments above are enough to satisfy me. As long as those ideas that make their way into WitP find their way into UV as well, I will be happy.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 10
- 8/29/2002 4:51:34 AM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline 		Ahhh...so now I know the rest of the story...pertaining to Talonsoft that is. I visited one of their boards recently and was appalled that nothing had been posted in months...oh well...all the good wargamers have migrated either here or over to Shrapnel over the last year or so. Time flies so fast can't remember, must be having to much fun:)

Matrix is definitly got a lot of new games coming out that I'm interested in...I am thankful there is a dedicated wargaming company still out there.

OK...enuf buttering up...where's my copy of WiTP, Battlefields, and the Napoleon Wars:D :D


Sabre21


PS: Erik...are you ever gonna try and make any of the WWIII games...I got a bzillion 35mm slides on that kindof stuff I can digitize not to mention a few mpegs..including a couple using thermal imagery.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 11
- 8/29/2002 5:08:50 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		Talonsoft cut their own throat as far as I'm concerned. Some of the best companies have gone to the dogs. Its like going to my old AH link and seeing Hasbro pop up. Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha Matrix, please, please don't let the suits buy you out.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 12
- 8/29/2002 5:22:42 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		YES!!!! SSI dead! Talonsoft DEAD! GRRRRRRRR they left excelletent TOAW alone - this game, if it would have been further improved (beyond COW) would be really unbeatable. Still there are too many bugs/things to be improved in air/ground and supply routine..........

It´s really a pitty!

_____________________________

Bis dat qui cito dat!

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 13
- 8/29/2002 6:31:31 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Talonsoft could not make enough money selling wargames to keep themselves afloat. They bailed out, and sold their assets to Take 2.

Whose fault is that really?

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 14
- 8/29/2002 6:34:57 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Talonsoft could not make enough money selling wargames to keep themselves afloat. They bailed out, and sold their assets to Take 2.

Whose fault is that really? [/B][/QUOTE]

Not mine. I bought every Battle Ground and Campaign series they put out. I think it was when they tried to expanded into the RTS and RPG arena that they fell on their sword.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 15
Sabre21... - 8/29/2002 7:06:18 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

Funny you should ask... :D I was just mentioning you today to Robert Crandall, who's looking for research help with our Flashpoint: Germany title. I think that would be right up your alley as it's modern NATO/WP and is coming together very well. Head over to the Flashpoint forum here (a few links down) and let Robert know I sent ya. :)

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 CapAndGown)
Post #: 16
- 8/29/2002 7:51:56 PM   
chrisp

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Wichita, KS
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Talonsoft could not make enough money selling wargames to keep themselves afloat. They bailed out, and sold their assets to Take 2.

Whose fault is that really? [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not blaming Talonsoft. But Take2 has ceased support on all Talonsoft products. This means the cave bug in Rising Sun will never get fixed, no night rules for WF, no changes to the atrocious Divided Ground. Norm Kroger has said that he has patches to ACOW that he can't put out because Take2 won't let him.

I can't understand Take2's attitude. Or maybe I can, and just don't want to admit it.

Chris P.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 17
- 8/30/2002 12:35:39 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Its very simple.

Take2 doesn't care.

Not in the slightest.

Will it make them money? Probably not. Therefore, they don't do it.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 18
- 8/30/2002 1:16:33 AM   
Mojo

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 2/6/2002
From: Portland, Oregon USA
Status: offline 		Divided Ground was what soured me on Talonsoft and Take 2. Great concept but tech support?

What tech support?

they won't make another penny from me. I don't care what they put out.

I almost gave up on the genre until I found Matrix.

_____________________________

If something's not working you might want to tunk it a dite.
Mojo's Mom

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 19
- 8/30/2002 2:10:45 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Ain´t there a way that Norm Koger can bypass Take 2 and put out his patches nevertheless.

BTW is Divided Ground build on the same engine as EF/WF?

_____________________________

Bis dat qui cito dat!

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 20
- 8/30/2002 2:44:51 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Take2 own all the rights to TOAW and Norm stated that he was unsuccesful in obtaining them. Check google groups.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 21
Yep... - 8/30/2002 4:10:27 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Ah, I can't resist chiming in, since TOAW is near to my heart.

From my understanding, Norm made a better offer than he rationally should have and it was still declined. I too wish he could keep working on that gem... it's one of my all time favorite wargames. Still, just the evolution from TOAW I to TOAW CoW was remarkable and CoW is a heck of a great wargame and design tool.

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 CapAndGown)
Post #: 22
Re: Yep... - 8/30/2002 7:25:13 PM   
chrisp

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Wichita, KS
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]From my understanding, Norm made a better offer than he rationally should have and it was still declined. I too wish he could keep working on that gem... [/B][/QUOTE]

My understanding, from Norm's posts, is that he doesn't want to bypass Take2 and release patches to ACOW because it would violate contractual agreements and hurt his chances of working for other companies. This is a legitimate reason on his part.

Even if he did decide to release patches on his own, I think there are problems involving the copy-protection.

Bottom line is that Take2 refuses to support a game [I]even when it won't cost them a cent.[/I] There are various words to describe this attitude, but we won't get into that.....

As for Talonsoft's swan song, Divided Ground, it's a disaster. A rush job. You knew you were introuble when the game box described the game as "strategic" combat. It does use the same engine as EF/WF/RS with some changes (adds helicopters, for example), but that engine doesn't really work in a modern environment (units have unlimited ATGM ammunition, for example, and AA missiles can be used against armor.) The OOBs are completely bogus. I did a mod trying to fix some of this stuff, but it only scratched the surface.

Chris P.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 23
- 8/30/2002 9:19:58 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Still playing COW a lot. Currently playing a mammut scenario - propably the best ever designed.... they needed 2 years to design it!!!!!
It´s name is Drang nach Osten vers. 3.3
It deals with Barbarosse from 22.06.41 to mid March 42....
A great scenario! It really tries to include ALL facts and events from this time frame into the COW engine. From single city factory evacuation....to whatever all

Anyone interested in this scenario?

I attached the readme to this scenario... it describes a lot more than I can do.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Bis dat qui cito dat!

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 24
TOAW - most important wargame of the decade - 8/30/2002 11:40:51 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Good to see so many TOAW fans here... Still perhaps the most important game in my gaming life... I know of many wargamers that were "recruited" to wargaming thanks to TOAW, so as to be safe to say every wargame released since is indebted to TOAW in some way.

As for Drang Nach Osten (DNO for friends) - I was helping Daniel playtest this scenario back in version 2.x, and it's every bit as frightening, huge, detailed and above all else - GOOD, as legends say ;) Fantastic scenario, that would alone be worthy of a price of any standalone game I may think of. Reddon, if you wish to play Ruskies in DNO 3.3 maybe I'd be teased to install the CoW back on my computer again ;) Maybe... or better to wait for DNO to play in the middle of European winter...

Daniel McBride's scenarios are all top of the crop - Tobruk, DNO, El Alamein, Wintergewitter... he's by far my favorite TOAW scenario designer.

Too bad there were many bad scenarios among the home made ones, and among the canned scenarios too (Doug Bevard's name comes to mind - this guy made like zillion scenarios, but in a hyperproduction at this scale, most of them were bad, shallow, or even buggy).

Fantastic game...

Since Norm Koger himself was unsuccessful in trying to buy out the rights to TOAW engine, maybe Matrix (as company) would be more successful perhaps? With such a small number of companies dedicated to historical games, it would be GREAT to see Norm back on track again, this time under Matrix "flag"?

O.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 25
- 8/31/2002 12:03:29 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Yes I´d even spend a few bug if Matrix decides to something clever like that.... buying the rights for TOAW and improving it even more, perhaps even getting Norm into the Matrix Boat... :D

For DNO - Semper Paratus! I´d like to play it is Russian. Currently I play it against a Major of the US Army as German. My PBEM opponent also plays this scenario against Daniel McBride...the designer.

I don´t have the other scenarios...Tobruk, Wintergewitter and El Alamein. Propably I should start looking for them.

_____________________________

Bis dat qui cito dat!

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 26
- 9/8/2002 12:21:40 PM   
emorbius44

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/15/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]UV patches will continue, but at a greatly reduced rate come mid September when WitP work increases. Changes made to improve the system for WitP will likely be made in UV. What isn't likely is changes that would only go in UV but not WitP that are not bug related. UV is not an online subscription game in which we get ongoing revenue, so I don't see how we can be expected to continue to change a game other than to fix bugs. This game has already had more features added after release than 99% of the published products in the world. That's my $.02.

Joel [/B][/QUOTE]

That seems like a reasonable position to take and the game has, to me, covered the subject pretty well. It is unreasonable to expect constant upgrades. However there are still some bugs or "unrealistic" features that should be addressed. With version 1.40 my japanese subs are still expending torpedos against PT boats and I have yet to see a coastal defense gun shoot at anything. I would think these kinds of issues should be considered. You might not be getting a revenue stream off of upgrading or debugging the game but you might consider how purchasers of UV will feel about purchasing WITP if those issues are not addressed. I have three long time opponents who, alongwith myself, have all purchased UV. Right now one or two future sales of WITP are in jeopardy if the AI doesn't make reasonable moves and reasonable targeting. Most of the time I think it does, but it will makes some pretty funky deicisons at times that can have a huge impace on the game and turn a player off (as well as a future game sale.)
Personally I'm very impressed overall and have alot of confidence that G Grigsby will get to the bugs and I plan to buy WITP. However I have a long time e-mail opponent who jumped at this game and has been highly frustrated with bugs in the game to the point he's souring on the game system because his major losses have come as a result of questionable game system operations and not his strategy decisions. quite frustrating for the game player.
It seems to me that definite bugs (dissapearing units, reinforcements that get stuck on the arrival track like two air group sub units that are eternally one turn away in both my e-mail campaign games, etc) are legitimate complaints that need to be addressed as well as some of the more funky AI deficincies
(the aformentioned sub targeting and coastal defense units.) Re-designing the game or adding new features is not a legitimate complaint.

Bob

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 27
Coastal defense gun - 9/8/2002 5:54:11 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		I have seen coastal defense guns fire on ships. I would bet that they are more effective against landings than bombardment missions. Bombardment missions stand far off shore and may not come into range of the CD battery. Try a test. Use the play the tutorial in a Head to Head and send in an invasion fleet to a base that has CDs and see what happens. I'll run a test myself and report the results. If it is a bug, I'll run more test and post it on the Beta board.

Rick

Edit: I just got the new patch to test and I thought you might be intrested in item #10.

10) A message is now displayed when coast guns are attacking transports. The map is now centered and a naval gun icon is placed in the hex. Specific hits are not reported.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 28
Re: Coastal defense gun - 9/8/2002 9:50:02 PM   
emorbius44

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/15/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]I have seen coastal defense guns fire on ships. I would bet that they are more effective against landings than bombardment missions. Bombardment missions stand far off shore and may not come into range of the CD battery. Try a test. Use the play the tutorial in a Head to Head and send in an invasion fleet to a base that has CDs and see what happens. I'll run a test myself and report the results. If it is a bug, I'll run more test and post it on the Beta board.

Rick

Edit: I just got the new patch to test and I thought you might be intrested in item #10.

10) A message is now displayed when coast guns are attacking transports. The map is now centered and a naval gun icon is placed in the hex. Specific hits are not reported. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks. I'll try that. Based on Pacwar and knowing Grigsby (I playtested pacwar) I know he's pretty persistant in tracking down things. In games there are problems that are obvious bugs and other attributes that are obvious features. As J. Billings pointed out they can't keep re-designing the game ad-infinitum for free and it not fair to expect that.
In between is sort of that gray area between the two, usually based on AI considerations, i.e. is the AI being dumb or is it legitimately reflecting dumb commanders (and there were a few. )
One of my opponents is pretty discouraged because he's been walloped a couple of times (once lost five CV's) where TF's did what he did not expect or want (engage my CV's). Personally so far I've not had that problem. I've had a couple of bombardment TF's savaged when they loitered in the bombardment area but that was my fault (left the patrol/do not retire swtich on, usually palying a turn around 2 a.m.. ) I've been able to control things pretty well with the patrol-do not react switches and I think target selection and fleet operations are vastly improved over pacwar.
I did notice that the subs started shooting at pt and patrol boats again with version 1.40, something that had been corrected previously.

Bob

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 29
Re: Coastal defense gun - 9/9/2002 12:20:52 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]I have seen coastal defense guns fire on ships. I would bet that they are more effective against landings than bombardment missions. Bombardment missions stand far off shore and may not come into range of the CD battery. Try a test. Use the play the tutorial in a Head to Head and send in an invasion fleet to a base that has CDs and see what happens. I'll run a test myself and report the results. If it is a bug, I'll run more test and post it on the Beta board.

Rick

Edit: I just got the new patch to test and I thought you might be intrested in item #10.

10) A message is now displayed when coast guns are attacking transports. The map is now centered and a naval gun icon is placed in the hex. Specific hits are not reported. [/B][/QUOTE]I've just had 2 bombardment fleets bombard Tulagi in a PBEM game, and both of them showed hits which could only come from CD batteries. 2 ships were just lightly damaged, but one DD ended up with about 18/16/3 damage. So the CD units are working, it's just that there is no specific message displaying that they are returning fire to the bombardment/invasion TFs. IMO.

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> UV: a dead end? Page: [1] 2   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

2.235