Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets Shelved (grognard version)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets Shelved (grognard version)

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 >> Tech Support >> Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets Shelved (grognard version)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets Shelved (gr... - 7/4/2002 7:55:44 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

As most of you know, I am a very strong supporter of Matrix and this game. So it is with some hesitation that I begin a thread with such a title.

[B] Air Power and Logistics [/B]

Air power was the dominant force in the historical campaign and should be in the game. Logistics are also important and affect airpower and every other kind of force.

However, there are a number of flaws and known bugs with the use of aircraft in the game. Hence, any strategy designed to create overwhelming air superiority and win the game by using airpower winds up encountering serious efficiency problems. This is a logical paradox, and would cause me to shelve the game if these things are not fixed.

[B] Strafing [/B]

Strafing by most any kind of aircraft at most any kind of target, particularly ground targets, results in some errors. There is the notorious "Akagi" error. Strafing of barges by cannon-armed fighter-bombers or Marauders, etc, only rarely gets the kind of damage to sink the barge. I've seen barges with dozens of hits from .50 cals and cannon which are still afloat. For a naval craft with a durability of 1 and ZERO armor, that's a pretty amazing feat.

I never use strafing anymore because of these problems.

[B]Carrier Air Groups shore attacks[/B]

There is some kind of problem with the range indicator on carrier air groups that are given a mission to hit a specific base regardless of the type of attack (port, airfield, ground). The net effect of this error is that no matter how many carrier air groups are assigned to attack the target, usually only one will actually go. The vast majority of my strikes now involve a mass of fighters on escort, and one lonely bomber airgroup. Can't do much damage with that. This bug negates the utility and effectiveness of the most powerful units in the game. Combined with the strafing error, carrier air groups are almost useless against shore targets.

[B]Ground Attack by Bombers[/B]

There is some kind of bug which prevents all the airgroups that have ground attack missions assigned from participating. I have one base that has something like 12 airgroups with this mission assigned, and only one group actually goes. Again, this means that I cannot rely on airpower to reduce enemy ground troops or help out my own guys. This is an intermittent phenom.

[B] Air supply transport [/B]

Please spare me the long historical descriptions of the difficulties of air supply. I am aware of them.

In this game, however, transports aren't good at moving supply around unless within "normal" range of the destination base. This probably isn't a "bug" per se, but given the kinds of efforts that were mounted in the Pacific theater (the Hump, etc.) its a bit irritating. The reason the game works this way is because beyond normal radius, the supply transport plane uses a bit more "supply" than it actually delivers. Given the following two problems, I was hoping that aggressive use of air transport would compensate. I was wrong.

[B] Barge Routine Convoys [/B]

I'm probably using these wrong. They don't appear to be much good beyond a 6-8 hex radius. They load the wrong stuff. They decide to load troops on their own initiative. Really bad when a base force gets loaded at a base you are using to support your air efforts against the enemy in a forward area. I tend not to use barges at all. The Barge convoys are supposed to load fuel in every fifth ship, which they do, but it doesn't get used to extend the movement radius of the barge group.

[B] Transport Poverty [/B]

I'm really tired of seeing 100 supply transport ships sitting in Pearl with no way to get them committed to my theater. I can't make any serious inroads without the ability to supply the troops. Combined with the Barge problem, I have to rely pretty much on what I started the campaign with to supply my bases. This limits me to two major bases at best. If I mount a large amphib operation, the rest of my bases go into the red because I don't have the transport to supply them while the op is going on. I have literally 40 airgroups sitting back at Brisbane and Noumea simply because I can't supply the base adequately if they get moved to an active forward base (its mid-April, 43).

[B] Das Ist Das Ende [/B]

There might be more critical errors that kill the game for other players. This is my list. Because it is my list, I happen to believe these are the most important / critical errors or implementation flaws that need to be addressed. Yes, for those of you who know me, I can even live with the current set of mine rules ;)

When, when o lord gone be our patch?

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

Post #: 1

Wow...pretty harsh pretty quick. - 7/4/2002 10:13:07 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Give the guys a chance man. The game has been out for only a couple months. Sure there are problems but look at the scope of this game. And don't overlook the support provided so far. Good thing you are in Detroit because you would prove a hard to please variety of hockey fan in a small market city. (That shot was directed at teams that buy Stanley Cups, by the way)

By the way, those barges or Daihatsu gradually became quite hard to bust with .50 cal MGs as the crews mounted armor plate on them. By mid 1943, 40mm were needed to effectively knock these out.

Stick with the program. ;)

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 2

Some points - 7/4/2002 10:22:29 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi

Any problem where it is the player not liking the way the computer controls his units is solved by doing it yourself.
Its only a minor pain and one you would face in a game without the computer control option. If there are Bermuda triange hexes and you know about them and have reported them, stay out of them while it is fixed. There are enough allied transports. There are not enough for unlimited activity. Their use decides what happens in the game. Managing them in fact is a large part of the game. Several months are needed to get allied supply in shape before begining offensive action. The largest problem I have with the game in regard to allied supply is the bases in Australia do not pass supply down the road. This means I have to devote a portion of my transport to suppling Cairns just so I can then supply PM. (the 3k transports move supply to Cairns the 1.5k AK then move it to PM) You should not be able to conduct invasions prior to mid 43 that do not put a strain on supply else where. If you are moving more then a division at one time then I'd say you do not have transport problems. In PBEM as both Japan and Allied I would say that early on Allies transport problems larger then Japanese. (I've yet to not have enough transport as Japan. As Allies I have to rotate transports between SoPac and SW Pac according to operational needs)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 3

- 7/4/2002 10:24:40 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Ron : I don't think the above post is overly harsh, but I do think Matrix will fix most if not all of the above (and much more too). I'm stating facts : fact is that these are gross bugs, and fact two is that I can't play it like this. I have to plan most of my tactical operations around the facts that my planes can't strafe or bomb worth a hoot, and I have historically insufficient transport to even support a decent bombing campaign. No one interested in a real simulator should have to do this.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 4

Supply build up. - 7/4/2002 10:32:12 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I don't think there is enough transport to support massive air missions from a base unless you first use a quiet period to build up supply. I normally do not even fly the B-17 groups. (I limit PM to flying aircover for transports till I have built up supply to over 100k. Then I begin to move in bombers and start training by attacking Lae) Likewise L'ville B-17's just sit at Noumea while supply built up. I have played PBEM where I am amazed at how soon and how often they fly bombing missions. I am not sure how they do it.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 5

- 7/4/2002 10:37:08 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Kinda sounded like you were giving up on it...we need your input on problems as much as anyones if this game is to be what Matrix and 2bt3 set out to do.

Cujo bailed to Detroit.....big surprise.:(

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 6

Re: Re: Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets She... - 7/4/2002 10:42:08 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi

[/B][/QUOTE]

Mogami : Fix your post, dude. ;)

1. The strafing problem is well known. Have you updated to 1.11? Fighter-bombers strafing ground targets will hit the Akagi instead of any ground units. Yes, I said the Akagi. Strafing fighters is a different story, but as I said I don't use strafing anymore. I am hitting the barges with P39s and P400s, with 20 and 30mm cannon. The game says these units have ZERO armor. They should be going down. They aren't.

2. I have stationary carrier groups two hexes away from enemy bases that are launching 1 out of 6 Dauntless groups available. Further, if you look at the range indicator for the Carrier TF, if you have it set to the target base, its inevitably wrong. 2 hexes southeast of Lunga, for example, the range indicator reads 55.

3. I don't understand your comment with respect to air supply transport.

4. Yes my point is the entire point of barge convoys is largely lost if you can't let them be on automatic control, or extend the range of these convoys.

5. I've been in the habit lately of sending any ship with more than 10 sys dam back to pearl, with the exception of BBs or CVs (those have to get up around 25. I routinely send back any DD that has only 8 or less AA guns, or has any significant damage to a weapon system. Point is, I keep my fleet lean. Doesn't matter. I can't get transports. I send a batch of 15 DDs back to Pearl and I get 15 back. I need transport.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 7

- 7/4/2002 10:43:41 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Kinda sounded like you were giving up on it...we need your input on problems as much as anyones if this game is to be what Matrix and 2bt3 set out to do.

Cujo bailed to Detroit.....big surprise.:( [/B][/QUOTE]

I *will* bail on the game if these problems aren't addressed. Sad but true. I give em about another 2 months here, assuming new problems aren't introduced.

We are happy to get Cujo. ;)

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 8

- 7/4/2002 10:46:17 AM

MatrixFan

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/10/2002
From: Frankfurt, Deutschland
Status: offline

I would like to atleast see a option for mid point interseptions for surface TF's i hate the way it works atm. So peep with good enough comps can chose to have it turned on ofcourse both people in pbem would have to have it
but i do belive the game is missing this i hate for my tf to be at a disadvantage just because i have to leave it in port to intercept bombardments etc.

Only other thing is id like to see the AI improved
in the way it handles a majot offencive it simple doesnt do it even though its good at supplying bases.

Thats it good game though hopefully there are enough resources availible to do these kind of updates.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 9

- 7/4/2002 10:49:28 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

I think it'll get there. Other than the "I wants", the "I'd like to see's", and the "I'd do it differently", at bottom the game is sound. Most of what I see "wrong" with it is just tweaking and balancing various features that interact with each other. Which is going to be a slow painful process, as everything is interconnected and impacts something else, which in turn impacts something else. There's a couple issues I personally think were poor design choices, but I can live with them either way once they get the tweaking done.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 10

Well - 7/4/2002 10:51:22 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

I dont know, there is alot that isnt explained going on
'under the hood' so to speak.

In Gary's previous games like 'Kampfgruppe' and 'USAAF'

he showed us the exact algorithim used. I knew then that
in 'USAAF' 1/3 of all dogfights would be settled by the amount
of armor and cannon rating of the attacking planes.

The system he is using now 'looks' the same, but I have no way of knowing that. We are forced by the game engine to yake a few things on faith.

I personally dislike the strong chance that even with the BEST
commanders a Carrier CV force will send a fragmented strike
and it will get chewed up by defensive CAP. However, is it realistic? I have no way of knowing. Maybe it is totally realistic.

In reply to your complaint about transports. I simply send all DD
with less that 6250 endurance back to Pearl on arrival.
I have never had the poverty you complain about. As Japanese
I have run out of Transports by sinking. but that is a different
topic.

I seriously dislike the godlike B-17 ability. The allied player,
just like God, can wave his hand and shut down a base.
PERIOD. Again, is it realistic? Hell it may well be realistic.
It just isnt fun to be on the other end.

I also dislike the godlike subs. However BOTH sides have
the same effect so it doesnt favor simply one side.

But I do know that the historical useage of the Coastal boats
was limited by breakdown and speed. Many times they got
into position but could not catch up with the targets.

I DO like the surface combat routine, I just think that the
Jap torpedoes accuracy rating needs a bit of a boost.
Watching a Fletcher class get hit with 14inch shells is fun.

No game is perfect, I assume Gary will keep tweaking. I hope.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 11

- 7/4/2002 10:52:21 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]I think it'll get there. Other than the "I wants", the "I'd like to see's", and the "I'd do it differently", at bottom the game is sound. Most of what I see "wrong" with it is just tweaking and balancing various features that interact with each other. Which is going to be a slow painful process, as everything is interconnected and impacts something else, which in turn impacts something else. There's a couple issues I personally think were poor design choices, but I can live with them either way once they get the tweaking done. [/B][/QUOTE]

Julie : if by saying this you mean that the original list of problems at the top of this thread are of the "I'd like to do it differently" nature, I have to disagree. These are game killers for me. If by these comments you mean that you agree these are serious errors and will get fixed, and beyond that everything else is a matter of taste, then I would agree.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 12

- 7/4/2002 11:23:12 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

At the risk of getting dragged into the entire discussion, I do want to point out that the war in the South Pacific had a large part of it devoted to the Allies building up resources in the first half of 43 so they could blitz during the second half of 43. The Allies had the units but not the supplies and shipping to do everything in early 43 that their combat power was theoretically capable of doing.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 13

- 7/4/2002 11:36:56 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]At the risk of getting dragged into the entire discussion, I do want to point out that the war in the South Pacific had a large part of it devoted to the Allies building up resources in the first half of 43 so they could blitz during the second half of 43. The Allies had the units but not the supplies and shipping to do everything in early 43 that their combat power was theoretically capable of doing. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agree with this entirely. The Transport Poverty problem is the lesser of the above, and since I haven't completed my game against the AI, its a bit too early to come down definitively on this question.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 14

Time - 7/4/2002 11:59:58 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, One of the things I have noticed is the time scale and player pace do not match. It's like old Pac War players thinking turns are a week versus 24 hours. Many AAR's start with "Scen 17 Allied
GIli and Buna empty dispatched troops to guard. Blah blah then 5-6 days into campaign we hear of first reverse (It takes the IJN 5 days to get down from Truk). Many of these AAR report massive battles and landing on Lunga or else where all before mid July (I'm talking of Allied not Japan) Around Sept the supply transport crunch halts activity and game is abandoned.
I have several allied PBEM games and I usally can not justify any offensive action before Mid August/ early Sept. It takes that long to get my bases up and supplied (I won't fly bomber missions other then Naval attack unless base has more then 100K supply)
The transport have to move between commands. The bases have to build the airfields and ports. I think many people are trying to go too fast. Scen 17 is 610 turns. What is a long wait in a game with 610 turns?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 15

- 7/4/2002 1:09:19 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

I should mention that in my game its April 1943. I'm hoping the Transport Poverty issue will be abated sometime in early fall.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 16

Re: Time - 7/4/2002 8:01:18 PM

Gustaf

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Wisconsin, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, One of the things I have noticed is the time scale and player pace do not match. It's like old Pac War players thinking turns are a week versus 24 hours....

I think many people are trying to go too fast. Scen 17 is 610 turns. What is a long wait in a game with 610 turns? [/B][/QUOTE]

I fully agree... at least in my case ;) I catch myself not being patient at all times, expecting to do more in a shorter period of time. Once I remind myself that I have time to allow strategies to unfold I'm OK again :rolleyes:

I'm probably not as used to a game of this type as most of you, which may explain why it's taking me a bit longer to catch on. But I'm enjoying the learning curve to this point :)

Gus

_____________________________

"Once you get them running, you stay right on top of them, and that way a small force can defeat a large one every time... Only thus can a weaker country cope with a stronger; it must make up in activity what it lacks in strength."
- General Thomas "S

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 17

- 7/4/2002 8:08:32 PM

Paul Goodman

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline

I agree with Mogami on the necessity of waiting things out as the Allies. In the long scenarios, I immediately attempt to defend Gili Gili, then begin a long, kind of boring, build up of supplies, aircraft, and equipment.

The amount of shipping available seems to vary from game-to-game, depending on something I haven't been able to deduce.

The Japanese submarine uber-weapon is just plain preposterous and needs to be fixed and quickly. I've had to abandon an invasion hex, despite 24 destroyers in the hex and over 300 aircraft on ASW. I ought to be very very difficult for either countries submarines to torpedo cruising undamaged warships.

Something is definitely wrong with carrier aviation. In a recent action, in mid 1943, the following occured. I (the U.S.) occupied Shortlands and Buin. The Japanese had been bombarding Buin, with considerable effect. I decided to attack Rabaul.

Having determined that task force speed has nothing to do with the speed of the ships in it and that destroyers were useless, I had a task force of 4 fleet carriers, 5 CVE and heavy, light and AA cruisers to make of 15 ships. Two destroyer squadrons of 12 destroyers each and a cruiser squadron accompanied this group, as did two replenishment TF (again, no destroyers in these, as it slows them down). I sent a cruiser/destroyer force to Shortlands from Guadalcanal. P-38's swept Rabaul each day, suppressing the fighters. Heavy bombers from PM bombed the airfield each day.

During the cruise, the plan seemed to working. I arrived off of Rabaul with overwhelming force, around 200 fighters and over 140 Dauntless. He, Haw, a task force is in Rabaul with Yamato and Musashi! Nothing! The whole deal just sits there doing nothing! Fighters shoot down a few small raids. Here's a curiosity, there were a pretty good group of bombers in Rabaul, but they wouldn't attack due to (I assume) lack of fighter escort. I was attacked by Nell's and Betty's out of Truk. Also no mention of missions being cancelled. All aircraft were, by the way, well rested, experienced and had high morale. Hell, the bombers were even set to naval attack.

Next turn, the Japanese task force attempted to bombard Buin. the CA/CL/DD task force I sent to Shortlands reacted. RATS! I only lost a destroyer, but the two heavy cruisers will spend the rest of the game in Pearl.

Then the Japanese task force appears adjacent to my fleet and one hex from Rabaul. Nothing. No air attacks (fortunately no reaction from my cruiser force, either). The whole mess just sits there doing nothing. Missions are not cancelled. Mitchell's from Gili Gili bomb the Japanese task force, actually hitting Musashi with a couple of 500 pounders, but 140 dive bombers sit 30 miles away and do nothing.

Next, the Japanese TF, minus the BB's is in Rabaul, still no attacks, no nothing (by cheating, I discovered that the BB's had detached and gone to Truk).

Next the TF shows up north of Truk, out of range. BUT a task force of AP's shows up in Rabaul. Off goes the Dauntlesses, down go the AP's, great slaughter.

The most disturbing thing about this is that it seems to be some kind of repeat of the frustrations of PacWar. Superweapon submarines and carrier aircraft that will not attack the obvious target. It really seems as though it is intentional on the part of the designers. As GG never comments publicly on anything, it's a little difficult to know what to expect in the way of a fix.

Also, on the shipping issue, just change the commitment to 150 percent. You'll get all kinds of stuff, which will unbalance the game. Just keep what you should have and send the rest back. It does seem to me that when you select "historical", you ought to get "historical".

Paul

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 18

- 7/4/2002 10:02:02 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I've had no prob with the amounts of Allied shipping (except for subs) sent to me. I play at 80% as there seems to be TOO much.

I can't handle the target selection routines, either. Hope they get tweaked over time. Someone has said though, and I agree, that each tweak has a trickle down effect and could be long in coming.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 19

Worried - 7/4/2002 10:33:02 PM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

I just ordered the Game which hopefully is on the way.

As an old time player of PW who knows it pretty well ( as I suspect Paul Goodman does ) I`m concerned that the same major problem from that game seems to have carried over to this one.

The inability, either through design , or more likely problems in the code, of CV Task Forces to launch attacks against enemy CV TF`s 2-3 hexs away....they launch strikes against Island Airbases, troops, merchant ships...but rarely, if ever against that spotted enemy CV Force 2 hexs away. This resulted in, forced actually, the player to use all kinds of tactic & strategies that had very little relationship to the actual War In The Pacific.

I`ll reserve judgement untill I play the Game, but I would like to hear an offical response from Matrix on that issue, as well as the others raised by the topic starter.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 20

I have to say... - 7/5/2002 12:44:04 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

......I am dissapointed with the air routine as a whole. I have not used my carriers much since I patched to 1.11 so can not comment there. However whenever you have a TF, or base protected by 30-40+ CAP and it is attacked by 10 unescorted Betty's, Nells, Vals, Sally's ad nauseum and not one shot is fired, come on people, it just didn't happen. Allied fighter pilots licked their chops over such easy "pickins". And don't tell me they weren't "seen" because the messages VMF-112 dives on bombers, or 80th FS attacks head on happens everytime. Also no bombers are shot down everytime.

Von Frag

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 21

- 7/5/2002 1:12:37 AM

David Heath

Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline

I think its safe to say that if you not using the latest patch v1.11 please do not bring an old problem.

I am not saying you should not post problems..... of course please do but at least take the time to use the latest patch and see if its fixed or if it is still a problem.

David

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 22

- 7/5/2002 1:26:22 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

I think its also safe to say that I started this thread to discuss really critical problems in the mechanics of the game, such as an obvious bug. Most of the problems (if not all) I originally described I believe to be of this nature. I believe that all of the original problems I described are due to the game system NOT working as intended with respect to carrier air group operations, ground attack missions, the strafing setting, the barge issues, the air transport issue (probably not a bug there), and the transport poverty issue (I think this might be a bug or implementation issue, not sure here yet).

I did NOT start this thread to discuss "results of combat" whines, which is what some of the above comments have been about. No offense, but please take these elsewhere. While you may have a valid issue to you, I disagree and would like to focus on things in the game that are OBVIOUSLY not working as intended or bugged. The fact that a few bombers slip through a CAP screen is not one of these types of issues.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 23

n - 7/5/2002 3:08:45 AM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

That's funny ... or rather sad :rolleyes:

Matrix & 2by3 are some of the last wargame-focused companies in a very harsh market ... and some grogs keep on whining and complaining :mad:

First of all, UV is a GREAT game - of course, it can be improved ... and it will be. As far as I remember, we always got feedbacks from Mike, Erik, Paul, Joel or David about all the small flaws of the game ... and many were already corrected in the 1.1/1.11 patches.

So when I see a thread title beginning with "Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets Shelved", I wonder what would be my reaction if I was a newbie coming to this forum for the first time (ie : after reading an UV review) ... probably not to buy the game :(

So please don't act like spoiled children ... because otherwise the result is already known : no more toys for us wargamers :(

Spooky

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 24

Re: n - 7/5/2002 3:15:20 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]That's funny ... or rather sad :rolleyes:

Matrix & 2by3 are some of the last wargame-focused companies in a very harsh market ... and some grogs keep on whining and complaining :mad:

First of all, UV is a GREAT game - of course, it can be improved ... and it will be. As far as I remember, we always got feedbacks from Mike, Erik, Paul, Joel or David about all the small flaws of the game ... and many were already corrected in the 1.1/1.11 patches.

So when I see a thread title beginning with "Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets Shelved", I wonder what would be my reaction if I was a newbie coming to this forum for the first time (ie : after reading an UV review) ... probably not to buy the game :(

So please don't act like spoiled children ... because otherwise the result is already known : no more toys for us wargamers :(

Spooky [/B][/QUOTE]

A post like this makes me wonder whether you actually read anything in this thread.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 25

- 7/5/2002 3:15:26 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

Hi

For the last days I have seen nothing but complaining....well almost. We allready have two patches and more is coming our way. We probably have one of the best wargames installed plus the finest service but still people must complain about something. Just like people you meet in real life. Truly sad.
Dan

_____________________________

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 26

- 7/5/2002 3:16:48 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

Hi

Must point out though that DGAAD is coming with more constructive complaints but this could have been posted in a thread for improvements in the bug forum.
Dan

_____________________________

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 27

- 7/5/2002 3:25:37 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
[B]Hi

For the last days I have seen nothing but complaining....well almost. We allready have two patches and more is coming our way. We probably have one of the best wargames installed plus the finest service but still people must complain about something. Just like people you meet in real life. Truly sad.
Dan [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, at least no one will accuse me of being a fanboi. ;)

Yes, we've had patches that have fixed a bunch of things already. Yes, I agree that Matrix is doing a great job. Yes, This game might be the "last, best hope" for this genre. Yes, I also agree that the game is great and fun, even now.

Number one : I don't care if this is the last best hope for the genre. I can't play a game that doesn't work in its essentials. The errors I described in the lead post of this thread are in fact game killers whether you recognize it or not.

I'm playing this game right now, and enjoying it. But I and a number of other people see serious flaws in some of the essential mechanics. Thus I'm playing for fun right now in the hopes that these problems are recognized, and I can get to what I and presumeably you really enjoy : an excellent wargame simulation that works and is valid in all of its essentials.

Here is one of my problems at present : Matrix spent a huge amount of effort correcting the mines issue. Fine. If they had taken 1/3rd of that effort and addressed the Carrier Air Groups Operations issue, the Strafing issue, and the Bomber Groups ground attack issue, these would have been solved.

Another problem : A long time ago I sent in a file with a LCU display error that almost everyone encounters from time to time, particularly when you are moving along a road to another base. This problem was not addressed either.

Bottom Line : I think some things were "fixed" in the last two patches that were not essential to the game. I want to keep attention focussed on the essential, critical issues. If that's harsh or whining to you, sorry.

A funny (to me) story : Some of you might know about ww2Online. If so, you might recognize my handle. ; ) So, with all of the problems in that game, one of the things CRS spent time on was a "spiffy death cam". Whoop. After they made the "spiffy death cam", people complained that this game TMI to the enemy! Work the real problems, peeps.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 28

- 7/5/2002 3:28:41 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
[B]Hi

Must point out though that DGAAD is coming with more constructive complaints but this could have been posted in a thread for improvements in the bug forum.
Dan [/B][/QUOTE]

Probably so, U2, prolly so. I debated whether to go there or here. The only thing I can say is that I've been playing a PBEM game where all of these issues are now critical to my strategy and hurting me but not hurting my opponent, and I've been patiently waiting for a patch on at least a couple of these issues for two weeks now and nothing. So, I'm a little frustrated, as I'm sure others are, and went into sheit-disturber mode.

[I] edit note : besides, I figured they'd move it ;) [/I]

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 29

- 7/5/2002 3:32:44 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

Hi

I understand your frustration DGAAD. I think the both of us are however confident that the BIG issues will be fixed. I think we must be a little patient. BUT as I said you come with constructive complaints and thats good.
Dan

_____________________________

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 30