Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Whats Coming Very Soon in Patch v1.20

 
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 >> Whats Coming Very Soon in Patch v1.20 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Whats Coming Very Soon in Patch v1.20 - 7/16/2002 4:16:06 AM   
David Heath


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

Here what you can expect very soon ( next 24-72 hours ) This patch is being released before we had a chance to address all the issues we had hope to. The main reason for this is because we wanted to address the PBEM Cheats so gamers can have faith in there PBEM games.

There are also major updates to our Naval Units thanks to Ron and Rich. This patch should not effect your current PBEM games but as always please back your games up.



1. Very large bombers now take longer to repair, after being damaged.

2. Level bomber groups that fly low level missions (under 5000 feet) now a morale hit after the mission.

3. Level bombers flying low level missions now have reduced accuracy, if anti-aircraft is very heavy or there is a lot of CAP.

4. Allied level bombers, such as the B-17, B-25 and B-26 are gaining full benefit from the Norden bombsite at low altitudes. Fixed. At altitudes less than 6000 feet, the targeting bonus from the Norden are now sharply attenuated.

5. Spotting chances at long ranges for naval search missions has been increased. This may help level bombers attack Tokyo express task forces more often.

6. Skip bombing does not work as the manual describes. Fixed. Skip bombing by Allied level bombers with altitude set to 100 feet should now occur with experienced pilots.

7. There is now notification, via a message on the combat screen, for flights that attempt to skip bomb.

8. A security breach which allowed player two to see turn resolution early has been corrected.


9. A player may select to load a land based unit into a transport take force, cancel loading or choose to unload the unit repeatedly within one turn and load the entire unit, which might normally take two or three turns because the loading routine leaves 100 operation points for loading supplies. This is undesirable. Fixed. It is no longer possible to do this.

10. Left clicking on a friendly land based unit within a hex that contains more than one friendly unit, but no base, causes a pop-out to appear in which the player should select the desired unit and sometimes contains units not in that hex. Fixed. Clicking in this fashion now selects the first unit in the hex.

11. Allied anti-submarine warfare capabilities need enhancement. Fixed. Allied anti-submarine vessels should now perform better. Other Allied ships, such as transports, should now have a better chance of forcing Japanese submarines to attack while submerged by use of the deck gun.

12. The computer opponent does not garrison important bases, such as Truk and Cairns adequately. Fixed. New routines now insure that important bases have adequate combat troops.

13. Some players feel that lopsided battles between large and small task forces allow the smaller force to fire too many times. Fixed. The routines that determine order and quantity of fire have been rewritten.

14. The units load cost needs to be added to the unit data screen. Done.

15. Pilots are not being properly transferred to the new base, when there are two or more of the same aircraft at the source base and some planes are damage. Fixed. Should work, now.

16. Submarines are sometimes firing torpedoes at barges and PT boats. Fixed. They should not longer so do.

17. The list all ships list-box should now reload more quickly after the player selects a ships from within, to view.

18. In the naval combat screen, ships that have not been spotted well enough to target no longer have the name of the ship printed. Once they have been identified well enough to be targeted, the name appears. Ships which have no name printed may be hidden in fog or rain, too far away to be seen, behind another ship, behind smoke generated by destroyers or burning ships or for some other reason not engaged in combat. Note that a ship may sometimes fire and still not be spotted.

19. Increased maximum daytime naval combat range from 17,000 yards to 25000 yards.

20. Ships arriving in theater at a captured base are doing so under enemy command. Fixed. Ships due to arrive in Truk should no longer arrive, if Truk is captured. Ships arriving in Brisbane or Noumea should arrive in the other location if the assigned location is captured. If both are captured, the ships should not arrive.

21. The player is now notified by a text message on the lower left of the screen, when ships arrive in theatre, if playing against the computer or when the computer plays against itself

22. Ships mixed in with PT boats are starting combat at closer range than they should. Fixed. Large ships can no longer sneak up on an enemy fleet by hiding amonst the PT boats.
Post #: 1
- 7/16/2002 4:21:12 AM   
Huskalator

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Thanks for the heads up, I'll be waiting patiently as always.

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 2
- 7/16/2002 4:23:00 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
Excellent.

Now maybe I'll play the game more and post about B17s less.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 3
- 7/16/2002 4:29:24 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
excellent!

:)

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 4
- 7/16/2002 4:41:18 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
Looks very promising, especially regarding the level bomber issues. And here I just reinstalled UV last night in hopes of a patch coming sometime in the next few weeks ... what fortuitous timing! I can hardly wait ... thanks Matrix & 2x3!

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 5
- 7/16/2002 5:32:56 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
**** you guys react fast! Is this a good gaming company or what?

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 6
- 7/16/2002 5:36:36 AM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline
Hi

Fantastic service as always from Matrix. This patch sounds really good just like before.
Dan

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 7
Sounds GrrrrrEAT! - 7/16/2002 9:38:26 AM   
WW2'er

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 4/20/2000
From: East Dundee, IL, USA
Status: offline
Wow! I was expecting the next patch to deal pretty much with any remaining crash bugs, not all the "tweaks" listed.

Looking forward to it. Way to go Matrix!!!

_____________________________

WW2'er

"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." — Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 8
1.20 - 7/16/2002 10:28:13 AM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
Sweet!

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 9
- 7/16/2002 3:08:09 PM   
Maniac

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Clovis California
Status: offline
SWEET!!! WTG matrix!!! I am really looking forward to this patch...it seems like it will make the game even more enjoyable now....if that is even possible :D

_____________________________

****FUTURE 4 STAR****

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 10
- 7/16/2002 3:54:58 PM   
Pkunzipper


Posts: 237
Joined: 5/21/2002
Status: offline
GREAT NEWS!!! :)

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 11
- 7/16/2002 4:28:52 PM   
corbulo

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: rigel 5
Status: offline
I think #2 is a mistake(i play the IJN so I am not feathering my own nest). Morale should be directly related to damage inflicted versus losses suffered. After Bismark Sea morale sky-rocketed among 43rd BG because they had wrecked a IJN convoy.
I do defer to 2X3, I believe they know more about Pacific War than I do, and also about the game mechanics.

_____________________________

virtute omne regatur

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 12
- 7/16/2002 7:12:27 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
Have to agree that #2 does not seem right. Without suffering damage or being harrassed by CAP there is no reason to have low morale just by flying lower than 6000 feet.:)

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 13
- 7/16/2002 7:27:03 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
Perhaps a fatigue hit would be more appropriate? Although if I were ordered to fly low through flak my morale would probably go down whether my plane was damaged or not.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 14
- 7/16/2002 7:28:51 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]Have to agree that #2 does not seem right. Without suffering damage or being harrassed by CAP there is no reason to have low morale just by flying lower than 6000 feet.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi

This strikes me as very strange when I read it again. If its a mission that results in sinking ships and without heavy losses why should their morale drop? Does not make sense at all. I agree with you Sonny.
Dan

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 15
agree with corbulo, Sonny, and elmo3 - 7/16/2002 8:02:34 PM   
11Bravo


Posts: 2082
Joined: 4/5/2001
Status: offline
Yes that sounds better.

Morale should be strongly related to enemy losses/friendly losses, and maybe weakly related to amount of flak, CAP, or very low altitude.

Fatigue should be a strong function of low altitude, flak and CAP.

Can't wait for the patch! Great job as always Matrix team!:cool:

All that, and the longer repair times would make the use of low level bombing much more selective, while preserving some of its punch.

_____________________________

Squatting in the bush and marking it on a map.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 16
Bravo! - 7/16/2002 10:20:48 PM   
mariovalleemtl


Posts: 360
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline
Great! ;)

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 17
- 7/16/2002 11:00:51 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

Below 6000 feet is not low level. Low level is 1000 to 2000 feet or so, depending on weather conditions, time of day and terrain. A mission across the Stanely owens range at tree top level at night might affect morale, or a skip bombing mission against a large surface combat task force. Stategic bomber crews were not generally trained a lot in low level flying. There are several factors involved in what a low level mission is considered to be. This new rule, along with the Norden bombsite correction, decreased accuracy when flying low level mission against resistant targets and increased repair time for large aircraft rules were the result of a number of lengthy conversations between myself, Gary, and Joel concerning the level bomber effectiveness issue that was raised on this forum. We chose, out of hand, not to increase the antiaircraft effectiveness. The numbers were correct. Based upon the question, "Why didn't the Allies sink the entire Japanese combat fleet in mid-forty-two to late fourty-three with B-17 and B-24 bombers?", we tried to include new, realistic factors that actually limited these aircraft. The decision to reduce morale for low level bombing missions by level bombers came from the general lack of training, the increased stress involved from flying into harms way at 1000 feet instead of 25,000 feet, minor damage to crews and aircraft that would not count as damage aircraft, but would affect group readiness and the increased time required to plan such a mission.

Hope You all like our changes...

Michael Wood
_________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]Have to agree that #2 does not seem right. Without suffering damage or being harrassed by CAP there is no reason to have low morale just by flying lower than 6000 feet.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 18
- 7/16/2002 11:10:01 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline
Hi

Thanks for making that clear to us Mike. Just by reading #2 it does not make sense but when you tell us the reason why it seems like you have done the right thing. It sure will change the way I and others will play the game. Interesting.....
Dan

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 19
- 7/16/2002 11:38:01 PM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline
Oh yes, this low level hvy bomber change will go a long way to solve a problem endemic to all wargaming: The desire to fight to the last man of every unit.

And what a complex, but elegant solution being provided. They could of just thrown in a 'fudge' factor, but no, they actually had to modify a few things based on logic and historical data, and make a solution founded in logic and not 'fudge'.

How very nice of you!

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 20
hip-horray - 7/16/2002 11:47:10 PM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
Mr. Wood,

Your comments are like mana from heaven. It is yet another tribute to the quality of the design team that they understood and corrected the problems brought out by me and others who insisted the big bombers didn't win the war by themselves. The patch looks fantastic, thanks VERY MUCH! I can play UV again. :D

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 21
- 7/16/2002 11:54:16 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
UV U Beauty!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 22
Re: hip-horray - 7/16/2002 11:55:36 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B]Mr. Wood,

Your comments are like mana from heaven. It is yet another tribute to the quality of the design team that they understood and corrected the problems brought out by me and others who insisted the big bombers didn't win the war by themselves. The patch looks fantastic, thanks VERY MUCH! I can play UV again. :D [/B][/QUOTE]


Great to have you back BRISD!:)
Dan

_____________________________


(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 23
- 7/17/2002 12:18:37 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
Good news.
I do wonder about the full scope of #2 even after. At least high damage inflicted should be allowed to offset the morale hit to some degree and I wonder whether the impact shouldn't be partly greater fatigue.
The comment on penetration by 500 and 1000 lb. bombs (by Chiteng?) on another thread needs to be considered. I don't understand how to judge your penetration modeling from your tables. The damage to the Mikuma and Mogami at Midway where the whole top of the Mikuma, including the turrent was destroyed (and the ship abandoned) and a turrent on the Mogami was knocked out suggests that these bombs ought to be fairly effective against CA's and below, but the results at Leyte Gulf suggests to me that the effectiveness against BB's should be limited, certainly no more effective than 8" shells from crusiers.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 24
- 7/17/2002 1:11:51 AM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline
Wpurdom actually brought up a very good point. Fatigue on low level missions is much more of a problem than morale, especially on night missions. The definition of low level too depends on the aircraft you are flying...a B17 used to flying at 20k might consider anything under 5k as low level where as a corsair pilot used to performing ground attack missions might consider anything below 100 feet as low level. So a bomber crew say flying on a night bombing mission at 2000 feet is going to accumulate a lot of fatigue where as the corsair pilot is doing barrel rolls at that altitude to keep from getting bored. But put that corsair guy down on the treetops at night with no night vision goggles as we use today...that's scary as hell! It's bad enough in the day time with guys are shooting at you.

As for morale..if the mission was a big success..usually morale will climb (for the short term)..unless of course nearly everyone gets shot down. But hi stress missions after 3-4 days, no matter how successful, will see non combat losses increase and morale decline.

So basically a bomber crew flying low level will accumulate fatigue faster than the dedicated ground attack crews and both will suffer operational losses once fatigue reaches a certain level which then results in lower morale. It's one thing to lose a crew or two due to combat...that's expected...but there is nothing that will cause pilots to lose morale (or get ticked at the chain of command) worse than seeing their buddies get smoked from accidents due to non combat losses. Remember it's not just the pilots that are worn out making mistakes...the ground crews work 4 or more hours for every flight hour and as they get fatigued...maintenance gets cut short causing even more problems.

One last thing...just so anyone interested knows...fatigue accumaltes 8 times faster at night than it does in the day for the same type mission.

Andy

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 25
- 7/17/2002 2:02:01 AM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
[B]Hello...

snip...The decision to reduce morale for low level bombing missions by level bombers came from the general lack of training, the increased stress involved from flying into harms way at 1000 feet instead of 25,000 feet, minor damage to crews and aircraft that would not count as damage aircraft, but would affect group readiness and the increased time required to plan such a mission.

Hope You all like our changes...

Michael Wood
_________________________________________________

[/B][/QUOTE]

FWIW that sounds fine to me. Whether it's fatigue or morale is not a big deal as long as there is some reflection of the added stress for flying those low alt missions.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 26
- 7/17/2002 3:41:57 AM   
worr

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline
Outstanding!

Looking forward to it.

Matrix gives great support!

Worr, out

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 27
- 7/17/2002 5:37:16 AM   
Wasp

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 4/27/2002
Status: offline
This patch sounds great! Can't wait for it to come out. I think that Matrix has done a wonderful job of fixing bugs, adding new features, and taking imput from gamers like us. Thank you Matrix. Does Matrix plan to release a editor (one that edits aircraft attributes, ship classes, allows for adding ships, production rates?) Just wondering if that could possibly happen, because some people have shown interest in a editor (including me:D ).

Another question: This one is about aircraft armaments. I thought that at on some occasions, (at short ranges) a TBF/TBM and several other aircraft could be loaded with a 2000lb bomb or a torpedo. I thought the Japanese had 500kg and 800kg bombs which could be loaded on a LBA, or carrier aircraft. (D3A at short ranges, B5N, D4A, & B6N). The 800kg bomb was specificially designed to penetrate a battleship's deck, and explode below decks. Perhaps the additions of these bombs, 2000lb, 800kg & 500kg bombs would make it so that some battleships such as the NorthCarolina, Yamato, South Dakota, etc are not bomb proof as it is in the game. Other than that, the game is great, and I am looking forward to the release of WITP in the near future.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 28
- 7/18/2002 12:15:46 AM   
zed

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline
Hurry up with that patch, I would like to be able to use my IJN carriers again in the Solomon Sea/Coral Sea. As it is, I am losing DDs and APs to B-17es in Huon Gulf.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 29
Troop Loading/Unloading - 7/18/2002 2:28:15 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
The patch sounds good, but need the ability to load just troops on transports, it's impossible to rotate troops because the transports take the supplies too. The fast transport option is too limited because of the low capacity of APD's.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Whats Coming Very Soon in Patch v1.20 Page: [1] 2 3   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

3.141