Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Updated Patch v1.20 Items

 
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 >> Updated Patch v1.20 Items Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Updated Patch v1.20 Items - 7/24/2002 6:13:32 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
The release of the patch is imminent, either tonight or tomorrow. The list of fixes has been frozen and final testing has been completed. I'm pleased to see UV maturing before my eyes with new features, bug fixes and interface enhancements. Lots of work continues to go into UV every day from both 2 by 3 and Matrix. With that in mind, I want to post here the list from the upcoming patch readme and also discuss the plans for the next patch.

We originally planned for this to be focused on the rare but extant crash bugs that still plague a few players. Unfortunately, as we were working on isolating and fixing those bugs, several issues arose relating to PBEM cheating. This, to us, is a major priority because it potentially affects all players and can ruin the best part of UV, playing it against another wargamer.

Diverting to address the PBEM problems created somewhat of a "parallel" patch to the originally planned one. As you'll see in the list below, it is as hefty as any of the previous patches. However, many more things were addressed that affected play balance than we originally expected. With that said, I want to assure the folks who may still have issues they feel are more important than what was addressed here that we remain on the job.

The high priority list for the next patch consists almost exclusively of the rare lockup / CTDs that have been reported by a few players. In fact, as this patch is released, work continues to bring the next patch out as quickly as is feasible.

And so, without further ado...

Matrix Games - 07/23/2002
Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved

= Patch Items for Uncommon Valor version 1.20 =

1) Air groups attacking at 100 feet should now say so in the combat reports.

2) Air flights attacking at 100 feet are being allowed to climb away from target to 1000 feet before receiving post attack anti-aircraft fire. Fixed. They should now receive anti-aircraft fire at 100 feet, after attack.

3) 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.

4) Combat air patrol aircraft should now take less disruption, when attacking bombers, which will allow for greater effect.

5) The bombing formulas have been rewritten. Level bombers attacking at very low altitude should no longer bomb quite so accurately.

6) Low flying level bombers using torpedoes should now take less disruption from anti-aircraft attacks than level bombers using bombs, as the release point is more distant.

7) Level bombers flying at low level with low morale now bomb with less accuracy.

8) If after a low level bombing mission by level bombers, more than one half the planes of the group have been damaged, the group now suffers reduced morale until altitude is set above low level for future missions or ready planes exceed damaged planes.

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

10) Less experienced level bomber crews, who are severely disrupted and receiving anti-aircraft fire, will now sometimes release bomb load early.

11) 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 is now sharply attenuated.

12) Level bombers may no longer achieve multiple bomb hits against naval vessels. The number of bombs in the string does still increase the chance of hitting.

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

14) Non-combat troop formations now appear on the land combat resolution screen.

15) Land combat calculations have been adjusted to allow non-combat troops greater ability to engage combat troops.

16) Non-combat troops should no longer automatically surrender or commit suicide, when the base in which they are located is captured.

17) The percentage progress in building airfields, ports and fortifications are now displayed on the base screen.

18) Spotting chance at medium range for naval search missions has been increased. This may help level bombers find and attack Tokyo Express task forces more often.

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

20) 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.

21) 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.

22) 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.

23) 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.

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

25) 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.

26) Submarines are sometimes firing torpedoes at barges and PT boats. Fixed. They should no longer so do.

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

28) 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.

29) 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.

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

31) 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.

32) 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

33) 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 amongst the PT boats.

34) Japanese Auto-Victory conditions are as follows (clarification for v1.10 and later):

a. On or after the January 1, 1943 turn, the game ends and Japan wins if it holds either Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville, Noumea or Luganville with double the supplies needed for that base.
b. In addition, in scenarios 1-14 only, on or after the January 1, 1943 turn, if the Japanese player holds Gili Gili and Lunga and the Allied player does not own an airfield of size 4 or greater north of row 46 (Y-coordinate) except Port Moresby, the game ends and the Japanese player wins.

= OOB Changes for Uncommon Valor version 1.20 =

1) Added missing leadership values for Leaders F. Chapman (991) and W. Hearth (998).

2) On P-61A Black Widow, corrected location of four 20mm cannon to front facing (00), location of four 0.50 Browning MG to top turret facing (03).

3) Corrected spelling of “Matsukaze”.

4) Added 431st FS (690), 432nd FS (691), and 433rd FS (692) of 475th FG along with historical leaders.

5) Added 342nd FS (689) of 348th FG and adjusted arrival dates of 340th FS (741) and 341st FS (742) to 24 Jun 43. Added historical ace pilots to 342nd FS.

6) Corrected air unit 750 from No. 9 Sqn RAAF to No. 9 Sqn RNZAF.

7) Renamed Boomerang II to Boomerang. Aircraft in game covers both Mk.I and Mk.II versions of the Boomerang.

8) Added FLT W. Newton (1572) to No. 22 Sqn RAAF.

9) Corrected typos and text layout errors in the scenario descriptions.

10) Relocated submarine TFs 212 and 214 in scenarios 7 and 14 to prevent erroneous “Seaview” submarine flights over the Owen Stanleys.

11) Increased daytime and nighttime experience of all subchaser class ships (1551 – 1598) by 5%.

12) Added 9 USMC squads to each Marine Defense Battalion (1038 – 1042) and 9 ANZAC squads to the 1st NZ Def Bn (1036).

13) Adjusted weapon allotment of USN DD’s (Thanks Ron!).

14) Adjusted penetration of 5.5in/50 3YT Gun and 5.5in/40 QF Gun from 50 to 60.

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.
Post #: 1
Re: Updated Patch v1.20 Items - 7/24/2002 7:07:06 AM   
rhohltjr


Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]...

We originally planned for this to be focused on the rare but extant crash bugs that still plague a few players. Unfortunately, as we were working on isolating and fixing those bugs,

....
- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

As one of the few players with still plagued by consistant CTDs I thank everyone involved for your efforts and will do anything to assist you. Just ask. The patch sounds like another brilliant gem. Thanks.:D

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 2
- 7/24/2002 11:05:53 AM   
FirstPappy


Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline
I would also like to have #22 explained a little better. I posted an episode where a US sub actually surfaced against a TF of transports, 4DDs and a CL in order to finish off a previously crippled transport with its deck gun. BTW, it accomplished the mission with no return fire from any ships in the TF. If this was the intent of the 2nd part of #22 then it should be for both US and Jap subs.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 3
- 7/24/2002 5:49:41 PM   
Learmont

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Fayetteville, Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I was having real problems with crashes on my Dell unit with nvidia card and Windows ME. Upgraded to Windows XP Home and have not crashed since. Had to load all new drivers for XP. Rumor is that MS has abandoned ME and may even be willing to issue free XP updates. Good luck. I remember haw many crashes were in ME. That seems to be the main problem.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
Re: Updated Patch v1.20 Items - 7/24/2002 8:38:56 AM   
worr

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]4) Added 431st FS (690), 432nd FS (691), and 433rd FS (692) of 475th FG along with historical leaders. [/B][/QUOTE]

Three squadrons of P-38s. and some of the most skilled pilots of the PTO...McGuire topping the list. :)

Looking forward to this patch!

Worr, out

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 5
Re: Looking Fantastic! - 7/24/2002 6:52:03 AM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin
[B]
I particularly like that one.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah I know what you mean. Playing with this function while testing the patch was great!:) Its really gonna help, trust me. It instantly became my little favourite.

As Erik mentioned it has been great seeing UV taking a new and improved direction. Its feels strange to say that since I've been enjoying this game so much from the start. A great game is even greater if I may say so myself.

Thanks to Joel Billings for your thanks in the B-17 thread

Thanks to Erik for you support during my horrible first day when I bugged you with bug reports;) For sure after the first day as well.

Thanks to the testing crew for your hard work. Proud to be a member of the testing team.

Dan The Thank You Man

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 6
Looking Fantastic! - 7/24/2002 6:41:50 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]17) The percentage progress in building airfields, ports and fortifications are now displayed on the base screen. [/QUOTE]
I particularly like that one.

Lessee... I just got a new job and don't have much time to play anymore, are ya'll trying to get me fired? ;) :D

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 7
Re: Updated Patch v1.20 Items - 7/24/2002 9:16:06 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]22) 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.

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

Could you elaberate on that one a little, please? Was it a change to a formula or was it an increase in the weapons the ships carry or something else? If it was a formula change, does it involve ALL anti-sub actions or only those done by the US against the Japanese? I would assume that the Japanese would have just as much problems with US subs late in the war as the US is having with Japanese subs at the start of the war.

Everything else looks great.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 8
- 7/24/2002 9:16:22 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]...nothing in Real Life that prevented it

Nothing physically or training wise, no, but operationally and command wise, yes.

The Corsair was doctrinally NOT ALLOWED to operate from carriers until the Navy cleared it late in 1944.

The Marine Squadrons were land based, and also did not operate from carriers until Navy doctrine aloowed it late in 44.

It is perhaps something to be ocnsidered like optional Jap Sub Doctrine. [/B][/QUOTE]OK, but in this war, I AM[/B] the Theatre Commander, and I have directed my MAG VMF units to fly from carriers when necessary.:)

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 9
- 7/24/2002 8:10:11 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]Will Marine Squadrons be prohibited from conducting Carrier Combat OPs in the future patch? [/B][/QUOTE]

Why ? I assume their airplanes were "carrier-compliant" so it is only a question of carrier operation training for pilots ... and it what the Long Island is for :)

Spooky

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 10
- 7/24/2002 8:37:10 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]They were equipped for it, but the Navy did not operate them from Carriers for combat missions until well into 1944.

Specifically, F4Us did not operate from Carriers until Nov 1944 in the USN.

Now, I might buy Marine Wildcats operating from carriers, for at Henderson, it might be Marine pilots operating a Navy Wildcat, or vis versa, from mission to mission.

But to be historically accurate, Marine Squadrons should not be permitted anymore carrier time than transfer missions.

I am sure some of the Zero squadrons never operated from carriers, but the data on that is hard to come by. Also, one reasonsome of them did operate from bases exclusively was because they had no Carriers to operate from. But many of them had specific land based roles to support the Bettys and Nells at forward bases.

So perhaps it is a balance issue, since we cannot readily determine which IJN fighter squadrons did not operate from carriers, so they have to leave Marines available to operate from carriers.

When I play the USN, I find it tempting to remove the F4F squadrons from the Carriers and put Marine Corsairs on board. It is a devestating fighter. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, it is a good strategy :) I think it should rather be a "house rule" in PBEM game not to put Corsairs in CV ... but it should not be prevented in the game since there is nothing in Real Life that prevented it ...

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 11
- 7/24/2002 9:01:58 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline
Yep - good idea : "an historical USMC planes doctine" that we can toggle on or off ...

I really like that idea :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 12
Japanese Luganville? - 7/24/2002 2:27:39 PM   
msaario

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Back in E U R O P A
Status: offline
How about the bug which auto-creates a task force in Luganville if the Japan controls the base with ships in port and sends the TF to Noumea?

--Mikko

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 13
- 7/24/2002 8:02:10 PM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline
Will Marine Squadrons be prohibited from conducting Carrier Combat OPs in the future patch?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 14
- 7/24/2002 8:27:16 PM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline
They were equipped for it, but the Navy did not operate them from Carriers for combat missions until well into 1944.

Specifically, F4Us did not operate from Carriers until Nov 1944 in the USN.

Now, I might buy Marine Wildcats operating from carriers, for at Henderson, it might be Marine pilots operating a Navy Wildcat, or vis versa, from mission to mission.

But to be historically accurate, Marine Squadrons should not be permitted anymore carrier time than transfer missions.

I am sure some of the Zero squadrons never operated from carriers, but the data on that is hard to come by. Also, one reasonsome of them did operate from bases exclusively was because they had no Carriers to operate from. But many of them had specific land based roles to support the Bettys and Nells at forward bases.

So perhaps it is a balance issue, since we cannot readily determine which IJN fighter squadrons did not operate from carriers, so they have to leave Marines available to operate from carriers.

When I play the USN, I find it tempting to remove the F4F squadrons from the Carriers and put Marine Corsairs on board. It is a devestating fighter.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 15
- 7/24/2002 8:45:18 PM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline
...nothing in Real Life that prevented it

Nothing physically or training wise, no, but operationally and command wise, yes.

The Corsair was doctrinally NOT ALLOWED to operate from carriers until the Navy cleared it late in 1944.

The Marine Squadrons were land based, and also did not operate from carriers until Navy doctrine aloowed it late in 44.

It is perhaps something to be ocnsidered like optional Jap Sub Doctrine.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 16
- 7/24/2002 9:01:38 PM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Learmont
[B]I was having real problems with crashes on my Dell unit with nvidia card and Windows ME. [/B][/QUOTE]

For what it's worth, I'm running UV on Windows ME with a Matrox G400 MAX video card. The game has not crashed once for me.

- David

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 17
You're relieved of duty. - 7/24/2002 11:39:36 PM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
[B]OK, but in this war, I AM[/B] the Theatre Commander, and I have directed my MAG VMF units to fly from carriers when necessary.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm sorry to inform you Admiral, but the CNO has relieved you of duty for disregarding his specific instructions not to fly Corsairs from carriers until proper testing has been completed. You have been dropped a few pay grades and are instructed to report to your new position at the Pentagon as assistant to Lt. Cdr. Simmons, CO of the facilities maintenance crew there. I believe he has some light bulbs for you to change...

:)
kp

_____________________________

The Earth is but a hollow nougat, reverberating with the sounds of the big bands... :cool:

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 18
- 7/25/2002 12:42:39 AM   
HARD_SARGE

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline
Hi Gang

the CNO has relieved you of duty for disregarding his specific instructions not to fly Corsairs from carriers until proper testing has been completed

it had nothing to do with testing, it was changed once a need was seen for the plane to be a Carrier plane, as Great as the Hellcat was, it was not fast or a very rapid climber, and when the Kamizes started to show up , the need for a faster plane was seen and addressed

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 19
PBEM games? - 7/25/2002 12:57:46 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
If I update when the latest patch comes out will all of the new features work in my current PBEM game or will I have to restart?

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 20
- 7/25/2002 1:36:53 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline
I don't really think the main issue is whether a Corsair could, should, would fly off a carrier in 1943. The issue is whether or not aviators who are not carrier qualified could operate from a carrier, regardless of their flying capabilities otherwise. The answer is an unequivocal NO WAY. Many hours of additional training on land runways and many hours of classroom instruction are and were required for this. The Navy used auxiliary fields to simulate carrier decks. I don't know for a fact, but I doubt that these facilities existing anywhere closer than the West Coast.

Air groups should be identified as carrier qualified or not. Perhaps, if you chose to take them out of service for, say 90 days, send them to Pearl of additional training, they could then be deck qualified. Perhaps an idea for WitP, not UV.

We should also point out the Corsair than eventually made it to carrier decks was a greatly improved version. With some theoretical validity, the Navy always considered the Corsair rather risky for carrier operation, although I think the actual event proved the Corsair to be just as amenable to carrier operation as the Hellcat. The Kamikazi forced the navy to assume what it considered a higher risk to get a fighter with higher speed and rate of climb than the Hellcat. However, you can be **** sure that these people were deck qualified.

There was a cultural difference between these aircraft. As a kid growing up in a Navy town immediately after the war, we idolized the "airdails" (or brownshoes). The Corsair was called (always) the Marine Corsair. That was its name, period. After the war, the standard fleet fighter was not the Corsair, it was the Bearcat. The Corsair was really considered a fighter-bomber, a light attack aircraft.

Paul

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 21
- 7/25/2002 3:57:47 AM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
So: Is it coming out? The patch I mean.
Arf Arf Arf
Anxiously waiting
:p

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 22
Re: Re: Updated Patch v1.20 Items - 7/25/2002 4:37:17 AM   
Mike Wood


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

Allow me to explain. There is a routine that decides if the artificial intelligence will decide to make a submerged or surface attack with a submarine, if it encounters an enemy task force. Under the assumption that U.S. trained transport and cargo ship gun crews were a little better trained than Japanese counter parts, the chance of making a submerged attack was increased by five percent due to the threat of those gun crews when the historical submarine option is chosen and applies to cargo and transport task forces. It might seem like a small detail, but the game is filled with such little considerations.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]

Could you elaberate on that one a little, please? Was it a change to a formula or was it an increase in the weapons the ships carry or something else? If it was a formula change, does it involve ALL anti-sub actions or only those done by the US against the Japanese? I would assume that the Japanese would have just as much problems with US subs late in the war as the US is having with Japanese subs at the start of the war.

Everything else looks great.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 23
PBEM Continuity... - 7/25/2002 4:39:14 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Existing PBEM games will work fine with the new patch and most of the new changes to the game system, but will not have all the OOB improvements.

In addition, some crashes turned out to be because of OOB glitches, so if you have experienced any instability we ask that you start a new game under v1.20 to confirm whether or not you are still experiencing crashes or other instability issues.

The patch will be released tonight. It's finished, but we need to test the final installer and auto update package. Hang in there...

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 Erik Rutins)
Post #: 24
Re: Japanese Luganville? - 7/25/2002 4:40:49 AM   
Mike Wood


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

One of the top four on our list. Should be addressed in the very next patch.

Good Luck...

Michael Wood
___________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by msaario
[B]How about the bug which auto-creates a task force in Luganville if the Japan controls the base with ships in port and sends the TF to Noumea?

--Mikko [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 25
Movement restrictions at 27,32 - 7/25/2002 5:55:42 AM   
Bernd Hesberg

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 10/11/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
It's some time ago that this bug has been mentioned, and I don't see it on the list of updates for v1.20 .
I just would like to know if it will be addressed in the next patch. It would certainly relieve us of a lot of micro-management when navigating in that area.
I don't want to be ambiguous. I'm talking about the 'option' of sailing right through the djungle of Bougainville. :)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 26
Re: Movement restrictions at 27,32 - 7/25/2002 6:44:34 AM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernd Hesberg
[B]It's some time ago that this bug has been mentioned, and I don't see it on the list of updates for v1.20 .
I just would like to know if it will be addressed in the next patch. It would certainly relieve us of a lot of micro-management when navigating in that area.
I don't want to be ambiguous. I'm talking about the 'option' of sailing right through the djungle of Bougainville. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes. that is a water hexside that should be a land hexside. The hexside between Vila and Munda is a land hexside that should be a water hexside. I've had Japanese troops retreat across the 25 miles of water there.

kp

_____________________________

The Earth is but a hollow nougat, reverberating with the sounds of the big bands... :cool:

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 27
- 7/25/2002 7:18:25 AM   
daniel123

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline
at present if you tell a lbu to march to the next hex and a enemy unit comes into the hex the lbu is presently in the march movement is reset to zero. is this the way it's supose to be or will a patch set it so that if the enemy unit is pushed out of the current hex is will resume it's march at the last movement number?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 28
- 7/25/2002 7:37:10 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
I'm pretty sure that Gary intended that Vila and Munda be connected by land as it was close enough that very small craft often moved troops between these two areas. I assumed the passage was not wide/deep enough and that's why Gary didn't end up allowing both naval and land movement. As for the other hex that should not be water, you're right, and hopefully we will get that fixed in the next patch.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 29
- 7/25/2002 7:47:32 AM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by daniel123
[B]at present if you tell a lbu to march to the next hex and a enemy unit comes into the hex the lbu is presently in the march movement is reset to zero. is this the way it's supose to be or will a patch set it so that if the enemy unit is pushed out of the current hex is will resume it's march at the last movement number? [/B][/QUOTE]

It should be storing its destination and distance to it, of course. Otherwise, the unit is teleported the 28 miles it just marched back to the starting point. But I think that it is part of the abstraction of land combat, and I doubt they are going to fix it, although I'd like them to, also. But if you think about it, what really happens in the situation that you just brought up?

Both units start 30 miles apart. Both units begin marching toward the other's base. Let's say one leaves a day earlier than the other, as happened in one case to me. My troops had marched 28 miles toward the opponents base, and his troops had marched 30 miles toward mine, when suddenly they met each other in my hex and started fighting. Both units march directly toward each other on the same 30 mile trail, and yet marched a combined 58 miles until they met. I just think this bug's going to be too hard to fix easily, and will end up written off as an abstraction for the game system. They'd have to have a mini-hex system to keep account of sub-hex moves.

I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see what they say...

kp

_____________________________

The Earth is but a hollow nougat, reverberating with the sounds of the big bands... :cool:

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Updated Patch v1.20 Items 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

3.344