Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/25/2002 9:53:40 AM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

[QUOTE] 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...[/QUOTE]
Not a big difference between this and the fact that when units are forced to retreat, they (in that turn) move the entire 30 miles to a nearby hex. That's quite a bit faster than normal travel (of course they're running then :p).

Trying to correct something like that would be, I quite agree, quite a major programming addition.

I think that it's a just a part of the overall abstraction. Because, for example, you are able to attack any enemy unit in the same hex and it doesn't matter whether they are in the vicinity of your base or 10 miles away. Now, when they move [I]into[/I] your hex, you only see them when they arrive in the vicinity of your base, but when they [I]leave[/I] your hex, you see them (and can attack them) during the whole 30 mile trip. (This is only my belief, since the only units that I attacked while they were voluntarily withdrawing were only about 2 days out from the base when I did. They retreated the entire way to the adjoining hex as a result the next turn. [SIZE=1][Note: This information is derived from comments about the withdrawal from my PBEM opponent.][/SIZE])

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 31

- 7/25/2002 10:01:08 AM

rdcotton

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Status: offline

OK guys ... I thought this was fixed but apparently not. I'm
playing the US early in the campaign. I've sent just about
everything I can out of Noumea to battle the submarine
threat. SC's DD's et al. I watch about 2 or 3 ships go down
on any given turn and almost NEVER even get a hit on an
IJN sub. I can practically walk to Brisbane on the shattered
hulks of the USN.

Historical? I'm not sure. Your thoughts ????

Ray

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 32

Is this 1.20? - 7/25/2002 10:14:01 AM

1089

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rdcotton
[B]OK guys ... I thought this was fixed but apparently not. I'm
playing the US early in the campaign. I've sent just about
everything I can out of Noumea to battle the submarine
threat. SC's DD's et al. I watch about 2 or 3 ships go down
on any given turn and almost NEVER even get a hit on an
IJN sub. I can practically walk to Brisbane on the shattered
hulks of the USN.

Historical? I'm not sure. Your thoughts ????

Ray [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you playing with 1.20? If so, I believe they said that SCs are still pretty much worthless until you shakedown cruise for a couple months, but the DDs are supposed to do better. If not, it's available.

kp

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 33

- 7/25/2002 10:18:05 AM

rdcotton

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Status: offline

Yeah ... I just downloaded 1.2 today ... it's probably
the shake down cruise ... thanks for the reply.

Ray

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 34

Thoughts... - 7/25/2002 10:34:31 AM

Erik Rutins

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

Rd,

While 1.2 does not have a magic wand that will sink subs, it does enhance ASW capabilities for the Allies. I had no trouble in testing sinking quite a few Japanese submarines for relatively little loss.

Don't send SCs/PGs after them until those ships have been on shakedown cruises for a month or two. Get their experience up, then they'll be much more useful. The experience boost they received should shorten the time necessary to train them up.

Use only DDs early on in the campaign and make sure you start with v1.2 if you want to received the full OOB updates that the Allied DDs received. If you are going to form an ASW TF, use only the DDs with at least two different depth charge mounts (for example a Mk 6 x 4 and a Mk 7 x2 or what have you) as they will have an even better chance at bagging a sub once it attacks.

Set air squadrons with good range and low cruise speed on ASW 100% at 1000 feet and start hunting the subs they spot with TFs of ASW-oriented DDs. If you keep to these tactics, I guarantee you'll get better results.

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 #: 35

- 7/25/2002 10:42:02 AM

rdcotton

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Status: offline

Erik .... Thanks for the post ... I'll certainly put all of that
info to good use.

Ray

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 36

- 7/25/2002 6:10:10 PM

HARD_SARGE

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

Hi Paul

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.

all I can basicly ask, is who do you think TRAINED the Marines

I would say most of the early war, pre war trained Marine Pilots were as "well" trained as there Navy counter parts, later war and during the rush to buildup, I am sure much of there training was cut back

oh, guess if the B-25 pilots could figure it out, some trained Marine pilot couldn't

Gee, I wonder why Marine Air flys off of CV's, since they were never trained to do so (ever wonder what happened to VMF-214 after Pappy got shot down and the rest rotated back to the states ?, most of them were kill when the USS Franklin was stuck by a bomb, most were in the Pilots ready room when the bomb went off)

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 37

- 7/26/2002 6:12:52 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

As I understand the Corsair/Carrier problem:

The pilot position in the Corsair is fairly far back and he has trouble seeing right in front of/below the Aircraft as he makes his approach (poor forward-and-down visiblity with the angle of attack of the A/C.)

So it's hard to see the carrier on the last bit of the approach. Because of this Corsairs were forbidden to be used as Carrier Aircraft for a long while.

Then they developed this odd approach (see if you can find some videos) where the Corsair approaches at a steep, almost 90 degree angle to the carrier (coming from the Carrier's Port side, aiming at a point in the Carrier's wake) until the plane is almost directly behind the Carrier. When he does this he is real close to the carrier (not way astern of it).

The pilot then takes good look at the deck (which is to his left and which he can see in spite of the long nose of the aircraft), hangs a sharp left turn and lands (and I mean "hangs a left turn and lands" He doesn't fly any appreciable distance straight after he completes the left turn). Looks tough to do.

Once they figured out to land the Corsairs that way AND trained the pilots in this unique approach they would use the Corsair from Carriers.

At least that's how I understand it.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 38

- 7/26/2002 6:27:35 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

Corsairs.

Its real simple, in my mind.

Basing them on Carriers is ahistorical and should not be allowed.

This is no different than not permitting the Japanese player the ability to use Kamikaze tactics.

And you know, the two are related.

They both happened at about the same time, the Kamikazes earlier by a few months, and both happened because the character of the war forced it to happen, not any serious technical issues to prevent it from being before that time.

However, as pointed out by other posters, it was due to technical issues and the near simultaneous rise of the Hellcat that the USN decide the Corsair would be issued to ground based units, not on CVs.

Strangely, another type of plane that flew from carriers to bomb port facilities is not permitted in the game, the B-25. Think of that as an armed transfer mission to a land base.

Certainly possible to employ P-40s, P-39s, P-38s, etc in this way. Why wasn't it?

It takes more than arrestor gear and pilot training to deploy a combat aircraft from a carrier. You got have the equipment and the training of the flight deck crew and maintenance shops ready to service a type of aircraft, and this just did not exist until Late 44 for the Corsair.

URLs:
http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/fighter.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

================================

Can you imagine Kamikazes in Mid -1943?

The USN would of been far more vulnerable then than they were in late-middle 1944.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 39

- 7/27/2002 12:28:03 AM

Gaius Marius

Posts: 14
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Munich
Status: offline

If I understand correctly, a large number of the Corsairs produced did not have folding wings (and presumably other carrier gear) - while this would not completely prevent them from being used, it would make it pretty unlikely that a CV would go sailing around with Corsairs making up any large part of its contingent.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 40

- 7/27/2002 1:03:00 AM

HARD_SARGE

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gaius Marius
[B]If I understand correctly, a large number of the Corsairs produced did not have folding wings (and presumably other carrier gear) - while this would not completely prevent them from being used, it would make it pretty unlikely that a CV would go sailing around with Corsairs making up any large part of its contingent. [/B][/QUOTE]

depends on what time frame you are speaking of, by the end of the war, every US CV had at least 1 F4u Squadron on board

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 41

- 7/27/2002 3:55:11 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

"depends on what time frame you are speaking of"

And that time frame does not match UV's time frame.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 42

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

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

1.953

Slitherine