Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

patch ideas

 
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 >> patch ideas Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
patch ideas - 8/19/2002 7:24:46 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Introduce a minumum moral for japanese units. These early war jap piltos were never low on moral. I wonīt suggest certain numbers, designers propably have better ideas of how, which certain moral value affects what....

But there has to be something done about this "we surrender" mood of japanese air units. The pilots of the AGs in the time frame of UV would have even conducted "one way missions" - i.e. their range would be double their normal range, as they donīt need to come back (either Kamikaze or ditch). In fact did the japs order Vals to attack Guadalcanal invasion fleet, well knowing that these planes wouldnīt make it back and would have to ditch at SHortland. Thatīs japanese moral and loss tolerance!

I got the impressions that the moral caluclations were taken over from BTR/BOB. Is that correct? If so .... the Japs are no Brits/Germans or US.

They had besides of their torps only the moral advantege throughout the entire war.


B-17īs far toooooooo accurate from high alt. At that alt, 30k+ you can hardle see the target! Even a F-16īs FCC would have difficulties making a exact bombing run with 500lb iron bombs from that alt. YOu have numeruos different cloud layers wich make continuos target acquiration very very very very hard. And for Norden Bombsight to be effective you need to have the target acquired for about at least a minute. Moreover are there different wind "layers", i.e in different alts there were often different winds with different directions and of course, speed. makes bombing from such alts very inaccurate. Over 20k the accuracy sharply decreases because of these effects (multiple thin - from the ground not visible - cloud layers, which create a white file... like several slightly dirty glasses you put in a row)
and the several "wind layers". I donīt start telling stories from Europe... there are enough were 200+ B-17s didnīt really hit a target 4 times the size of Rabaul from about 25-30k.


Something,( more intended for WiTP):

perhaps create loss tolerance options (3) for Air groups which would affect their behaviour. ignore losses would order them to even attack without escorts.... I think you know what I mean. Gives a bit more control of what you actually want to do with your AF.

Port Recon - You canīt tell which ship are anchored - no further explanation. 10 recons coming in 5 days should be able to give me some news about whatīs in a port. Perhaps designers intentionally left that out????
Port Recon with subs would be nice either!:D

air recon able to tell, whether at a certain base are 2 or one engined bombers. Makes a big difference in attack considerations, when you know whether there are only 30 Vals at a Base or 30 Betties. Or the same for 30 A-24 or 30 B-17s.
Recons are able to see such differences (someone from US AF intel confirmed that to me). Though they are not able to see specific type, they can tell how many engines.


When you like that ideas - help me to make them into reality :D
Post #: 1
- 8/19/2002 9:23:10 AM   
sekullbe

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/17/2002
Status: offline 		I don't see a large 'wishlist' thread within the last couple of days, so I'll jump on this one.

I'm happy enough with the engine, so I'm looking at interface tweaks.
What I'd like to see is more feedback from the engine about what it's doing. For example I'd like to be told '12th BS checks morale- 75% launch' when LBA launches, or 'SB-5 rejects target Rabaul: AAA too heavy'. There could be a 'log window' with all the detailed reports in it that the player could choose to examine. Optimally it would be like the log system in Europa Universalis, where the player can choose to see a pop-up, a log message, or nothing for various announcements.

I'd also like to be able to have ship class available when building a TF; it's awkward to build a TF without ready access to ship details.
A column for 'class' could be added, or right-clicking the ship (or clicking a button) would bring up the ship info window. It would be particularly nice if the class also had some relative numbers on capability. (Eg: "DD McCall (Benham 2/3/5/2)" - the numbers are rankings of guns/torps/AA/ASW). Rankings don't need to be really precise- just good enough to pick out the best AA ships for a CV TF, ASW for transport escort, etc.

Comments?

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 2
- 8/19/2002 10:11:01 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by sekullbe
[B]What I'd like to see is more feedback from the engine about what it's doing. For example I'd like to be told '12th BS checks morale- 75% launch' when LBA launches, or 'SB-5 rejects target Rabaul: AAA too heavy'. There could be a 'log window' with all the detailed reports in it that the player could choose to examine. Optimally it would be like the log system in Europa Universalis, where the player can choose to see a pop-up, a log message, or nothing for various announcements.

I'd also like to be able to have ship class available when building a TF; it's awkward to build a TF without ready access to ship details.
A column for 'class' could be added, or right-clicking the ship (or clicking a button) would bring up the ship info window. It would be particularly nice if the class also had some relative numbers on capability. (Eg: "DD McCall (Benham 2/3/5/2)" - the numbers are rankings of guns/torps/AA/ASW). Rankings don't need to be really precise- just good enough to pick out the best AA ships for a CV TF, ASW for transport escort, etc.

Comments? [/B][/QUOTE]

Right freakin' ON, sekullbe. Great ideas, if practicable, that would help players immensely. The explanations for launch percentages and nonlaunch shouldn't be too hard to add (more detail than an unspecified number of missions being cancelled due to weather).

The ship class info is vital, it seems to me, for the reasons you specify, particularly with regard to escorts, but it gets confusing even with cruisers, as well. I keep trying to remember, for example, which two of the U.S. heavy cruisers it is that had 10 8" guns instead of the far more common 9 (okay, it's the middle-age short-term memory loss that's primarily to blame, but there are so many ships to keep track of). Your quantification system seems to me to provide the basis for a very workable system. In addition, as others elsewhere have suggested, an indication on the ship's individual screen of its class would help, as well.

I suggest that more useful information could be provided for aircraft, as well. For example, it would be good to know the carrying capacity (in game terms) of a C-47 or PBY, so that more precise estimation of transport times and numbers could be made. A quantification of the general combat capability of various aircraft vis-a-vis each other would be good, too, I think. I know that a Kittyhawk is a better aircraft than a P39D, but by how much? To what degree can I rely on P-40Es as defenders of a base as opposed to F4Fs, as a general proposition?

I know that we have all learned the general "lay of the land" in these regards from, as a waggish poster has put it, "Groundhog Day-ing" (replaying over and over until you see how things work and how good - or bad- units and equipment are), but I wish it didn't have to be so much by "trial and error."

I know that a lot of information is included on the individual ship and aircraft squadron pages, but that's buried pretty deep when you're trying to form up an air attack or an invasion support task force. Besides, the quantifications are a little mysterious, sometimes. Note that the range of maneuverability ratings for fighters and fighter-bombers is rather narrow (generally somewhere from the high twenties to the mid-thirties). What does that all mean? I mean, what's it all about, Alfie?

I remember one of Gary Grigsby's earlier (and one of my favorite) designs, "War in the South Pacific." Yer planes had two ratings that mattered (outside of endurance): armament and maneuverability. A Zero was a 20-20. An F-4F was a 17-20. A land-based Zero was a 12-20. Gary even spelled out the formula in the (remarkably short) reference manual of how to calculate the approximate relationship between the two in combat. While I don't advocate a return to that kind of oversimplification (I appreciate the design effort that went into accounting for pilot training, experience, morale, and fatigue), it seems to me that the life of the players could be made a little simpler by providing more forthcoming, intuitive data that work through simple formulae (even if they don't give you absolute accuracy, even a close estimate is enough) to help you manage your campaign in a more informed way.

Am I full of horse hockey here (don't tell me about elsewhere, I'm already aware of the answer. My wife used to remind me incessantly)?

Thanks for the thought-provoking ideas, sekullbe. I hope that I haven't done anything provoking with them.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 3
- 8/19/2002 11:52:24 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline 		Most of these have already been mentioned elsewhere but I'll throw them in.

Things that I'd like to see patched:
1. Mini map active during day air op (you can see enemy carrier TF's and airbases highlighed).
2. During combat summary, map is still active (no biggie).
3. "TF X must unload" where the TF is an enemy TF I haven't detected.
4. Transport TF's retiring from enemy carriers long before they actually "know" they exist.
5. Having to disband/remake minelaying TF's to load mines.
6. I hear the sound effect that says "enemy CD units just punded your invasion fleet" but I dont get told by what or how much damage etc. I have to look it up the next turn.

Things I'd love to see included:
1. Option to load just troops. Option to "fast evac" troops, leaaving guns and supplies behind etc.
2. Selecting bomber loadouts? Probably too muchtrouble for not enough fun.
3. Ability to change commander of ground HQ's, or air HQ's.
4. Ability to preset favourite commanders (why is McCain the default for a carrier TF when Ramsey and Spruance are right there? Why can't I put Halsey on my flagship?)
5. Aussie rail system for supply.
6. Option to skip the "coastwater" phase.
7. Fighters to do naval strafe missions on barges - far more effective.
8. Something to tell me what upgrades are possible if I return ships to Pearl. ATM weapon mounts that can be fitted to ships in pearl are listed as red X 0 (as though they've been destroyed), but there is nothing to tell me when I can get all my 20mm Bofors upgraded to 40mm etc.
9. Target priority orders. For bombers primary naval secondary ground actually means as soon as 10% bombers have launched against a naval target, the other 90 go for the ground. For surface vessels: what if I want my subs to ignore enemy auxilliaries, or concentrate on them. Just 4 types: Capitol ships, escorts, transports and aux. Same for surface combat.
10. Maybe an auto-rest option (as soon as they hit X% fatigue air unit will rest).
11. ETA for all ships (although range rings sort of work) and ET of completion for runway/port/fort expansions. Would just help co-ordinate a few things a little better.

Manual additions that might just be my ignorance of the game.
1. Can some planes fly from CV's? In MS CFS2, all can, but in reality a P38 probably couldn't.
2. More understanding of intercept radar - which radar sets are better.
3. Why can TF groups sometimes get the option to Pick up troops and others don't. Is it just fast TF's?

Controversial:
1. What good are LSI's for?
2. Why are AO's and TK's seperate classes when the do the same thing?
3. How is it that my CV, flying no CAP, can sail from Pearl Harbour to Noumea without a scratch, but then sails from Noumea to Brisbane (at a nice sedate speed) and gets 2 sys damage?? Surely this is a bit much. Means that my CV's spend 90% of their time in port to stay operational.

Sorry for the over-long post. Didn't realise I needed the rant that bad!

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 4
- 8/19/2002 3:48:58 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Propably you just need more experience. When one playes games about the pacific long enough he knows, which ship names are which class, even DDs. Currennt siutuation forces players to learn more about their units using info screens - they should make use of it. Though I admit, a few more available data would be interesting, but it isnīt hat important - some new things for the game engine would be more desired!

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 5
- 8/19/2002 3:51:58 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		An AO is and fleet oiler - the operate with combat fleets/transport fleets on the high see. At least thatīs the intention for them. The were equiped to fuel ships on the high see.

Tankers were for supplieng bases and to carry fule from one base to another. In reality TKs took far longer to fuel other ships on high see than an AO - game doesnīt imply this for simplicity reasons (for itīs customers :) )

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 6
- 8/19/2002 4:09:43 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Only fast TFs can pick up troops - this should represent evacuation!


Concerning this things to be patched: I have to say that this "TF must unload thing often reveals too much - that shoudl really be fixed.

Also that enemy recons are allways spotted. I canīt fly a recon mission without the enemy knowing that I was doing so ------> that can have bigger consequences than one might thought, as it sometimes would help much if the enemy doesīt allways get a notification that one of my patrols has spotted one of his TFs, or that one of my recons photographed Luganville, to see whether thereīs a TF in.

I saw reacting to enemy CVs by my CVs quite often, even when neither mine where spotted to the enemy, nor I spotted his CVs so far. Commanders must be very good in assuming -----> read my AAR of a PBEM game. Exactly that did happen! THey reacted to each other before one of my TFs even had ANY idea of enemy presence. We didnīt had the slightest hint. NOTHING - no recon - no patrol report - after they reacted they spotted each other and fought a battle in the midst of nowhere!

P-38īs canīt take of from CVs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many of your ideas are not bad, but they would result in complete micromanaging and therefor the game wasnīt made: YOu are operational commander, but the actual battles are fought by your commanders. They bahave unpredictable, clever or stupid sometimes..... as it should be ;)

Just strange things should stop happen. Moreover Iīlike to see my surface ships raiding an enemy TF anchored at a base with retire orders and NOT ALLWAYS retiring from the CVs. Thatīs why I give them retire ordes: Move in at night, attack ships and move out until day comes.
Like Mikawa in battle of Savo Isl. - He also knew of US CV presenve but moved in and out.

I donīt want them to "patrol - not retire" to the base. I just wanīt to attack the shipping in the night - but that often isnīt possible -even with aggressive commanders.


Actually I would like ot see an option which hides commanders abilties until seen in a battle! Moreover there should be options in realism settings to make commander values "historical", "slightly variieng to hist. values" and "randomized". That + hidden values make command selection actually more interesting, than this where is the guy wiht the highest number....... if things would be so easy in reality!

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 7
- 8/19/2002 7:47:06 PM   
chrisp

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Wichita, KS
Status: offline 		My $.02 wishlist items:

1. Ability to load only troops.
2. Ability to load only troops.
3. Routine convoys that *don't* load troops. It's always a nice surprise to find that your routine convoy has just shipped an Eng regiment off to Lomlom island.
4. Routine convoys that always load the maximum amount before they sail. I've had too many sail have with 1/4 to 1/2 size loads.
5. Convoys that don't automatically refuel from a base if they already have plenty of fuel. I got two Fast Transport forces running fuel all over the South Pacific because Supply TFs routine suck up the remaining fuel from the base when they don't need it.
6. Bombardment TFs that stay in the hex and bombard every turn when set to Patrol/Don't Retire. As things stand now, I can either bombard and have the TF run away, or set the TF to Surface Combat and not bombard. It's sad to have a 3 BB TF sit in the hex and do nothing, but it's even sadder to have the task force run away and have the Japanese send a Surface Combat TF in to attack the transports.
7. A Combat results screen that is either bigger, resizeable, or reacts to the scroll button on the mouse so I don't have to scroll down to see the whole report.
8. Ability to load only troops.
9. Flags (or something) indicating the nationality of sunk ships in the sunk ship screen. Would also be nice to have the date of loss listed too.
10. A Railroad in Queensland. I'm really under the impression that as long as a base in OZ links to Brisbane, it should not ever have to require supplies to be shipped to it. I've been to Queensland (Brisbane and Gladstone, anyway) and it seems pretty built-up. Certainly more than New Guinea ;-)

So much for now. Love the game!

Chris P.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 8
- 8/19/2002 8:49:23 PM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by chrisp
[B]10. A Railroad in Queensland. I'm really under the impression that as long as a base in OZ links to Brisbane, it should not ever have to require supplies to be shipped to it. I've been to Queensland (Brisbane and Gladstone, anyway) and it seems pretty built-up. Certainly more than New Guinea ;-)[/B][/QUOTE]There was a unit based on the Queenland/New South Wales border which transhipped supplies from the one railroad to the other. They would unload the one train, haul the supplies across town with horse & wagon to the other train and load. I believe that 9000 tons/day was the high point for that transfer (sometime in mid-to-late '44 IIRC).

It's always nice to have different gauges of railroads. :D

Just FYI.

[URL=http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ausarmy/3aod&1aad.htm]Wallangarra Logistics Support Area , QLD[/URL]

_____________________________


(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 9
- 8/19/2002 9:13:36 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		yes, when you want to seal off an enemy base this patrol not retire bombardmetn TFīs are best - as Chrisp said - they just shoudlnīt run after that! That can end very bad - I didnīt experience so far, but I can imgaine!

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 10
- 8/19/2002 10:10:30 PM   
chrisp

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Wichita, KS
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reddon45
[B]yes, when you want to seal off an enemy base this patrol not retire bombardmetn TFīs are best - as Chrisp said - they just shoudlnīt run after that! That can end very bad - I didnīt experience so far, but I can imgaine! [/B][/QUOTE]

I lost my two CVEs and the transport carrying the XIV corps after my two BB task force bombarded Munda and then split. I had set the TF to Patrol/Do Not Retire, but it didn't help. The game changed the TF to Surface Combat/Retirement allowed and high tailed it to Noumea. Ugly, ugly. ugly.

Chris P.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 11
a couple of quickies... - 8/19/2002 10:44:43 PM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline 		A button that says BY ALL THAT IS HOLY YOU USELESS !@$#F#@%ERS ATTACK!!!!. This button would be used after the Yamamoto was torpedoed twice bombarding PM and fended off by local cruisers (ow!!) leaving an undamaged size 8 airfield with 50 SBDs, and 36 Beauforts in range of it and its lone DD escort for two turns, but mean weather came. With the Japanese a similar experience when the lexington came around gili gili after an ap taskforce. There are certain targets that baring a full blown cyclone, I think the attacks would be sent. Make a twenty morale point penalty after that mission, whatever, I don't care.

spread the ground damage. It seems like one unit gets picked to be beaten down to essentially zero, while other units are untouched. Shouldn't the bombing of a base affect all units equally?

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 12
Next Patch Wish List - 8/20/2002 7:34:12 PM   
Mad Daddy

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: Eastlake, Ohio
Status: offline 		Things I would like to see.

1. The ability to load troops only.
2. Full editor support.
3. Task Force Way Points for easier navigation.
4. Task Force combat when th two enemies move into the same hex (during the movement phases).
5. The ability to transfer same plane types to different squadons.
6. The ability to transfer/replace land based commanders to different formations.
7. The ability to decide for myself what squadrons recieve replacements and when.

I realize that my wishes would require a lot of micro-management, but the options could be put in for toggle-on/toggle off for some and for others, they could just be ignored if the player wishes.

_____________________________

War is HELL, and then you get married!!!

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 13
Me Too - 8/21/2002 6:21:52 AM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		1. Transport TF that just loads troops, OR the ability to select that option under the current interface. ( Please )

2. No total loss of the Flight Deck on a CV due to 1 Torp hit.

3. Reduce System Damage or speed repair of it in large Bases.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 14
1 more thing - 8/21/2002 9:17:36 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline 		Oh yeah - one more thing (of extreme low priority)
If I want to disband/withdraw a squadron, I click either of those two buttons. But then the message pops up "must be other unit of same aircraft type at base" etc.

Irritates me for a completely irrational reason. Lets just have those buttons greyed out if I can't withdraw or disband them.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 15
- 8/22/2002 11:55:13 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		1. fix the bombs

2. fix the bombs

3. fix the bombs

:D

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 16
- 8/22/2002 9:14:47 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sekullbe
What I'd like to see is more feedback from the engine about what it's doing. For example I'd like to be told '12th BS checks morale- 75% launch' when LBA launches, or 'SB-5 rejects target Rabaul: AAA too heavy'. There could be a 'log window' with all the detailed reports in it that the player could choose to examine. Optimally it would be like the log system in Europa Universalis, where the player can choose to see a pop-up, a log message, or nothing for various announcements.

Comments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We probably already know to much about why things work or don't. How realistic is it to know the exact fatigue or morale of every pilot in every plane in the entire theater? The fog of war is fine for the opposition, but we know entirely too much about the state of our own forces. From a standpoint of fun and marketability, we probably won't degrade that information, but heavens, we should a least have to do some inference about why our plans are working or not.

Nikademus - Have you checked out the bomb damage to the South Dakota at Santa Cruz? I think it would support your case about bomb damage not hurting BB's so much.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 17
- 8/23/2002 12:21:10 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by wpurdom
[B]quote:

Nikademus - Have you checked out the bomb damage to the South Dakota at Santa Cruz? I think it would support your case about bomb damage not hurting BB's so much. [/B][/QUOTE]


Yes, along with dozens of other hits on other battleships, cruisers and carriers. While acknowledging potential engine limitations in it's current incarnation i'm hoping that at the very least that current bomb penetration ratings will be halved in a future patch, or better, reduced to 1/3. As it stands now they are as dangerous as torpedoes.

(in reply to ReDDoN45)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> patch ideas Page: [1]
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

0.734