berto
Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002 From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RGIJN just curious who / how many players are still active in this game... Interesting would be also to know if against AI or PBEM. I purchased UV when first released but never really played it. I was too busy at the time and just couldn't motivate myself to climb what at the time seemed to be its fairly steep learning curve. After years of holding back, I finally purchased WITP:AE last summer. It is a fantastic game, my current favorite, and I foresee playing it for years and years to come ... ... but for now, only the scenarios. I simply don't have the time (too many other responsibilities) to play the campaigns. (I anticipate tackling the GC when I retire a few years hence.) Over the Christmas break, I have put together a "retro" gaming machine for all of my low-system-requirement HPS and Matrix games. Earlier today, I installed Uncommon Valor too. After looking around a bit--and seeing that it is much less involved than, but still similar to, WITP:AE--I am encouraged to give UV a try. After learning the WITP:AE system, UV looks much easier in comparison. Most importantly, it has scenarios. WITP:AE scenarios are beginning to appear, and I will continue to play(test) them. But UV is chock full of ready-to-run scenarios in the War's most interesting theater, the Southwest Pacific. If nothing else, I see UV replacing TOAW as my preferred operational Pacific War gaming platform. With its land combat emphasis and stunted air and (especially) sea war modules, TOAW just doesn't model WWII in the Pacific very well. No doubt UV has its problems and limitations (and if they loom too large, there will always be WITP:AE). But for fast scenario operational game play, UV's ship has finally arrived. PBEM? Nope. I'll play against the AI. And if and when I grow disillusioned with that, I will try hot-seat solitaire. For me, competitive gaming doesn't matter; historical simulation's the thing.
< Message edited by berto -- 12/30/2010 7:52:36 AM >
_____________________________
|