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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 10/6/2002 6:48:25 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Anti-Submarine Warfare

There are a few points I'd like to make about Japanese anti-submarine warfare in UV:

1) I think Japanese ASW is too good in UV, especially during the time period of May, 1942 - June, 1943. Most early ASW efforts were not that good. Japan did not put submarine detection devices on its ships or greatly improve its ASW ability until late 1943. Japanese attacks were usually broken off too soon and the DC settings were too shallow.

2) I think both the ASW destroyers and the ASW spotter planes need to be toned down a bit. They are too perfect in what they do. They are spotting and destroying American subs far too easily, especially in 1942.

3) US submarines should be able to take damage and survive. As it stands now, it is usually either total destruction or 100% no damage.

4) The number of US submarine torpedo misses is about right, since many of the early subs had dud torpedoes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 31
- 10/7/2002 2:27:18 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Weather and Bombing Missions


1) Many times all Allied flights out of Port Morseby have been cancelled due to poor weather. Yet, the Japanese can fly from Rabaul and bomb Port Morsby with the same weather present.

I think if the weather is too poor for flights to take off at a location, it should be too poor to allow bombing missions at the same location. This only seems fair and logical. . .

2) Also, for two weeks not a single B-17 (of 12 available) at Luganville has taken off to bomb Lugan on Guadalcanal, even though they all have the support, experience, and morale needed. In addition, the weather has been good. I have tried different altitudes, targets, etc, etc, but nothing works. Is this a bug? Or are these guys enjoying the beaches and rum too much?

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 32
production options - 10/7/2002 3:51:47 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
I am personally wary of giving too much control over production to the players, though i am not adverse to having it as a player "option" on the same scale as IJN sub doctrine in UV.

My reasoning is two fold.

1) first and most importantly, i believe this is arguably the most abused player option in strategic/operational games that cover historical periods. The reason is simple hindsight.

The players know which weapons work, which dont, and if they do work, what weapons soon wont (due to enemy advances in tech)

I've already seen examples of this in this very thread.....complaints about being forced to use yuky P-39's, or advance knowlege that A6M's will soon become a liability etc etc. Personally i "like" being forced to, like the real life commanders, use what equipment is dolled out to me to the best of my ability. How boring would it quickly become to switch to all P-38's up to six months before they became available. Sure its fun the first couple of times....after a while it becomes boring. Playing with the tools i am given convays to me a sense of being in the real commander's shoes vs, mass converting all my squadrons to newer planes deployed early which makes me feel like i'm playing Code Red instead of a historical wargame.

I would also disagree that theater commanders had that much say in the economic choices of their respective countries that they could alter massive and/or large scale build plans, at least when it comes to warships.

Specific weapons i can see......theater commanders can and did voice the complaints of soldiers who would complain about needing better weapons systems such as better guns, better tanks, better planes etc etc.

Sometimes their voices were listened too, often they were not. Such is the realm of politics, personal realms and differing viewpoints.

2) The above said, another argument is due to the time factor when it comes to warships, depending on types.

Major warships cannot simply be ordered as the demand warrents, not if one is expecting them to be available at the time of need. Not even the US can do this. It requires advance planning and the necessary securing of funds, workers, dockyard space and resources, all in the hopes or expectations that the ships will be "available" at the time that the perceived need for them comes around. As things happened, war came sooner than hoped for to the US so the first half of the war at sea was a study in fighting a limited war with the tools onhand at the time, hoping to hold out until such time that the new construction becomes available

Some warships are also specialty/unique specimens that would not be repeated because they were the products of their times, built and/or converted due to unique circumstances.

Yamamotto's desire for more "Akagis" highlights this. Akagi was orginally designed as an Amagi class battlecruiser and was 2 years on the stocks when she was slated for conversion to a carrier. Like all carrier conversions, she was not in all respects ideal for carrier ops due to her not being originally designed for this task, thus for her size and the effort involved in building and then converting her, no sensible nation would ever attempt to repeat this procedure, instead they would build a new class, designed from the keel up to be a carrier. Same goes for Lex and Sara.....also converted from BC hulls.....better to build a purpose built carrier, complete with all the lessons learned from decades of carrier ops and designing.

Rev Rick's post also highlights my concern and match my thinking. Most major warship types were already planned for and laid down according to naval expansion programs set and defined before hostilities started. The simple reason being is that no nation can simply snap it's fingers and build enough warships and expect them to be readily available in a short period of time whence the need suddenly arises. Doesn't work that way.

There are exceptions of course......merchant ships, once the operation was laid out and organized (again before the US at least was legally at war) could and were mass produced, but there is a huge difference between a liberty ship and a battleship. Escorts and Destroyers can be mass produced but again, only after advance planning and organization, as attested by the destroyer/escort shortage experienced by the US after it's official entry into the battle of the Atlantic. It was also an example of prioritization....one key reason the escorts, the "tools" of the trade were not onhand at first was the priority given to other warship and support types given pre-war. This could not simply be altered at the snap of a finger unless one was willing to deal with delays and disruption.

Large warships are even more constrained. Big battleships in particular cannot be laid down on the fly. They take on average a minimum of two+ years to go from keel laying to commissioned warship in time of war, more like 3-5 years in peacetime. For example every single modern US battleship, and of course the two Yamato's (+Shinano) were all laid down before the war began, and even despite the gear-up to total war economy, none of these ships were completed in under a two year period. Many had to be slowed and cancelled due either to other wartime priorities or resource shortages (to which even the US was not immune too..........high grade steel is costly and doesn't grow on trees!)

Smaller or less steel intensive warships are a better case.....the US, being the banner-carrier of mass produced war machines, was able at it's peak to complete an Essex carrier in about 1.5 years time....but more often it was closer to two years.
and this with a mass produced carrier, designed before the war, and planned out in a large class that exceeded 25 specimens (yeek!) CVL's suprisingly, about the same at 1.5 years

Cruisers, again about the same, averaging 1.8-2 years (the fastest at around the 1.5 year mark)

The gist of all this is that even were the players to have complete control over production, and the player decides, after a disaster say in 4/42 that costs him a large chunk of his carriers and battleships, to lay down more of that type....he (or she) is still looking at around a 2 year or more waiting period to recieve these ship types, by which time the situation that called for them will have either evolved into something else or passed entirely. The original war of course was only a little more than 3.5 years in actual length. The slow nature of major warship contruction was such that the decisive battles fought in the first half of the war had to be fought with the tools that were on-hand. By the time the majority of new construction became available, the war was already resolved.

I am not adverse to player designed warships, but not in a production environment. More in an editor type situation, where with the appropriate tool, players can create either historical or hypothetical warship classes that did not find their way into the standard game either by choice or by necessity. (an example would be putting German warships into the OOB as part of a hypo scenerio involving more close cooperation between the Axis or putting ships cancelled by the Wash treaty into the OOB to see how they would fight. Such an editor also is of benefit for correcting stats on existing historical designs too!)

Putting that ability into the standard game would turn WiTP and UV into Command and Conquor.....yukko :)

If implemented (hopefully as an option, not as a standard feature) production altering would need to be balanced heavily in terms of consequences of one's action. By that i mean, if you wish to tamper with your production schedule, expect heavy penalties due to the disruption caused by the shifting and re-prioritizing of resources.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 33
- 10/7/2002 10:45:14 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Naval Battles

Very addictive game. All comments are directed to helping make it a better game.

The naval battles in UV are terrific. I especially like to watch every battle right down to their nail-biting finality :)

There are just two things that seem to be a bit off in the battles though:

1) The Japanese don't seem to use their torpedos in salvos at the beginning of the battles, especially the destroyers.

2) The Japanese Patrol Gunboats are fearsome weapons! Even against my CAs. In one battle a Japanese PG took 13 hits from my DDs and CAs and didn't sink.

In another battle, a Japanese PG took 33 3-inch shell hits, PLUS 2 torpedoes and DIDN'T SINK!

Are the PGs the new Japanese wonder weapon? Were they this durable in the real war?

I think these Japanese PGs may need to be toned down a bit in durability.

Great game so far. . . :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 34
- 10/7/2002 11:42:29 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
Posted by Von Rom
[QUOTE]Are the PGs the new Japanese wonder weapon? Were they this durable in the real war? [/QUOTE]

Now if we could just put a long lance on it without tipping it over.....

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 35
Multiple combat replay slots. - 10/8/2002 9:20:05 PM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline
I have several games going at once, and if I unzip them and play them all at once - I overwrite the 001 slot which is the replay file I either want to watch - or am about to sent to my allied opponent etc. Gets confusion for those PBEMers who like a bit on the side . . . :eek:

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 36
- 10/9/2002 12:24:48 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Aircraft Carriers

I hope in the next patch, or soon thereafter, that a change can be made to the orders given to aircraft carriers.

1) As it stands now, the "retirement allowed" command means that a carrier group may leave the battle scene. This is fine when I want to play conservatively, and may not wish to risk my carriers. Nothing needs to be changed with this command.

2) However, the "patrol/do not retire" command means that the carrier may charge straight into harms way (this happened last night). I think this command should allow for smaller movement towards the enemy, and that a MINIMUM distance should be kept between the carrier and ALL other spotted enemy forces at all times. It is after all, a carrier, and has the capability of striking targets from a distance.

Carriers can be aggressive but should keep a minimum distance (the distance their strike aircraft can travel) between them and all spotted enemy forces and land bases.

As it stands now, when placed on the "patrol/do not retire" command, the carrier will charge right up beside other enemy forces, including enemy carriers, surface forces, and land bases. This can be very frustrating, and I have lost more than one carrier as a result. I hope this can be changed.

I usually play pretty aggressively, so I don't want my carriers always to withdraw, but neither do I want them charging ahead on their own, especially into other enemy task forces.

Great game.

Cheers! :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 37
Re: Multiple combat replay slots. - 10/9/2002 2:26:54 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]I have several games going at once, and if I unzip them and play them all at once - I overwrite the 001 slot which is the replay file I either want to watch - or am about to sent to my allied opponent etc. Gets confusion for those PBEMers who like a bit on the side . . . :eek: [/B][/QUOTE]

I thought of this too. There are 200 slots - why not use the odd number slots for game files with the following even numbered slot for combat replay file - or the other way around. This would still allow for 100 in-game save files.

Not gonna happen for UV but WitP can take a lesson from this.

BTW how many file slots does anyone have in use right now?

:)

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 38
- 10/9/2002 2:55:48 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
The entire file slot system should be junked and replaced with something user friendly.

See my post in the bug forums about this.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 39
- 10/9/2002 3:21:36 AM   
angus

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]The entire file slot system should be junked and replaced with something user friendly.[/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe it's to remind you of the good old days of character interfaces ? Mind you, a lot of the UI is a bit kludgy. Too many tiny buttons, too much clicking back and forward, and hasn't anyone heard that mice have two buttons and pop-up menus are supported in Windows and MacOS ? Sorry, I'll stop now. At least I never mentioned memory leaks.

Angus

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 40
- 10/9/2002 5:41:21 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
The interface is what I would call programmer friendly.

I know this because the program that I develop suffers from many of the same sort of issues -- namely, gratuitous use of modal dialog boxes and lots of clicking.

It takes time to make good interfaces -- and usually, you have to do it a couple times before you get to the point where the interface becomes less annoying. The other problem is that if you use something everyday, you become used to its idiosyncrasies to the point where they don't seem like such a problem anymore.

So, while I understand why the interface is the way it is, how it got there, and why major changes aren't likely, I STILL wish that it was better and hope that I will be listened too.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 41
- 10/9/2002 6:04:27 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]Aircraft Carriers

I hope in the next patch, or soon thereafter, that a change can be made to the orders given to aircraft carriers.

1) As it stands now, the "retirement allowed" command means that a carrier group may leave the battle scene. This is fine when I want to play conservatively, and may not wish to risk my carriers. Nothing needs to be changed with this command.

2) However, the "patrol/do not retire" command means that the carrier may charge straight into harms way (this happened last night). I think this command should allow for smaller movement towards the enemy, and that a MINIMUM distance should be kept between the carrier and ALL other spotted enemy forces at all times. It is after all, a carrier, and has the capability of striking targets from a distance.

Carriers can be aggressive but should keep a minimum distance (the distance their strike aircraft can travel) between them and all spotted enemy forces and land bases.

As it stands now, when placed on the "patrol/do not retire" command, the carrier will charge right up beside other enemy forces, including enemy carriers, surface forces, and land bases. This can be very frustrating, and I have lost more than one carrier as a result. I hope this can be changed.

I usually play pretty aggressively, so I don't want my carriers always to withdraw, but neither do I want them charging ahead on their own, especially into other enemy task forces.

Great game.

Cheers! :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Methinks you need to make better use of the "do not react" command. Have you looked through the manual tables under 9. Task Forces and Ships for the general ways TFs act when given orders from the various possible permutations of "patrol-retire" and "react-do not react?" Sometimes, you get surprised, for example when you have a very aggressive TF commander, but, generally, you can keep things pretty much under control by applying the right combination.

_____________________________

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 Von Rom)
Post #: 42
- 10/9/2002 12:23:30 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]

Methinks you need to make better use of the "do not react" command. Have you looked through the manual tables under 9. Task Forces and Ships for the general ways TFs act when given orders from the various possible permutations of "patrol-retire" and "react-do not react?" Sometimes, you get surprised, for example when you have a very aggressive TF commander, but, generally, you can keep things pretty much under control by applying the right combination. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi :)

Thanks for the advice.

I'm new to the game, and I have read the options available, and I am trying different combinations to get things to work properly.

But still, why, when other enemy TFs are in the area and they have been spotted, would my carrier want to close within 60 miles of them? It doesn't really make sense, even for the most aggressive TF commanders that been set on the most aggressive settings.

In the real war, carrier TFs always tried to keep a minimum distance (their aircraft's strike distance) from the enemy. Often this distance was 200-300 miles or more (which in game terms would be about 7 to 10 hexes). Japanese carriers had planes that could fly longer distances and, therefore, should be able to stay further away from the enemy than the Allies. Yet, I have seen my carrier TFs close within two or three hexes of other enemy carriers.

Within the current game mechanics I'll try to play around with the settings, and see what I can do about the carriers. Those babies are just too valuable to lose. . .

Thanks again for the advice.

Cheers!

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 43
- 10/10/2002 9:49:02 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Carrier Movement

OK, I think I've got this whole "Carrier - Patrol/don't retire; react to enemy" thingy down properly. . .

When you want your carrier to stay put (ie you don't want it charging ahead blindly) and you want it to continue to attack known enemy forces that are in the area, place your carrier TF on "patrol/don't retire; react to the enemy". Then, each turn make sure you move that carrier TF at least one hex. Otherwise, it will scurry like a headless banshee into the jaws of death. . .

I only had to loose 4 carriers before I figured this out :( I'll bet you can tell I'm a fast learner. . . ;)

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 44
- 10/10/2002 10:42:48 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]Carrier Movement

OK, I think I've got this whole "Carrier - Patrol/don't retire; react to enemy" thingy down properly. . .

When you want your carrier to stay put (ie you don't want it charging ahead blindly) and you want it to continue to attack known enemy forces that are in the area, place your carrier TF on "patrol/don't retire; react to the enemy". Then, each turn make sure you move that carrier TF at least one hex. Otherwise, it will scurry like a headless banshee into the jaws of death. . .

I only had to loose 4 carriers before I figured this out :( I'll bet you can tell I'm a fast learner. . . ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

I really hope your joking, for your sake if you go by those settings. Anybody with more knowledge than me point it out please, BUT I still think you have the wrong end of the stick in regards to these settings.

Patrol/Do not retire means just that , hopefully the TF will remain in said hex and execute offensive actions from there. This can very often depend on the aggresiveness of your leader thought as an aggressive leader can and sometimes will overide this and charge in. Also with the Patrol Do Not Retire orders,, each turn hte Computer will AUTOMATICALLY move you one hex towards known CV task forces.

The one setting that you DO NOT want if want to avoid closing in, is React to Enemy, as this will more than certainly charge you into the fray.

Perhaps I have it all wrong too, but I dont think so.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 45
- 10/10/2002 11:18:42 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock
[B]

I really hope your joking, for your sake if you go by those settings. Anybody with more knowledge than me point it out please, BUT I still think you have the wrong end of the stick in regards to these settings.

Patrol/Do not retire means just that , hopefully the TF will remain in said hex and execute offensive actions from there. This can very often depend on the aggresiveness of your leader thought as an aggressive leader can and sometimes will overide this and charge in. Also with the Patrol Do Not Retire orders,, each turn hte Computer will AUTOMATICALLY move you one hex towards known CV task forces.

The one setting that you DO NOT want if want to avoid closing in, is React to Enemy, as this will more than certainly charge you into the fray.

Perhaps I have it all wrong too, but I dont think so. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi :)

You may be right about the TF commander over-riding my commands. But so far, these settings have worked for me.

The situation: I currently have the CV Saratoga stationed just south-east of Lunga. I want it to remain there to continue bombing the Japanese Lunga airfield AND to attack any Japanese ships that approach Lunga in an effort to re-supply it with troops, etc.

BUT, I do not want the Saratoga to charge ahead into the enemy; nor do I want it to withdraw.

So this is what I have done: I have placed the Saratoga TF on "patrol/do not retire; react to the enemy", placed an AO oiler with it (for re-supply), and EACH TURN I move it just one hex in a "back and forth" movement so that each turn the carrier moves to the hex it occupied in the previous turn. The success of using these settings lies in MANUALLY MOVING THE CV TF EACH AND EVERY TURN JUST ONE HEX.

This has effectively given me control of the carrier TF. It has effectively and continually bombed Japanese ships that have tried to re-supply Lunga, AND it has also allowed me to effectively bomb Lunga. In addition, I have placed my carrier fighters on long-distance CAP to cover my AP/AK landing forces.

The short one-hex movements give me very little wear and tear on my carrier TF; the AO allows me to remain on station; and the settings I have indicated have given my carrier TF an aggressive, but controllable, policy.

So far, it has worked like a charm . . . :)

Cheers!

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 46
Editor Support - 10/10/2002 11:22:24 PM   
Mad Daddy

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: Eastlake, Ohio
Status: offline
This game is just too good to not offer full editor support!!

Matrix games and 2x3 just have too realize that this game has so much to offer the gaming comunity. Editor support is vitale!!!

Please support the editor. The game is not complete until the editor is addrssed!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 47
Re: Editor Support - 10/11/2002 1:33:19 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mad Daddy
[B]This game is just too good to not offer full editor support!!

Matrix games and 2x3 just have too realize that this game has so much to offer the gaming comunity. Editor support is vitale!!!

Please support the editor. The game is not complete until the editor is addrssed!!!!!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]

If it is that good why do you need to edit it?:p

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 48
- 10/11/2002 2:18:18 AM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
VonRom,
[QUOTE]Hi

You may be right about the TF commander over-riding my commands. But so far, these settings have
worked for me.

The situation: I currently have the CV Saratoga stationed just south-east of Lunga. I want it to remain
there to continue bombing the Japanese Lunga airfield AND to attack any Japanese ships that approach
Lunga in an effort to re-supply it with troops, etc.

BUT, I do not want the Saratoga to charge ahead into the enemy; nor do I want it to withdraw.

So this is what I have done: I have placed the Saratoga TF on "patrol/do not retire; react to the enemy",
placed an AO oiler with it (for re-supply), and EACH TURN I move it just one hex in a "back and forth"
movement so that each turn the carrier moves to the hex it occupied in the previous turn. The success of
using these settings lies in MANUALLY MOVING THE CV TF EACH AND EVERY TURN JUST ONE HEX.

This has effectively given me control of the carrier TF. It has effectively and continually bombed Japanese
ships that have tried to re-supply Lunga, AND it has also allowed me to effectively bomb Lunga. In addition,
I have placed my carrier fighters on long-distance CAP to cover my AP/AK landing forces.

The short one-hex movements give me very little wear and tear on my carrier TF; the AO allows me to
remain on station; and the settings I have indicated have given my carrier TF an aggressive, but
controllable, policy.

So far, it has worked like a charm . . . [/QUOTE]
Sorry if this is a dumb question but have you seen or been given any info regarding the presence of enemy CV TFs yet?
Your CV TF will only react to another carrier TF so if none has been around yet you might be in for a big surprise still.
Another nice surprise I think you might discover is that subs will converge on the TF also. Since the AI used to station subs around Guadalcanal anyway they might be very close already.

Good luck
BPRE

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 49
- 10/11/2002 5:10:59 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BPRE
[B]VonRom,

Sorry if this is a dumb question but have you seen or been given any info regarding the presence of enemy CV TFs yet?
Your CV TF will only react to another carrier TF so if none has been around yet you might be in for a big surprise still.
Another nice surprise I think you might discover is that subs will converge on the TF also. Since the AI used to station subs around Guadalcanal anyway they might be very close already.

Good luck
BPRE [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi :)

The Japanese have lost 4 carriers so far, so I think they're laying low for now.

The problem I am finding with the CVs, is getting them to remain on station AND attack without withdrawing. So far, this is the only setting that allows me to do what I want. BTW, I just took Lunga, and I have withdrawn my carrier TF to Noumea for re-fit.

I have been trying to test various combinations to see what works. I may have to revise things if I meet another carrier - heh :D

Thanks to everyone for the heads-up.

BTW, without giving away any trade secrets, has anyone else found an effective setting whereby your carrier TFs don't run away in the middle of a fight?

If my carrier TF reacts to an enemy carrier TF when I have it on this setting, then this fact brings me back to my original post about having a minimum distance between carrier TFs. Why would my carrier commander need to close within 60 to 90 miles of any enemy TF? I don't mind my carrier reacting to the presence of another carrier; it's how CLOSE it gets to that enemy carrier TF that I don't understand. . .

Historically, carriers remained hundreds of miles away from the enemy no matter how aggressive the commander was. After all, the carrier's main weapon is its planes. . .

Cheers!

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 50
- 10/11/2002 6:06:25 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
I'm having a blast playing UV. Matrix has become my new pusher -UV has become my new fix. . .

All the suggestions offered here are to make a great game become a perfect game. . . :)

AGs, PT Boats. . .

I'm wondering if these little fellas should be left to enter the game like all the other air, land and naval forces do.

Currently, since any number of these little rootin', tootin' bad boys can be formed, the AI appears to be breeding its AGs like rabbits and padding its ports with them. Thus, when I carry out a bombardment, my BBs and CAs face these little guys, and I waste a lot of ammo taking them out. . .

BTW, these AGs are very, very tough. . .

At the very least pehaps there should be a maximum number that can be built. . .

Any other ideas that might work?

Thanks. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 51
- 10/11/2002 6:47:04 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]
The problem I am finding with the CVs, is getting them to remain on station AND attack without withdrawing. So far, this is the only setting that allows me to do what I want. BTW, I just took Lunga, and I have withdrawn my carrier TF to Noumea for re-fit.
[/quote]
Patrol/Don't React. Even then, aggressive skipper will close the range when enemy CVs are in the area.

The "react to enemy" has no effect on the strikes launched from the carrier and only control movement of the TF.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 52
- 10/11/2002 9:32:42 AM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]I'm having a blast playing UV. Matrix has become my new pusher -UV has become my new fix. . .



At the very least pehaps there should be a maximum number that can be built. . .



Thanks. . . [/B][/QUOTE]

There are limits to both. Check the ship availability screen to see how many are left. The barges do get annoying but there is a finite number of them

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 53
- 10/11/2002 11:47:17 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
To XPav and bilbow: Thanks for the advice.

The game is slowly starting to unfold for me. I kinda feel like those early commanders in the South Pacific who were trashed by the Japanese early in the fighting, but who slowly learned to fight their aggressive enemy, while military equipment rolled off the factory floors and naval yards back in the States. . . :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 54
- 10/12/2002 1:25:55 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
General Suggestions

Just took a little time out from UV to offer a few more suggestions:

1) Activate the "Enter" key so it can be used to close non-decision type screens such as the Combat Reports, weather panels, etc. This would save on the 'ol mouse finger. . .

2) Implement mouse wheel scrolling for the Combat Summary screens, and it would be nice to have the map, itself, be mouse wheel friendly. . .

3) Include more information about the units that are seen on the main map. It would be great if, when I pause the mouse over a unit icon, additional information could be included in the small black box such as: the unit's destination, and whether it is carrying cargo or it is empty. For example, it would look like this:

Destination: Noumea; empty.

OR

Destination: Port Morseby; cargo

So all transports would include the above information, while warships would just have the destination included.

Just the addition of these few extra words would save the players a great deal of time by not having to click on the units, since we would know, at a glance, where they were headed, and whether they were going to unload or pick-up cargo.

Cheers!

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 55
- 10/12/2002 11:05:58 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
Von Rom,

[QUOTE]1) Activate the "Enter" key so it can be used to close non-decision type screens such as the Combat
Reports, weather panels, etc. This would save on the 'ol mouse finger. . . [/QUOTE]

The Esc-key works fine for this.

Regards
BPRE

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 56
Re: React to Enemy - 10/13/2002 5:43:19 AM   
Mike Wood


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

In choosing the task force that intercepts first, the game engine has a number of things to consider, including but not limited to, the aggressiveness of the task force commanders, the number of operation points available to each task force, the local weather, the maximum speeds of the task forces, the orders of the task forces and the awareness of each task force (one task force may be aware of the enemy, while the other is not or becomes so at a later time).

If you wish to insure the smaller task force does not engage, you might try changing the orders to something other than surface combat, as the engine assumes that if you order the DD to surface combat, it should engage enemy shipping, if possible.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games
___________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]How does the game engine decide what friendly surface task force will be sent to intercept an enemy bombardment task force?

... So it would seem that if two friendly TF are nearby, the TF that is the closest is the one that intercepts the enemy.
[/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 57
- 10/13/2002 8:23:25 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BPRE
[B]Von Rom,
The Esc-key works fine for this.

Regards
BPRE [/B][/QUOTE]

BPRE: LOL :)

I'm glad I posted that suggestion. You just saved me a parcel of mouse clicking. . .

Are there any other hot keys I should know about other than what's on the fold-out card?


quote:

If you wish to insure the smaller task force does not engage, you might try changing the orders to something other than surface combat, as the engine assumes that if you order the DD to surface combat, it should engage enemy shipping, if possible.


Mike Wood: Thanks for taking the time to give us that information. I'll have to be more careful in the future :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 58
- 10/13/2002 9:12:30 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
ALLIED PT BOATS

I am amazed at the detail, research and work that has gone into the exhaustive collection of all the weapons and units in UV. It is mind-boggling to realize the efforts involved.

Most of these weapons work great. However, I think a little attention may need to be spent looking into the fighting abilities of the Allied PT Boats.

Example:

A Japanese Bombardment TF attacked Lunga with 2x BBs, 2x CAs, 1x CL, 4x DDs.

I quickly "built" 14 PT Boats.

The results?

At 1,000 yards, my 14 PT Boats devastated the Japanese Bombardment TF with their .50 cal MGs. Not a single PT Boat torpedo scored a hit, but those terrifying MGs tore into those Japanese battleships like a hot knife through butter.

The end result was all the Japanese capital ships suffered extensive damage, while I lost a single PT Boat. With results like these, I don't need to use my precious surface fleet for intercepting these Bombardment TFs.

I think against warships such as destroyers and above, the PT Boats' MGs should be completely useless. Which they were in the real war.

The real weapon on a PT Boat is its torpedo. Maybe these should be improved a bit. Historically, the PT Boats would move to within a few hundred yards of an enemy warship, release their torpedoes, and then speed away.

As it stands now, any Allied Commander can devastate a Japanese Bombardment TF for very little cost. I don't think this was the intention of the game designers.


Japanese Patrol Gunboats

This has been mentioned previously, but I thought I would mention it again here.

Many times these gunboats have taken dozens of hits from 3-inch shells and have not sunk. I think these boats were far more vulnerable than this. For example, in one encounter, a PG received hits from 33 3-inch shells plus two torpedoes, and did not sink.

The Japanese Patrol Gunboats currently have a durability of 10. I think this number may need to be reduced to 5 or less.

Thanks. Great game. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 59
F2 - 10/15/2002 2:38:36 AM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
Only one I can think of is F2 to display shallow water hexes.
It was added in a patch so that's why it isn't on the card.

I managed to enetr some kind of Terrain editor mode once without knowing how. Somebody else wrote that you press Enter to do it. They thought it was a bug but I would guess on a shortcut that might have been left by mistake.

I do wish that we had the old 'N' key for circulating through the TFs like in PacWar. That would really save a lot of clicking.

Regards
BPRE

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 60
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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.281