Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Re: IJN CV

 
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 >> Re: IJN CV Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Re: IJN CV - 2/15/2003 1:53:52 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I avoid coastal hexes as much as possible as IJN. (For every TF) Sometimes I have to drive the TF's by selecting hex and do not retire one day and then setting a new hex the next day.
...................... [/B][/QUOTE]

That is the way I do it too. Unfortunately I forget to set them to retirement allowed about 1/3 ot the time and they end up getting clobbered because they don't clear the area.:( And with transports you have to set the DH farther than they can reach in one day or else they will unload troops right in the sea hexes.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 61
- 2/15/2003 2:59:04 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]awesome job guys. Have a tall frosty one on me :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Where do I send the bill?:D

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 62
- 2/15/2003 3:05:03 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex.


All looks great (Better than I'd dreamed), but can you give us a reason for #17? It will make covering invasions much harder. Normally we just had the CV follow the transports. Now that won't be such a good idea.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

I am only speculating but one possible reason was the tactic that players were using. They would put a large carrier force in a friendly base with as much land base cap as they could muster. This basically made the carriers untouchable. Add several hundred land based cap to 100+ carrier cap and you get a wall no one can get through.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 63
- 2/15/2003 3:28:19 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]Where do I send the bill?:D [/B][/QUOTE]

Send it to Drongo's address. Having just single-handedly saved Austrailia from the Yellow Peril, he owes me for saving him from a future of weak Japanese beer and hang-over creat'in Saki.

Truely a fate worse than death ;)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 64
- 2/15/2003 3:36:06 AM   
rough44

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/2/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline 		With the new sub changes will the IJN ASW cope?
In 2.2 a TF of 4 PCs can loose 2 (one being hit by two torps) to an S-boat on a bad day.
I agree with those who state that even if IJN ASW wasn't all that effective at killing subs, then at least it should be made a bit more effective at driving them off.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 65
- 2/15/2003 5:40:19 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]I am only speculating but one possible reason was the tactic that players were using. They would put a large carrier force in a friendly base with as much land base cap as they could muster. This basically made the carriers untouchable. Add several hundred land based cap to 100+ carrier cap and you get a wall no one can get through.

Rick [/B][/QUOTE]

The change in the patch will certainly change that tactic, as it should, but I'm more concerned with sitting in the OTHER GUY'S base. I do that when I'm invading it and also when I want to shoot down his supply planes. I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping your CV within 30 miles of the invasion.

Post-patch I will have two choices: stay with the troopships and risk my CV's with 1/2 air cover or sit back a few hexes divide my fighters between cap and LRCAP and watch the fatigue mount from the longer flights. Neighter is very desirable. I suppose I will just bomb the enemy airfields as best I can and expect to lose some transports.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 66
For the Beta Testers... - 2/15/2003 8:19:10 AM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline 		Beta testers - in what ways are your tactics now changing in light of the changes in 2.3?

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 67
Re: For the Beta Testers... - 2/15/2003 9:39:35 AM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by ADavidB
[B]Beta testers - in what ways are your tactics now changing in light of the changes in 2.3?

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi [/B][/QUOTE]
Bigest chang I'm seeing is with subs. You no longer have to put a sub in a base (risking higher levels of detection and attack. You can now place a line of subs across heavily traveled routes. I think this will allow for a more historical use of subs.
Also you probably won't be able to sneak 1 or 2 squads into an enemy base with no combat units and wipe out 200 aircraft.
Looks like it will change the way some people use carriers.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 68
- 2/15/2003 5:53:12 PM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		Excellent modifications. Thanks very much.
Two minor complaints I'd still like to bring up are: a) I've seen messages telling me that a previously-unidentified enemy TF was incapable of launching a/c due to weather. A dead give-away that it was in fact a CV TF (or at least a surface combat TF with float planes). b) Too many other messages that give me info about enemy that I shouldn't have.
But, again, you're making mods in the new patch that really improve this already excellent game. Thanks again for listening to your "Omega testers."

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 69
- 2/15/2003 6:08:45 PM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		An additional question: While the US AI-controlled sub model seems accurate in most respects, I wonder about the absence of losses of US subs that I'm experiencing. I don't know the history of losses by year and theatre, but I know we lost a relatively high percentage of our submarines in the course of the war, and I'm not seeing any losses in the South Pacific in '42. Is that correct?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 70
- 2/15/2003 7:03:41 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		Congratulations on a continuing fine job. It looks like you are really on top of the game mechanics issues and the game is going from strength to strength because of it.

Just are question though. Are you going to use the opportunity to do some final fine tuning of the OOBs since this likely to be one of the last patches? I ask this because there are still a few small loose ends that may not break the game but could still be addressed to improve historical accuracy and enhance player immersion.

I have brought this up before but one of these is the designation of the Australian Spitfires. The RAAF flew Spitfire Vc and the Spitfire VIII and not the Vb and IX version aircraft. This may have slipped in for WITP database compatibility but Vb and IX versions have no relevance to the UV theatre and could simply fixed with a designation change with absolutely no effect on game play as no other unit characteristics need to be amended.

Another small issue is the No. 79 Squadron RAAF (or any other RAAF squadron) didn't upgrade from the Spitfire Vc to the Spitfire VIII until April 1944 which is beyond the scope of UV. As this could lead to a play balance issue, I'll leave this one up to you guys.

Cheers,
Reg.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 71
- 2/15/2003 8:43:05 PM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline
quote:

11) We have lowered level bomber accuracy against TFs, especially for pilots with less than 70 experience against ships travelling at high speed. The impact of pilot quality and ship speed on level bomber accuracy against TFs has been enhanced. Even strong level bomber pilots against very slow targets will have less chance to hit than before. This level bomber adjustment does not impact level bombers using torpedoes.


Thank God! This one almost killed my enjoyment of the game.

WTG gents, this patch should leave only minuiate left to whine about....although you know we'll manage to find *something* that isn't perfect. ;)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 72
Level bomber accuracy change? - 2/15/2003 8:57:05 PM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline 		As far as item #11 goes, does this change of accuracy on level bombers against TFs affect both sides, or only the Allied level bombers?

Come to think of it, I can't remember seeing Japanese level bombers use bombs on Allied TFs in UV. Is there a range at which the Japanese level bombers switch from torpedos to bombs?

Play testers - are you seeing any difference?

Thanks again -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 73
- 2/15/2003 9:01:43 PM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		To my knowledge, the Betty was a level bomber, and yes I've seen it attack my ships.
Checking the range for torpedo attack by the Betty, I'm not sure it was bombs, after all.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 74
- 2/16/2003 1:29:55 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		I'm delighted to see the changes in subs. Do the new sub-contact rules tone down the effectiveness of subs (which generally seem too effective to me)? If not, are there also plans to improve IJN ASW, or at least to make the presence of escorts more of a deterrent to enemy subs? Or, alternatively, to tone down the effectiveness of Allied S-boats?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 75
- 2/16/2003 1:32:13 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective :D

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 76
- 2/16/2003 2:22:15 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		Since subs will be able to take shots at ships in transit, is there any chance the same thing could be done for surface combat task forces when an enemy moves through their hex?

I'd also like to see surface combat TF have a chance to move to intercept enemy task forces at sea it the detection level on the target is high enough and the TF commander passes some sort of check. This would only happen if the TF was set to "react", naturally.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 77
- 2/16/2003 2:51:07 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I'd also like to see surface combat TF have a chance to move to intercept enemy task forces at sea it the detection level on the target is high enough and the TF commander passes some sort of check. This would only happen if the TF was set to "react", naturally.[/QUOTE]

Keep it up and we'll be real time instead of turn based :D

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 78
- 2/16/2003 4:44:54 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reg
[B]Congratulations on a continuing fine job. It looks like you are really on top of the game mechanics issues and the game is going from strength to strength because of it.

Just are question though. Are you going to use the opportunity to do some final fine tuning of the OOBs since this likely to be one of the last patches? I ask this because there are still a few small loose ends that may not break the game but could still be addressed to improve historical accuracy and enhance player immersion.

I have brought this up before but one of these is the designation of the Australian Spitfires. The RAAF flew Spitfire Vc and the Spitfire VIII and not the Vb and IX version aircraft. This may have slipped in for WITP database compatibility but Vb and IX versions have no relevance to the UV theatre and could simply fixed with a designation change with absolutely no effect on game play as no other unit characteristics need to be amended.

Another small issue is the No. 79 Squadron RAAF (or any other RAAF squadron) didn't upgrade from the Spitfire Vc to the Spitfire VIII until April 1944 which is beyond the scope of UV. As this could lead to a play balance issue, I'll leave this one up to you guys.

Cheers,
Reg. [/B][/QUOTE]

Rich Dionne is at this very moment working on a few database issues. If you have some, you should get them to Rich. I don't know which issues he is going to correct. But you have to act fast. I'm not sure what issues Rich has been aware of.

Joel

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 79
- 2/16/2003 5:58:51 AM   
NAVMAN

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline 		Joel: How does one contact Rich Dionne?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 80
- 2/16/2003 8:28:47 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Since we're talking (futile?) 11th hour requests.....

Any chance of having a look at making a last minute change to fighter sweeps to stop them sweeping twice per day (make it once only). The fatigue levels that squadrons carry into the second sweep don't quite make it worthwhile any more, given fatigue's influence on combat (as well as non-operational losses).

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 81
- 2/16/2003 8:58:20 AM   
NAVMAN

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline 		Drongo: I agree with you that sweeps, and for that matter, most other missions should only be flown once/day by the AI, although
in extreme circumstances, human controlled forces may want to launch multiple strikes in one day for specific units. I believe this situation took place at Guadalcanal, when a Japanese convoy was caught in the open and multiple strikes were flown. On a personal note, if I may, my father, who flew as a B-17 bombardier
with the 92BG(8th AF), related a story to me that after D-Day, he flew two(2) missions in one day to Belgium. I good time he said, was not had by all.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 82
- 2/16/2003 10:06:52 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		I think fighters flying twice a day was the reason given for not ID'ing most fighters as fighter/bombers, even though most fighters had bomb racks. Can you imagine the carnage if low durability fighters like Zero's were flying 2 bombing missions a day on a largish/high AA value USN TF, or a base like PM? You'd very quickly not have any fighters left at all.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 83
- 2/16/2003 10:54:33 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		I guess we're talking about waypoints here. If only UV had them.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 84
- 2/16/2003 10:55:42 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Excuse me I was addressing a Mogami reply earlier on.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 85
- 2/16/2003 11:14:58 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		< G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective >

But extra effective if it hit the runway under the water line, nothing worse then a flooding runway

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 86
- 2/16/2003 12:33:58 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge
[B]< G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective >

But extra effective if it hit the runway under the water line, nothing worse then a flooding runway

HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]

Flooding runway = sinking carrier

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 87
- 2/16/2003 1:54:44 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by NAVMAN
[B]Joel: How does one contact Rich Dionne? [/B][/QUOTE]

I've sent Rich a note asking him to check this forum and let you know how to reach him with OOB issues.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 88
- 2/16/2003 11:01:16 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline 		Guys,

When it is working, you can send me a private message using the forum. You can also reach me at my e-mail address: [email]tmflood@earthlink.net[/email].

Regards,

Rich

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 89
- 2/17/2003 4:22:28 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Dionne
[B]Guys,

When it is working, you can send me a private message using the forum. You can also reach me at my e-mail address: [email]tmflood@earthlink.net[/email].

Regards,

Rich [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks Rich.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: IJN CV Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

1.313