RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (Full Version)

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



Message

SuluSea -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/21/2008 4:17:16 PM)

I was watching Battle 360 "Bloody Santa Cruz"  episode last night and the Big E recieved a refit/repairs in a month. I was wondering about the option of a quick turn around of ships sent back to Pearl [or even Tokyo] if they are in dire need . Penalty would be maybe 1/3 of the damage fixed depending on how long the player states the ship stays for repairs. Clear as mud right?[;)]



Hornblower -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/22/2008 7:14:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I was watching Battle 360 "Bloody Santa Cruz"  episode last night and the Big E recieved a refit/repairs in a month. I was wondering about the option of a quick turn around of ships sent back to Pearl [or even Tokyo] if they are in dire need . Penalty would be maybe 1/3 of the damage fixed depending on how long the player states the ship stays for repairs. Clear as mud right?[;)]


That and the Yorktown prior to Midway...



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/23/2008 12:47:37 AM)

quote:

I was watching Battle 360 "Bloody Santa Cruz" episode last night and the Big E recieved a refit/repairs in a month. I was wondering about the option of a quick turn around of ships sent back to Pearl [or even Tokyo] if they are in dire need . Penalty would be maybe 1/3 of the damage fixed depending on how long the player states the ship stays for repairs. Clear as mud right?


Now that is a good idea.



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/23/2008 1:00:19 PM)

This has been said before, but most of the air currently in UV will need some adjustments: B-17s historically didn't hit anything in the water (think Midway), Corsair's performing like jets from "The Final Countdown," etc.



XG76 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/25/2008 4:14:24 PM)

May be another idea: individually shifting planes and/or pilots between squadrons (same a/c type, same base location of course). This will enable to fill up depleted airgroups or create certain elite squadrons. It sucks not to have control of the aviator pool.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/25/2008 5:01:19 PM)

Please fix the bug that causes an entire regiment to disappear from the face of the earth when a tiny fragment of that regiment gets destroyed on a remote island.

In a recent PBEM game I sent a tiny fragment (4 destroyers worth of capacity) of a regiment of the Americal division on a fast transport invasion of Rossel Island to guage the Japanese reaction. The reaction was swift and violent, precluding any oppurtunity to ship additional fragments in. When the fragment on Rossel was destroyed the remaining, much larger, fragment at Noumea disappeared from the face of the earth....or at least from the region covered by the UV map.

Please fix this bug before you release CF.



Popeye USN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/25/2008 5:57:56 PM)

JMHO...

It's been said before but don't make it another WinP! Which is too invovled and too long. A good UV player can develop a turn in minutes for fast turn arounds.

Make it possible for opposing TF's to engage if both are moving through the same hex. Right now in UV two massive armada's, with radar equiped ships, can pass each other in the same hex and not a shot would be fired?

Also, would there be away to enable players to change passwords during a game. In a long UV game it would be nice to be able to save the game after 60 turns or so and be able to send it to another player who could use the saved game and change the password? Sure would save a lot of time.



RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/26/2008 7:38:04 AM)

Now thats good! Agree with both - please put it in the game!



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/26/2008 2:28:42 PM)

Please give us the ability to disable automatic Admiral selection for task forces like in WitP.

There are few things more annoying than discovering that all your best surface combat admirals are busy commanding your transport task forces when you form a surface combat TF.



RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/26/2008 5:38:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

There are few things more annoying than discovering that all your best surface combat admirals are busy commanding your transport task forces when you form a surface combat TF.



your sense of humour truly is unsurpassable Hans! Besides that, I agree again! [:)]



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/26/2008 5:41:16 PM)

I realize what I am asking for is to compensate for laziness on the players (read me) part. I am just too lazy or issuing orders in too rapid fire a manner to take notice every time of what admiral the AI assigns to my transport TFs. It always comes back to haunt me later.


quote:

ORIGINAL: RGIJN


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

There are few things more annoying than discovering that all your best surface combat admirals are busy commanding your transport task forces when you form a surface combat TF.



your sense of humour truly is unsurpassable Hans! Besides that, I agree again! [:)]




borner -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/30/2008 12:35:31 AM)

I am sure this has been mentioned before, but please take a look at the power of the fighters in the game. F4f"s and P-40's are far less effective than they were, and the F4U's are a wonder weapon. Yes, kill rations were high, as they were with the F6F, but they tend to be that way against untrained pilots, such as what the IJN was sending out later in the war.



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (6/30/2008 1:18:18 AM)

As this is a tactical simualtor, or something of the sort. I would like to see the historic markings on the planes per squadron. I think it would be worth the extra space in total size of the game on disk or download.



SuluSea -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (7/1/2008 11:01:01 PM)

Is it possible in the code for Carrier Task Forces to set a higher priority on loaded transport TFs? I realize under certain circumstances it would be tough to find out if a TF is empty or full but given the below example I think any Task Force Commander would attach a higher priority on the arriving transports (2) instead of the
departing (1) transports. In this example the Carrier has been on station and  along with the  Land Based Recon has witnessed the departing (1) TF come and unload some troops/cargo at Lunga.



[image]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/Noopers/Taskforce.jpg[/image]



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (7/14/2008 4:03:01 AM)

I would likie a little more release of information as to what ¨Carrier Force¨ is exactly. Screen shots, combat resolution, etc.

A approximate release date or progress report would be a plus as well.



borner -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (7/14/2008 4:08:31 AM)

quote:

This has been said before, but most of the air currently in UV will need some adjustments: B-17s historically didn't hit anything in the water (think Midway), Corsair's performing like jets from "The Final Countdown," etc.



AMEN!!!!!



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (7/18/2008 12:42:42 PM)

"According to the UV ship database Ise does not have any Radar installed. That said, I did find quite a few ships equipped with radars. For instance, the destroyer Yugumo shows it being equipped with both the Type 13 and Type 21 search radars."

The above thread can be found at "RE: Jap ships that you will never see"

There seems to be a continuing issue w/radar in UV in the ship database, i.e., the IJN vessel Ise should have radar but doesn't, other IJN ships do, and Allied ships w/radar are impervious to Long Lance attacks.

The UV ship database needs some serious tweaking in order to return this historical simulation back to actual history.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (7/18/2008 1:09:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

quote:

This has been said before, but most of the air currently in UV will need some adjustments: B-17s historically didn't hit anything in the water (think Midway), Corsair's performing like jets from "The Final Countdown," etc.



AMEN!!!!!



Add to that the totally unrealistic ability to project effective LRCAP over 500 miles from it's base of origin. LRCAP should have it's own, very limited, effective range and not be based on the "normal" operational range of any given type of fighter.



RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (7/18/2008 2:57:58 PM)

the good old QQP game "Battles of the South Pacific" had a very nice option inbuilt: you could capture Cargo Vessels (AP/AK/TK/AO types) when encountering with warships. IIRC, there where a few rules about: your (attacking) TF must have at least have a CL or larger type, this TF should be of considerable size (not only a CL and a DD) and the enemy transport TF does not contain any escort vessels anymore. Thus, you had to engage true "convoys" several times to sink these protecting craft first. When the actual process of "capturing" occured, dice rolls determined if (and how many) of the freighter victims were going to sink (modelling the crews that managed to open the valves) and dice rolls also defined the damage status of the captured units.

It was really a very attractive thing to make raider war like that. May be another prospect worth integrating into CF?
What do you think about?



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/1/2008 12:38:01 AM)

If nothing else please fix the loading bug.  I'm so tired of planning an invasion, allocating the needed shipping and even loading each and every ship individually before merging them into TFs only to see that the next turn they have sailed without the rest of the units and/or not loading any supplies.

To me this bug is enough to stop my long relationship, 6 years, with UV and will stop me from considering buying CF if I hear that it still exists.



Anthropoid -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/3/2008 12:47:39 AM)

quote:

Carrier Force is a tactical game built on the UV engine. It will contain improvements to the UV engine, but the main purpose of the game is to fight in quasi-real time, with each turn (within the tactical mode, of course) taking 15 minutes. Players get to handle all the details of carrier operations, arming planes, spotting them to the flight deck, launch and recover them, coordinate searches and strikes, etc all in 15 minute turns.

If you wish you can play the game like UV where each turn is one day, and this is how the game will pass when not in tactical mode. But the heart and soul of the game is the tactical mode. We are also planning some naval combat stuff to take advantage of the 15 minute turn structure.


WOW! Don't know if anyone said this before in this thread, but this sounds AWESOME!!



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/3/2008 2:26:41 PM)

Real time (pulse based time segmented) combat for PBEM will make game bog down for PBEM play.  We have day long turns now, imagine 8 turns or so per day when there's combat.......we'll see.



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/3/2008 6:09:11 PM)

quote:

Real time (pulse based time segmented) combat for PBEM will make game bog down for PBEM play. We have day long turns now, imagine 8 turns or so per day when there's combat.......we'll see.


No doubt.

Make sure there is an option to turn this off.



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/3/2008 8:39:33 PM)

Something is going on as Ike and I have been in accord on things lately.  [:)]



pasternakski -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 5:00:37 AM)

You and Ike are good, respectable - and respectful - people, Todd. We all wrangled a little on that "other thread" when opinions got in the way of common courtesy, but it didn't get out of control, as most of the people in the discussion were reasonable.

I, on the other hand, am an unrepentant jerk. Just ask anybody who doesn't know me...

With regard to the current topic, I guess I hadn't given sufficient consideration to where the emphasis of the design is going. If it is to be centered around the RTS tactical element with the part that most resembles UV being given short shrift, I am going to have serious second thoughts about buying this. As has become my habit in recent years, I will likely hold off and listen to what all you maniacs have to say about it before jumping in - or jumping off...



Ike99 -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 5:37:13 AM)

quote:

You and Ike are good, respectable - and respectful - people, Todd. We all wrangled a little on that "other thread" when opinions got in the way of common courtesy, but it didn't get out of control, as most of the people in the discussion were reasonable.

I, on the other hand, am an unrepentant jerk. Just ask anybody who doesn't know me...

With regard to the current topic, I guess I hadn't given sufficient consideration to where the emphasis of the design is going. If it is to be centered around the RTS tactical element with the part that most resembles UV being given short shrift, I am going to have serious second thoughts about buying this. As has become my habit in recent years, I will likely hold off and listen to what all you maniacs have to say about it before jumping in - or jumping off...


The thing is this...I don´t rememeber anyone asking to fight the tactical battles out themselves. I think what people wanted, including me, Is the bugs eliminated in UV and it brought up to what WITP-AE is going to be. With all the added features and improvements.

Fighting the tactical battles out myself is something I can take or leave and in PBEM will 99% sure be left. Take WAY too long to get through a game for me.



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 1:14:04 PM)

The micro management is being possibly being added because of some control freaks (not meant in an offensive manner) wanted this feature and to market a "new game" instead of breathing life into an old warhorse is probably a marketing thing with the old profit motive. 

That being said it's really important that this tactical option be just that, an option that can be toggled on or off.



Anthropoid -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 2:46:53 PM)

Never played UV. I'm proficient with WPO and WiTP against the AI, but I'd likely get my butt kicked against a good human.

I've enjoyed some PBEMs with some of the TOAWIII scenarios, and Civ mods/scenarios; but I'm hesitant to commit to a PBEM for 4 or 5 years. Moreover, the thought of committing to a 4 or 5 year long PBEM in which the outcome is largely predictable (assuming opponents are roughly equally matched, else the allied player at least has enough sense to learn from his mistakes) sounds even more unpalatable. Maybe I'd actually love it, but my respect for those of you who are true WiTP PBEMers makes me hesitant to ruin my otherwise spotless reputation by committing to something I might not be willing to finish [:D]

I could see a WiTP PBEM using one of the short scenarios, OR if I knew one of you "maniacs" well enough to have a sense that I was not totally outclassed . . .

Okay so having said all that: I basically enjoy the WiTP/WPO games against the AI so far and I think I'm not alone in this regard. Not to say that we SPers are more Emportant or less than you PBEMers, but there are these two camps of us skulking about in the Matrix it seems.

From my perpsective, a tactical game that allowed more fine-grained exploration of the mechanics of 1940s Pacific naval and air warfare sounds delightfully fun, even if it did mean that it was not very playable in MP mode.

Indeed, if I had a "wish" for WitP-2, it would be for a tactical battle engine (for land, sea AND air! [X(]) that would allow you to fight "detailed battles" something like in Forge of Freedom. Keep ALL the current theatre-level detail, _with_ all the AE improvements, and ADD (meaning in addition) the tactical level as an option (as it is in FoF) and  . . . whoooooooo . . . . whatta game [&o]

. . . Imagine, being able to detach companies from your battalions . . . choose the Company that has the most experienced riflemen, order them to "stalk" (command telling a unit to proceed very slowly and carefully, i.e., crawl, crouch) into those steep forest covered hills. Move your mortars into that little bald knob that is just around the corner of that escarpment from where you suspect the enemy has his machine guns emplacments dug in, set them to "tactical support" mode (meaning they are ready to support other platoons/companies when they are requested) . . . set a couple of your small depleted rifle companies to picket duty to protect the mortar squads . . . wait for daybreak, and send in a probing attack with your large heterogenous companies comprising lots of green recruits, causing the enemy to return fire and giving your stalkers a clear view of the emplacements! Call in the mortar barrage, and when it is done tell your stalkers to flank along the hill while the greens continue the frontal assault! . . .

That would be a description of how the tactical battle engine would work if it was modeled roughly like FoF (course you could potentially also call in close air support, reinforcements, maybe even naval bombardment all depending on what else was going on in that hex/adjoining hexes); really NOTHING like an RTS, just a turn-based strategy game at a finer-grained level of detail.



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 3:12:42 PM)

Forget WITP and it's massiveness and WPO with it's long tedium because this is UV where PBEM is fast and furious, usually.  I've never had a PBEM go on and on forever, even the campaigns so rethink.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (8/4/2008 3:33:02 PM)

Personally, I have never been a huge fan of fighting out the tactical battles in a strategic game. Especially if thet tactical portion relies on my eye hand coordinaation for success. I don't want an arcade clickfest to determine the outcome of my strategy.

I almost always let the computer resolve the tactical battles in Medieval Total War.

I picked up a copy of a game called Pacific Storm. What a mistake. Apparently somewhere embedded below the arcade action portion of the game is a strategy game. I never got past the arcade like implementation of placing me in the cockpit of a plane in teh first battle. One some gaming website the reviewer trashed the game because it had all this boring strategy stuff to deal with between the "action". Obviously the reviewer was the FPS type looking for "shoot-em-up action. I wanted just the opposite. I didn't want the success of the fights to be dependent on my skill piloting the bomber.

If the tactical battles can't be turned off and left to the computer to resolve I certainly won't be purchasing the new game.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.187012