Am I stupid?? (Full Version)

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



Message

fuelli -> Am I stupid?? (7/11/2008 9:01:48 PM)

I am an engineer and supposed to be familiar with basic math. But there is something that just puzzled me:
I have an airgroup with 16 pilots (medium bomber) and the sqdr. screen says that the avg. experience of the pilots is 65.
When I look at the pilots and sort them according experience the one with the lowest experince hast 74. How can the average exp. be lower then the lowest value?

[image]local://upfiles/12693/0D6B281A7A6044A5A1B8271E0A1C55EA.jpg[/image]



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/11/2008 10:54:44 PM)

Yah, yer stupid. Just like me. I used to try to understand the various values and their importance in this game like it all made some kind of sense.

I have since wised up. It's all a smokescreen to obscure the simple fact that this game system makes no sense at all.

Try asking sometime for an explanation of how leader values work and why they are significant. I got nothing but BS layered onto silence followed by criticism of the cruelest order from those who think this game and WitP are the most wonderful things since ... well, I was going to mention a part of the female anatomy that has a certain attraction for me personally, but decided to exercise the better part of valor.

Okay, all you UV/WitP gas hogs, hit the accelerator. I'm pedaling my green butt outta this thread.



tocaff -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/11/2008 11:09:35 PM)

That was very good pasternakski.  I liked the part where you exercised the "better part of valor".  Some here might even have said that you had Uncommon Valor!  [:D]



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 12:13:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

That was very good pasternakski.  I liked the part where you exercised the "better part of valor".  Some here might even have said that you had Uncommon Valor!  [:D]

Well, I was kinda grumpy today, and I apologize if I was a little too critical of this sacred cow - I mean - this excellently developed and widely respected game.

I guess my problem with UV and WitP always has been that I can't understand what the consequences of certain things are, and why nobody on an official level has ever stepped up and tried to explain them.

For example. Once upon a time, long, long ago when we still thought that the first Lord of the Rings movie would include Tom Bombadil, I asked, "What is the difference between a leader rating of 70 aggressiveness as opposed to a leader rating of 40 aggressiveness (other than the statement in the leader assignment screen that the leader is "aggressive" - highly or ordinary - or "careful" or even "cautious?" Someone who was a moderator then but is not a moderator now stuck in a bizarre post talking about "die rolls," without mentioning a single thing about what the die roll criteria were, how many sides the die had, or what the values were in the result table cells.

At that point, I just stopped asking.

Oh. I was grumpy today because the barge on which my building supplies for improvements on my retirement home I bought recently was stopped by government officials and searched because it might contain "contraband." When I askedfor more information, they told me that it could have been "terrorist-related."

Eventually, they released my cargo, but, by then, the guy whose ox cart (yes, where I live, most freight is still moved by ox cart) I had rented had gone home (to feed his ox, I suppose), so all my stuff spent the night sitting out on the pier.

Is it any wonder I grumble and mumble?



borner -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 3:29:14 AM)

if you try to figure everything out about this game, it will drive you to drink   [sm=00000436.gif]    My personal favorite is how a convoy or task force can move different distances, so what use are the movemet radius circles???[&:]    The thing I dislike, is you can invest months into a game, and a TF commander can go off on his own and do something that changes the whole tempo of something you have invested a great deal of time in.



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 4:06:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner
The thing I dislike, is you can invest months into a game, and a TF commander can go off on his own and do something that changes the whole tempo of something you have invested a great deal of time in.

You know? Don't even get me started on the mandatory four-space distance do-se-do before a transport TF is allowed to arrive at its destination...

My flat, final judgment is this about UV: it was a great big idea that became a whole bunch of screwed up little ideas that ruined the end result.

The real tragedy is that what went wrong persisted into WitP and (as far as I can tell from what little has been divulged) will ruin WitP/AE and CF.

I hate it. I wanted all this stuff to be so good. And it's turning out to be so bad.



Joe D. -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 12:05:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fuelli

... I have an airgroup with 16 pilots (medium bomber) and the sqdr. screen says that the avg. experience of the pilots is 65.
When I look at the pilots and sort them according experience the one with the lowest experince hast 74. How can the average exp. be lower then the lowest value?


Is it possible that the math includes the (unseen) pool of Beaufort replacement pilots?

Otherwise UV has a serious logic error, the kind that doesn't "light up" any lines of code and won't be noticed by the programmers. If so, your graph should be posted up top and called to the attention of the CF development team.



Ike99 -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 3:24:58 PM)

quote:

well, I was going to mention a part of the female anatomy that has a certain attraction for me personally, but decided to exercise the better part of valor.


What part would that be exactly? [:D]


[image]local://upfiles/19240/BDA546FC3C7F4FB6BF9483AE86B3ED02.jpg[/image]



Dixie -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 7:46:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

That was very good pasternakski. I liked the part where you exercised the "better part of valor". Some here might even have said that you had Uncommon Valor! [:D]

Well, I was kinda grumpy today, and I apologize if I was a little too critical of this sacred cow - I mean - this excellently developed and widely respected game.

I guess my problem with UV and WitP always has been that I can't understand what the consequences of certain things are, and why nobody on an official level has ever stepped up and tried to explain them.

For example. Once upon a time, long, long ago when we still thought that the first Lord of the Rings movie would include Tom Bombadil, I asked, "What is the difference between a leader rating of 70 aggressiveness as opposed to a leader rating of 40 aggressiveness (other than the statement in the leader assignment screen that the leader is "aggressive" - highly or ordinary - or "careful" or even "cautious?" Someone who was a moderator then but is not a moderator now stuck in a bizarre post talking about "die rolls," without mentioning a single thing about what the die roll criteria were, how many sides the die had, or what the values were in the result table cells.

At that point, I just stopped asking.

Oh. I was grumpy today because the barge on which my building supplies for improvements on my retirement home I bought recently was stopped by government officials and searched because it might contain "contraband." When I askedfor more information, they told me that it could have been "terrorist-related."

Eventually, they released my cargo, but, by then, the guy whose ox cart (yes, where I live, most freight is still moved by ox cart) I had rented had gone home (to feed his ox, I suppose), so all my stuff spent the night sitting out on the pier.

Is it any wonder I grumble and mumble?


Obviously your barge driver was not aggressive enough and failed a random die-roll so was unable to slip past customs[:D]

Then the Ox driver fell foul of the ox-feeding die roll which he failed, thus meaning an immediate RTB for the ox and crew [;)]



Joe D. -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 9:32:16 PM)

I'm re-posting this. W/all the "stupidity" going on here -- from Ike's bizzare mis-post to paster's rants -- I'm afraid my response was overlooked and it just might be the answer to fuelli's query, assuming anyone remembers that his question actually started this thread ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: fuelli
... I have an airgroup with 16 pilots (medium bomber) and the sqdr. screen says that the avg. experience of the pilots is 65.
When I look at the pilots and sort them according experience the one with the lowest experince hast 74. How can the average exp. be lower then the lowest value?


Is it possible that the math includes the (unseen) pool of Beaufort replacement pilots?

Otherwise UV has a serious logic error, the kind that doesn't "light up" any lines of code and won't be noticed by the programmers. If so, your graph should be posted up top and called to the attention of the CF development team.



tocaff -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/12/2008 11:02:56 PM)

It seems that much gets lost around here.......



fuelli -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/13/2008 11:48:35 AM)

The next turn the values changed and are correct now.
For me the question is which value is incorparated in the code for battles, the avg value or the individual pilot value?



tocaff -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/13/2008 12:20:41 PM)

Supposedly it's the individual pilot's ratings that determine the combat, which is determined by the infamous "die roll." 

I wonder how many sides the dice are comprised of and how many are rolled for each calculation.

[&:]



Joe D. -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/13/2008 12:55:34 PM)

From the UV manual:

Air To Air Combat
In this game, once aircraft have closed for combat, the most important factors include maneuverability and speed. If a plane has a significantly higher maneuverability,
the pilot will try to dogfight. If the plane has a significantly higher speed, the pilot will try to make slashing attacks.

If the pilot succeeds or not is primarily dependent on his skill. So, you will find that a trainer, such as the Wirraway, will suffer horribly against a high performance fighter, such as a Zero.

Here the manual refers only to pilot, not pilots or squadron, but read on.

The Zero is much faster and far more maneuverable. The only saving feature of the Wirraway, in such a case is the rear-firing gunner. The Wildcat is also in
trouble, as it is not any faster than the Zero, and is less maneuverable to boot. The Kittyhawk, on the other hand, is significantly faster and quite durable. The
Kittyhawk pilot will try for slashing attacks, using speed to fly by very quickly, fire his guns and then dive or make a very lazy turn around and come back. He also can go head to head with the Zero and stand a good chance of living to tell the tale.

Later war Allied aircraft, such as the Lightning, Thunderbolt or Corsair are adequately maneuverable and extremely fast and rugged. Very few Japanese aircraft can stand up to these.

Tell me about it!

Pilot experience determines, of course, if the desired tactic can be achieved and squadron commander’s air skill is influential. If the pilots do not know the tactic, they will not use it well. Fatigue and morale are also important.

So the squad cdr's skill must figure into the algorithym, which may explain why UV annouces the death of these pilots, so it must be important.

It should also be noted that although the combat display reports the total number of fighter aircraft attempting to engage, the actual number of planes that dogfight are usually much less. This is based on the temporary disruption taken during previous combat rounds, or the inability of CAP aircraft to reach the incoming strike in time. Also, it is possible for CAP to force a bomber group to abort its mission prior to the bomber group’s bomb run.

I wonder if fuelli's Beaufort ave. experience calculations were on the first half of the first turn and UV needed the whole turn to make the correct calculation?



Bigdog128 -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/13/2008 1:41:26 PM)

I would try this. Maybe that "value" did not refresh properly during the game. Possibly, if you re-start the game, the correct value will display. You may have already tried this, but I thought it was worth a shot.

Bigdog128



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 2:10:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

From the UV manual:
If the pilot succeeds or not is primarily dependent on his skill. So, you will find that a trainer, such as the Wirraway, will suffer horribly against a high performance fighter, such as a Zero.

Here the manual refers only to pilot, not pilots or squadron, but read on.

But, Joe, look at what this quote actually says. It starts out talking about pilot skill, then states "that a trainer, such as the Wirraway, will suffer horribly ...," obviously invoking aircraft characteristics rather than anything the humans flying it have to do with it.

I sought long and hard (sorry about the sexual double entendre, it was unintended, but resembles the above-referenced confusion between the abilities of the pilot and the characteristics of the hardware, so I hope I can be forgiven) for an explanation of how air combat results are calculated.

Years and thousands of posts later, the confusion has never been dispelled by those responsible for the game.

I gave up on asking for it then, and I certainly don't intend to ask for it again. The only thing that concerns me as a paying customer is that a new version of this game is pending. Will the details be any clearer this time than they were the first?

I have to tell you, my money is staying in my pocket until I am doggone sure that the game mechanics have been explained thoroughly and to my satisfaction.




Joe D. -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 2:52:21 AM)

It's probably too much to ask for the C++ code, but from what I can gather from the manual, Air Combat in UV is determined by:

-- pilot experience
-- aircraft maneuverability, speed (also climb rate and ruggedness?)
-- squadron ldr skill

There may be other factors, i.e., wx, and the (squadron?) morale check that will determine if the pilots even get off the ground.




Ike99 -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 3:44:44 AM)

quote:

It's probably too much to ask for the C++ code, but from what I can gather from the manual, Air Combat in UV is determined by:

-- pilot experience
-- aircraft maneuverability, speed (also climb rate and ruggedness?)
-- squadron ldr skill

There may be other factors, i.e., wx, and the (squadron?) morale check that will determine if the pilots even get off the ground.


I wouldn´t think in that order, from what I see pilot experience is a low factor in air combat in the game when resolving air combat.

quote:

Years and thousands of posts later, the confusion has never been dispelled by those responsible for the game.

I gave up on asking for it then, and I certainly don't intend to ask for it again. The only thing that concerns me as a paying customer is that a new version of this game is pending. Will the details be any clearer this time than they were the first?

I have to tell you, my money is staying in my pocket until I am doggone sure that the game mechanics have been explained thoroughly and to my satisfaction.




Yes, it would be nice if they would explain how all combat is resolved in the game system. What the formula is exactly.



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 3:50:50 AM)

See what I mean, guys? We all plunked down our dough. We got more dough we want to plunk down.

Don't we deserve at least an idea of how what we're buying works? And that, when we buy it, it'll work like we were told it would?

I would love to buy. I got the money to spend. As Jesse Ventura said after being asked what he would do upon being voted out of the Minnesota governorship, "I'm fat and sassy and I got plenty of money."

Okay, Matrix. Call me Jesse. Gimme something to buy. Right now, I ain't seein' it.



Ike99 -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 3:59:25 AM)

quote:

See what I mean, guys? We all plunked down our dough. We got more dough we want to plunk down.

Don't we deserve at least an idea of how what we're buying works? And that, when we buy it, it'll work like we were told it would?

I would love to buy. I got the money to spend. As Jesse Ventura said after being asked what he would do upon being voted out of the Minnesota governorship, "I'm fat and sassy and I got plenty of money."

Okay, Matrix. Call me Jesse. Gimme something to buy. Right now, I ain't seein' it.


I have to say I´ve been wishing for a little more release of information on what ¨Carrier Force¨ is going to be exactly. Screen shots, an idea of how the tactical battles are going to be resolved, etc. etc.



borner -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 4:03:53 AM)

I am admittedly a latecomer to the carrier force discussion...... can someone explain how it is different from UV, and not an excuse to drop another $70 for a UV upgrade?

thanks!



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 4:06:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
I have to say I´ve been wishing for a little more release of information on what ¨Carrier Force¨ is going to be exactly. Screen shots, an idea of how the tactical battles are going to be resolved, etc. etc.

Well, I guess I could be patient, but I feel the same way you do.

Maybe we'll get a separate CF forum one of these days, and all this can be hashed out (a WitP/AE forum wouldn't be unwelcome, either).

Still, I acknowledge the problems Matrix has had in the past with being maybe a little TOO forth coming on pre-release. People tend to take speculation and casual statements as promises, then get all hacked off when they think they're not being fulfilled. So, a little caution on Matrix's part is perfectly understandable, I think ... gee, look at good old tolerant me ...

Still, there are worrisome signs out there, not the least of which is the extreme shrinkage in the "coming soon" list ...



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 4:10:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

I am admittedly a latecomer to the carrier force discussion...... can someone explain how it is different from UV, and not an excuse to drop another $70 for a UV upgrade?

thanks!


I'm no official source, of course, but the primary thing I have seen is that it will contain a "tactical" treatment of carrier battles, something that UV treats very abstractly. Another "improvement" is, as far as I understand, that various of the advances introduced by WitP will be "retrofitted."

That's all I know, and I don't even know that. I will tell you this. If this sucker costs 70 of what my former countrymen call "dollars," I'm way over on the sideline waiting for someone to persuade me that this is the Grail or something ...



borner -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 4:15:48 AM)

considering the EiA disaster that is ongoing (and the minor shock that i have not yet been banned from the forums for my repeated posting there) I fully intend to wait until several others are posting that the system is both a step up from UV, but playable, and not something that should be marketed as a beta version.





Ike99 -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 4:18:09 AM)

quote:

People tend to take speculation and casual statements as promises, then get all hacked off when they think they're not being fulfilled. So, a little caution on Matrix's part is perfectly understandable, I think ... gee, look at good old tolerant me ...

Still, there are worrisome signs out there, not the least of which is the extreme shrinkage in the "coming soon" list ...


I think the thing is this...WITP is the Golden Egg, so the most effort and customer feedback goes into this and not UV. Can´t blame this for that though depending on what sales and makes most $$$

Look, they have a WITP AE air, land, navy , etc, sticky thread. And for UV/Carrier force...we are still wondering what it is exactly!

quote:

I am admittedly a latecomer to the carrier force discussion...... can someone explain how it is different from UV, and not an excuse to drop another $70 for a UV upgrade?

thanks!



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 4:41:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

considering the EiA disaster that is ongoing (and the minor shock that i have not yet been banned from the forums for my repeated posting there) I fully intend to wait until several others are posting that the system is both a step up from UV, but playable, and not something that should be marketed as a beta version.




...and thanks for your courage in stating what you believe to be constructive criticism of a game for which I held out such great hopes for more than five years.

I think Marshall Ellis did very well (and I congratulate him on his perseverance) considering the sh1t sandwich he inherited. For a game even to have been stuck together in publishable form at all is a credit to his efforts.

Still, there are things to be bemoaned about the result. The game itself (which I have not mustered the courage to buy, particularly at the price being asked for it) needed to be either a direct "port" of the board game or a new product that did not purport to be such. It is lost between the two, and suffers both by reputation and sales as a result. As I say, I haven't bought or played it, so I should not judge it harshly on the score of how successful a design it is.

Perhaps the worst upshot of the whole lingering mess is what it has done to Matrix's attitude toward converting old board games into computer versions (particularly versions that satisfy the players of the old board game and that have a decent AI). Do you think, after WiF (a project of such long standing that I expect it to have grey hair when finally released) Matrix would even consider another board game "port" project?"

There are some I would really like to see attempted (some of the old VG titles like Civil War and Korea come to mind), but I think these fiascoes have pretty much put paid to any such hopes...



Joe D. -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 11:22:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... Look, they have a WITP AE air, land, navy , etc, sticky thread. And for UV/Carrier force...we are still wondering what it is exactly!


Many have noticed the very different marketing approach to CF vs. AE; Matrix brought out a brass band for the latter, but has kept CF under wraps, as per the developers wishes.

WitP has such a strong following and its forum is always active; UV had an upsurge after Christmas when some new blood was infused into this old game, but I doubt CF sales will ever come close to the financial one-two punch of WitP/AE.

But since CF isn't an add-on to UV, I assume the developers are directly addressing issues w/its code; AE is an after the fact fix that looks like an enhanced ubber-patch: that's probably because WitP's code is so complex and complicated that it's easier to "tweak it" than get into it's inner workings.

Just a guess on my part as I'm not part of either development team.



pasternakski -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/14/2008 7:35:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
Just a guess on my part as I'm not part of either development team.


They sound like pretty good guesses to me. I'm just hoping that care is being taken to bring a little order to some of the chaos that I found in witP, but I also realize that my preferences are not everyone's.

If there are no show-stoppers (for me, the good old leader bug was one), I'll be content, I guess, but I'm not gonna buy either game immediately on release. I need to "see" a few things before I take the plunge again.



ILCK -> RE: Am I stupid?? (7/16/2008 1:52:37 AM)

UCV has the same issue as a lot of Matrix games that you have a lot of "control" but not a lot of info as to what that control means. UI and information radiation is not a strongpoint for a lot of independent devs.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625