RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games

RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (Full Version)

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

Message

a1981stingray -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/17/2009 7:44:09 PM)
I have spent countless hours of my life, for the past 14+ years, playing Carriers at War[1994], UV[2002], WitP[2004], and Battles in Normandy[2004]. I can honestly say that these games have provided way too many enjoyable hours of distraction. Please, wife, just 1 more turn...and 1 more turn after that turn... If the issues [bugs/errors/wife] were a serious problem, I would have quit playing the games. I know of hundreds of games that were released with issues and zero support and/or the company closed shortly afterwards. I believe people continue to play Matrix Games with the same addiction that I do, and... If Carrier Force provides anything like all the previous games, I will wait, uncomplainingly, to play Carrier Force. IF they decide to create additional patches to the existing games, I will apply them to my games, and... I will spend even more time / years playing these games until my computers can no longer support them [uh... Vista 2012+] or the wife rips the power cord from the wall [poof!!!]. On a final note: Can anyone honestly say that CAW, UV, WitP, or BiN can be perfected? Somebody somewhere will find something they perceive as an [issue]. In addition, will the software will be able to run on the latest computers, or will the operating systems no longer support the "coded language" of old applications? I am very appreciative for what I have today, and what may become available tomorrow.

borner -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/18/2009 1:36:04 AM)
perfect? no. Known bugs addressed? Yes

borner -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/19/2009 2:28:17 AM)
Erik can you please address the subject of a patch being needed for this game? Considering that it's sill being sold by Martix, I think the question is valid.

RGIJN -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/19/2009 7:50:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner Erik can you please address the subject of a patch being needed for this game? Considering that it's sill being sold by Martix, I think the question is valid. I do join this request.

xj900uk -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/19/2009 10:01:16 AM)
And me. It's a great game, but the bugs around are absolutely infuriating the hell out of me! [:@]

borner -> hello? (2/20/2009 12:55:03 PM)
Would anyone from Matrix care to address this request?

borner -> RE: hello? (2/21/2009 1:57:52 PM)
Erik, or Matrix in General..... It is clear from your reaction to IKE's posts, that you do indeed read these forums. As such, I am at a loss to explain the lack of any type of reply to my question. Is UV still not being sold by Matrix. ( yes, I knwo the answer to this already), Is it also not accepted that the game still has bugs that need addressed? This is a huge concern. The fact that Matrix would release a product, continue to sell it, and then ignore bugs is shocking. Is this standard Matrix policy? I very much enjoy this game, but am tired of having to need in game work arounds to avoid some bugs. If this was something matrix had discontinued it would be another story. My last two games I have bought from your company, UV and EiA, are far from being de-bugged. I am looking forward to other products your company is working on WiF the most, but I have to wonder if the poor quality control will follow? Yes, I know that making such games is a huge undertaking. However when I pay $50/$60 or more for a product, I as a consumer, expect a quality game. If I went to BEst buy and bought a dryer that was defective, I would exchange it. If my Ford dealer sold me a truck with a bad water pump, they would repair it. Matrix seems to want to say that UV has "run it's course", and thank you for your money. This to me is professionally unacceptable. So again, I ask, when will the bugs in UV be addressed?

Mike Wood -> RE: hello? (2/21/2009 2:26:31 PM)
Hello... Please list 'bugs'. Thanks... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: borner Erik, or Matrix in General..... It is clear from your reaction to IKE's posts, that you do indeed read these forums. As such, I am at a loss to explain the lack of any type of reply to my question. Is UV still not being sold by Matrix. ( yes, I knwo the answer to this already), Is it also not accepted that the game still has bugs that need addressed? This is a huge concern. The fact that Matrix would release a product, continue to sell it, and then ignore bugs is shocking. Is this standard Matrix policy? I very much enjoy this game, but am tired of having to need in game work arounds to avoid some bugs. If this was something matrix had discontinued it would be another story. My last two games I have bought from your company, UV and EiA, are far from being de-bugged. I am looking forward to other products your company is working on WiF the most, but I have to wonder if the poor quality control will follow? Yes, I know that making such games is a huge undertaking. However when I pay $50/$60 or more for a product, I as a consumer, expect a quality game. If I went to BEst buy and bought a dryer that was defective, I would exchange it. If my Ford dealer sold me a truck with a bad water pump, they would repair it. Matrix seems to want to say that UV has "run it's course", and thank you for your money. This to me is professionally unacceptable. So again, I ask, when will the bugs in UV be addressed?

borner -> RE: hello? (2/21/2009 2:33:25 PM)
You are kidding me, right? There are several threads here listing them, but off the top of my head are the issues with Japan loading transport convoys. late war Nell groups arriving empty, movement issues of TF's going far beyond the movement circles ( transport TF especailly. Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present. I will come up with additional ones when I get back home. I urge anyone else reading this to chime in as well with what they are seeing!

borner -> RE: hello? (2/21/2009 4:01:43 PM)
Let me add fighters for Japan set on Long range cap changing orders to escort or sweep

Joe D. -> RE: hello? (2/21/2009 7:32:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Please list 'bugs'. Thanks... Michael Wood I know that most UV issues were addressed in V2.5, but since you asked: Loading units for Fast Transport is always haphazard, if not hit-and-miss. Even loading units for regular transport unto APs is "iffy" unless you load these ships one at a time, and then form the TF. Finally, as we all know, level bombers are way too accurate w/bombs vs. ships at altitude.

Mike Wood -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 12:33:50 AM)
Hello... "Bombers are too accurate", is not a bug. It works the way the programmer intended. You might argue that it is a design flaw. It is a little late to be redesigning the game, however. I have no idea what "loading units being 'iffy'", means. I have never heard of fighter groups changing orders from long range combat air patrol to sweep or escort. Might be a bug. Would need a save from the turn before it occurred. I do not know the conditions under which a group might arrive without aircraft. It did happen historically. The case to which you refer may have been the intention of the scenario author or there may have been too few planes in the pool. Don't know. Would need more specifics to say. I can guarantee that it is not a bug. But, would be willing to look at it. Not sure what is meant by, "movement issues of TF's going far beyond the movement circles". Not sure what the sentence fragment, "Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present" means. Seems non sequitor. Please see my new thread on bug reporting. Thanks... Michael Wood

Kingfisher -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 1:05:12 AM)
quote: Not sure what the sentence fragment, "Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present" means. Seems non sequitor. I believe this refers to the practice of adding a barge to a transport TF. For some reason air units will not strike barges (unless the altitude is set to 100 ft), so adding a barge will give the TF an unrealistic level of protection.

Mike Wood -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 1:14:27 AM)
Hello... This would not be a bug, but a really bad design flaw. I will test it and if true, will fix it. Do not need a save for this one. Oh, and I just addressed the bombers too accurate issue. Maybe not to the satisfaction of the complainant, but I found a realistic feature I could add, without breaking the basic game design. Thanks a lot... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Kingfisher quote: Not sure what the sentence fragment, "Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present" means. Seems non sequitor. I believe this refers to the practice of adding a barge to a transport TF. For some reason air units will not strike barges (unless the altitude is set to 100 ft), so adding a barge will give the TF an unrealistic level of protection.

borner -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 2:08:23 AM)
ok, then lets discuss both bugs and design flaws in an effort to correct glaring problems with a currently sold product. Mike, with respect, it seems to tone of your email is to imply that there are no bugs, and I am others are making up issues.

Mike Wood -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 2:45:04 AM)
Hello... No, just that some folk combine bugs, misunderstanding of the rules and game design disagreements and call them all bugs. As a programmer, I see a bug in a different light than game design issues. I can fix a bug, as it is something I did not intend. A game design feature could be something I intended and will not change or something I could change if players requested, although changing a game design feature could please one group of folk while angering another. Many game design changes could and would cause a significant number of real bugs and would require a testing team to determine overall game effects. I have no testing team. Some reported bugs are just rules a player does not understand or does not like. I have to make these distinctions as the various issues must be treated differently. I am not saying there are no bugs. I am saying that a player may consider a game behavior a bug, when it is not. Hope this helps clear up my viewpoint... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: borner ok, then lets discuss both bugs and design flaws in an effort to correct glaring problems with a currently sold product. Mike, with respect, it seems to tone of your email is to imply that there are no bugs, and I am others are making up issues.

borner -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 3:49:26 AM)
Good point. My Apologies for making that assumption.

Joe D. -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 12:30:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood I have no idea what "loading units being 'iffy'", means ... Look at the context: "... Loading units for Fast Transport is always haphazard, if not hit-and-miss. Even loading units for regular transport unto APs is "iffy" unless you load these ships one at a time, and then form the TF." Many times troops won't load on to a surface fleet set for fast transport, and when you attempt to load a TF of APs/AKs w/troops and supplies, not all the ships will load; it was suggested to load each ship separately and then form the TF, but that's very time consuming. Or are these more design flaws?

Mike Wood -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 1:38:52 PM)
Hello... Nope. Should load, if troops available and ships have available operational points. So, if some of the ships have refueled that turn, they may not be able to load, because they have used all Ops points. Will need to determine problem, so need save and bug report, to fix. Thanks... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood I have no idea what "loading units being 'iffy'", means ... Look at the context: "... Loading units for Fast Transport is always haphazard, if not hit-and-miss. Even loading units for regular transport unto APs is "iffy" unless you load these ships one at a time, and then form the TF." Many times troops won't load on to a surface fleet set for fast transport, and when you attempt to load a TF of APs/AKs w/troops and supplies, not all the ships will load; it was suggested to load each ship separately and then form the TF, but that's very time consuming. Or are these more design flaws?

Joe D. -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 6:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood ... So, if some of the ships have refueled that turn, they may not be able to load, because they have used all Ops points. Is this explained in the UV (pdf) manual? If I click on the transport, where on the screen can I find its Op Points?

Kingfisher -> RE: hello? (2/22/2009 10:15:08 PM)
It shows up in the task force screen just to the right of the ship's speed column.

Joe D. -> RE: hello? (2/23/2009 12:09:24 AM)
Tnx; there must also be something in the manual.

Joe D. -> RE: hello? (2/23/2009 12:47:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. Tnx; there must also be something in the manual. 8.17 Operation Points Operation Points reflect the time spent on refueling, replenishing ammo, and loading and unloading of cargo. These actions reduce the movement of a TF during a Resolution Phase .... It looks like these points affect time spent loading/unloading and not whether loading occurs or not. Anyway, here's the rest of the explantion. During an Orders Phase, if a TF refuels or is ordered to load troops, the TF Information Screen will reflect the amount of time already used in Operation Points. Every TF has 1000 Operation Points in each 12 hour Resolution Phase. Thus, if a TF refuels and the display shows a ship has used 300 Operation Points, 30% of the 12 hours (300/1000) has been expended. This means the Task Forces speed in hexes will be reduced by 30% for the first 12 hour Resolution Phase resolved after exiting the Orders Phase. If a ship has any ammo replenished, it will use 1000 Operation Points. Ships that use 1000 Op points will still be allowed to move a minimum of 1 hex in the phase.

Chad Harrison -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/23/2009 2:17:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish Seriously, the impression I got from Justin's post was that CF will be much more than a "patch" to UV. To me, this is much better than just "patching" UV and I look forward to it. As I know I will need something lighter than WITP-AE which when released may fry my mind...[8D][8D][8D] CF is NOT a patch to UV. Its different/updated/changed in so, so many ways. Including, but not limited too, new art, new map, new 15 minute mode (thats the biggie!), new aircraft, new features and so on. But, since it is built onto the UV code, it will correct/modify some (all?) of the outstanding features from UV. When I said that it is the closest thing to a patch UV will see, I meant that I didnt think any patches were forthcoming for UV and any outstanding issues would be addressed in CF, which is a separate game. But given Mike's recent posts, and my lack of official knowledge as a beta tester, UV very well might see a patch.

Mike Wood -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/23/2009 2:24:35 PM)
Hello... Yup. It might. Final word on that would be above my paygrade, however. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison But given Mike's recent posts, and my lack of official knowledge as a beta tester, UV very well might see a patch.

wworld7 -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/23/2009 3:28:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish Seriously, the impression I got from Justin's post was that CF will be much more than a "patch" to UV. To me, this is much better than just "patching" UV and I look forward to it. As I know I will need something lighter than WITP-AE which when released may fry my mind...[8D][8D][8D] CF is NOT a patch to UV. Its different/updated/changed in so, so many ways. Including, but not limited too, new art, new map, new 15 minute mode (thats the biggie!), new aircraft, new features and so on. But, since it is built onto the UV code, it will correct/modify some (all?) of the outstanding features from UV. When I said that it is the closest thing to a patch UV will see, I meant that I didnt think any patches were forthcoming for UV and any outstanding issues would be addressed in CF, which is a separate game. But given Mike's recent posts, and my lack of official knowledge as a beta tester, UV very well might see a patch. Chad, Perhaps my phrasing was poor and you misunderstood what I meant. I know CF is not a patch for UV, and THAT is why I am looking forward to CF so much. Another patch for UV is fine I would think. Unless fixing bugs leads down a never ending road of design changes, which in turn leads to more bugs and complaints.

Joe D. -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/23/2009 4:43:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison CF is NOT a patch to UV. Its different/updated/changed in so, so many ways. Including, but not limited too, new art, new map, new 15 minute mode (thats the biggie!), new aircraft, new features and so on. But, since it is built onto the UV code, it will correct/modify some (all?) of the outstanding features from UV ... That's what I'm waiting for; for me, CF is the equivalent of WitP's AE. I understood that the "15 min" feature was an option, and CF could be played in just the "old" UV mode.

Chad Harrison -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/23/2009 5:35:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. I understood that the "15 min" feature was an option, and CF could be played in just the "old" UV mode. In my testing, I have not seen an option to do so. This may exist in the code, but is not implemented yet. Regardless, I have not seen it. quote: That's what I'm waiting for; for me, CF is the equivalent of WitP's AE. And that is a spot on assessment. Its still the core game, and the core gameplay, but you get tons of improvements and new options. The one major difference between AE and CF though is CF adds a significant new gameplay features (15 minute gameplay, flight decks, airfield control and so on) that were not possible in UV. Dont get me wrong, AE is going to be ground breaking, and I will be first in line to get it. But, much like UV and WitP, CF and AE are different in so many ways and both have unique appeals, scope and strengths. Anyone who has played both UV and WitP knows exactly what I am talking about. Some prefer UV over WitP, others prefer WitP over UV. Thats the beauty of personal prefence [:)] Obviously the focus for the 15 minute gameplay mode is the air combat, but dont forget that your surface combats are happening within the 15 minute rounds also . . . [:D]

Mike Wood -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/23/2009 10:39:18 PM)
There is much you have not seen, grasshopper. quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison In my testing, I have not seen an option to do so. This may exist in the code, but is not implemented yet. Regardless, I have not seen it.

xj900uk -> RE: Carrier Force - Matrix Games (2/24/2009 9:37:35 AM)
Another good improvement would be better squadron management - whether or not you can receive trained or untrained replacement pilots (which I believe exists in WIP), & also if you can switch the 'upgrade to new planes' on or off (which also may well exist in WIP). Both of these features would certainly enhance UV!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.875