Why I'm getting fed-up with UV? (Full Version)

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



Message

Didz -> Why I'm getting fed-up with UV? (5/27/2002 5:41:31 AM)

Faced with the prospect of restarting #17 for the fourth time (having cheated by viewing the IJN positions to verify the validity of the repeated bombardment of Gilli Gilli by an IJN BB Task Group) I find myself wondering if I can be bothered (which is bad news for a game which I have only owned for a week).

I am also aware that after my very positive initial reaction to UV my postings to this forum have been getting more and more critical and frustrated as the week has progressed.

So! I decided to sit and try to get to the bottom of what it is thats bugging me about this game.

I really enjoyed playing PACWAR and UV is almost identical in terms of game mechanic's so I asked myself, why I am finding it so irritating?

I eventually realised that over the course of the week I have been making more and more comparisons between UV and CAW.

Now CAW was another game that I really enjoyed playing but it was significantly different to PACWAR in its approach.

CAW was more of a simulation of Carrier operations where you had much more detailed involvement. You had to assign planes to search missions and to decide exaclty when to launch your strike planes, how many to use and what you launched them at. Timing was everything in CAW, getting caught by an enemy air strike whilst refueling your own planes after an abortive mission could be disasterous (aviation fuel and bombs just don't mix).

PACWAR on the other hand was a grand stategy game the scale of which precluded such detailed involvement by the player and so it had to be approached at a different level.

The map scale for PACWAR was 100 miles per hex and the map covered the entire Pacific theatre from Japan to the west coast of the USA. I don't know what the map scale was for CAW but the area covered by the Coral Sea scenario more or less matched the area covered by UV so I guess it was something similar to UV's 30 miles per hex.

The difference was that in PACWAR a BB battle group in at full rev's would travel a mere 7 hexes whilst at normal cruising speed it would only travel 3 or 4. Whereas in UV that same battle group is moving a massive 24 hexes in a single turn.

I think CAW used an hourly phasing system so in that game a BB battle group moved steadily hex by hex across the map with constant checking being made for contacts etc. If I remember correctly the game ran continously until a new contact occured whereupon it paused to allow you to react.

So! the conclusion I have come to is that my frustration with UV stems basically from the fact that I can't cope with these massive jumps in time and distance that UV's 30 mile hex scale and daily turns allow TF's to make.

I find it impossible to plot the relationship between sightings when TF's are moving such large distances and the inability to react to them until the next evening means I don't feel I have any real control over the game.

By contrast the CAW system produced some really nail biting tension as you waited for the spotter plane you dispatched 2 hours ago to confirm an earlier sighting or struggled to refuel and launch your next air strike before the enemy got a fix on your position and turned your flight decks into inferno's.

So maybe I should go and see if I can find myself a copy of CAW for the PC and wait for 'War in then Pacific' to be released rather than drive myself crazy trying to play UV.



Paul Vebber -> (5/27/2002 6:57:42 AM)

ITs unfortunate but it seems you want a tactical not an operational level game. Carriers at War ran in 5 min increments and dealt only with tactical carrier battles. You commanded a Carrier Task Force.

Uncommon valor is an operational level game that runs in "Day" and "NIght" phases, each of which consist of many sup hases. Te game DOES NOT lurch along with 24 hours between sighting opportunites, in fact it processes searches in a very realistic manner. (If you are interested in the details of Searching and patrolling and how hard it really is, check out "Naval Operations Research" Naval Institute Press). You command the entire theater.

In the real campaign the Allies were similarly stymied by the "Tokyo Express" that worked under cover of darkness. The game expertly recreates the operational problems the theater commanders faced, and its amazing how one can find complaints very similar to those of many players in reading the history fo the period.

IT was made quite clear that UV was a precursor to the new War in the Pacific and if you are frustrated with UV, I'm not sure why you be any less frustrated with WITP since the underlying game mechanics will be very nearly the same.

Its a shame you misunderstood the point of view the game is comming from, if you can break out of the "Carrier Task Force Commander' mode and work from the theater commander POV, ther game delievers.

But it is not and never was intended to be a tactical carrier battles game.



worr -> Re: Why I'm getting fed-up with UV? (5/27/2002 7:10:13 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
[B]So! the conclusion I have come to is that my frustration with UV stems basically from the fact that I can't cope with these massive jumps in time and distance that UV's 30 mile hex scale and daily turns allow TF's to make. [/B][/QUOTE]

Operational games aren't for everyone. There isn't much "arcade" action for those who like the immediate feed back and tension of turn by turn decisions.

CAW was a great game. I would love to see something on a tactical line too. But I wouldn't poo poo another great game that just takes things to a higher, and larger scale level. YMMV.

Worr, out



Slaughtermeyer -> (5/27/2002 7:28:33 AM)

What I would really have liked to see would have been a game generally using UV's scale but instead being internet-playable using hourly pulses which could be interrupted by either player at any time based on sighting reports, etc. That's the kind of system Grigsby's War in the South Pacific used (head-to-head and vs. AI but of course without internet way back when). I think an improvement in the "feel" and realism of UV along the lines Didz suggested would be to have the option of 2 daylight and 1 nighttime orders phases per day for the true grognard.



Drex -> (5/27/2002 7:43:53 AM)

I had both CAW and PacWar but PacWar got my time because the operational level appealed to me. I've ordered UV and am waiting for it to arrive but the AARs remind me so much of PacWar that I am really excited about getting it. UV is probably not for everyone and it probably is not an easy game to master. In fact I doubt if anyone has mastered UV in this short of time. I remember in PacWar that some guys had mastered the Jpanese side so well they could win in the first year of the war! From reading all the threads, I get the feeling that UV might be different although all of the AARs seem to be from the allled side. In any event, no one wants a game where victory comes easy.



Mojo -> Whew! (5/27/2002 9:49:13 AM)

Thank god somebody posted this. I was afraid I was going to have to be the "flame bait" that did it.

First let me say the game is a thing of beauty on all levels. Subtle and complex.

But I guess this scale of game isn't for me. I don't want to have to tell every supply officer in the theater what to do. I want to be the task force commander who kicks the supply officer's derriere if I don't have the fuel for my mission.

I spend enough time behind a desk everyday that when I game I don't want to role play being a desk bound bureaucrat.

I want to be the one to decide if we should launch the strike force against the enemy carriers immediately even though they are armed with bombs instead of topedoes or should I take the time to rearm and risk getting bounced with a deck full of ammunition and fully fueled planes.

I'm not complaining. UV is much more than I expected it to be. Just not more of what I wanted.

Now if that makes me a shallow arcade style game junkie so be it.



Drex -> (5/27/2002 9:57:10 AM)

No Mojo it doesn't mean you're shallow, it only means that this game is probably not for you. Matrix has other games coming out that hopefully will meet your expectations. Most of us who have played Pacwar aaand loved it will most likely enjoy this game. I know I am looking forward to it.



Mojo -> (5/27/2002 10:18:55 AM)

I know Drex;) I'm hoping that Matrix will decide to do a treatment of Schnellboote. And I'm hoping that Europa Fleet Actions will be more along the lines of what I want.

Until then I'll still dink around with UV and who knows maybe I'll get sucked in. As it is I dream about the freaking game. How sad is that?

In any event the money I spent on UV was well worth it if for nothing else to encourage Matrix to continue to make high quality games.



Drex -> (5/27/2002 10:34:32 AM)

Maybe the game will appeal to you more in the pbem mode where the other side will make mistakes just like you. WE sometimes forget that the computer will make all its settings automatically while we have to think about them and remember to do them. It seems that the AI is particularly good in UV.



Ron Saueracker -> Go outside for awhile (5/27/2002 11:24:48 AM)

Sounds like you need some air. Anything gets tedious if one does too much.



Mojo -> Re: Go outside for awhile (5/27/2002 11:31:03 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Sounds like you need some air. Anything gets tedious if one does too much. [/B][/QUOTE]

*[I]shudder[/I] * You mean the 3D world? I can see it from my window;)



RayM -> (5/27/2002 12:41:25 PM)

Didz:

Sorry that UV is not what you expected. I too can only comment on the fundamental differiences between the tactical and operational, and theater/strategic levels of play presented by the different games. We each have to know what we like.

Yes, CAW was (is) is great game for tactical CV warfare. The good news is that the complete CAW is still available for purchase if you seriously want to get a copy. I found it at the SSG site at:

http://www.ssgus.com./ccaw.html

I bought it last year and really enjoyed it. You may want to pick up a copy and play it a while to recharge the gaming batteries. FYI, I am not associated with the company, I just enjoy their product.

And who knows, you may come to enjoy the UV level and end up playing both.



Didz -> (5/27/2002 3:49:45 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]ITs unfortunate but it seems you want a tactical not an operational level game. Carriers at War ran in 5 min increments and dealt only with tactical carrier battles. You commanded a Carrier Task Force. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not wishing to get picky but my recollection of CAW on the C64 was slightly different. In the C64 copy you got to command every base every ship and every air squadron just as you do on UV. You had to defend and capture the same bases as appear on UV in fact it was very similar though with less emphasis on logicstic's. Perhaps we are talking about different games.

[QUOTE][B]
Uncommon valor is an operational level game that runs in "Day" and "NIght" phases, each of which consist of many sup hases. Te game DOES NOT lurch along with 24 hours between sighting opportunites, in fact it processes searches in a very realistic manner. (If you are interested in the details of Searching and patrolling and how hard it really is, check out "Naval Operations Research" Naval Institute Press). You command the entire theater.[/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry, I obvoiusly didn't make myself clear in my earlier post.

I was in no doubt about what I was buying when I bought UV. I have been playing and enjoying PACWAR for about 15 years so I am perfectly able to enjoy playing a Grand Strategy game.

One of my other favourite Grand Strategy games is Frank Hunters Civil War epic by i-Magic (Although I also like SMG). My problem with UV seems to focus on the huge movement potential of the counters (on both sides) between each opportunity for player intervention. The more I think about it the more I realise that this is a problem I have with other boardgames too.

For instance in the Talonsoft series I find cavalry really annoying because they have an MP12 move which when used with a road bonus allows them to leap from the reserve lines straight into your artillery without drawing breath or giving you a chance to react. The fact that in UV, IJN Combat task forces and your own (if you leave React to enemy movement on) can do this sort of thing leaves me feeling that I am being cut out of the gameplay.

[QUOTE][B]
IT was made quite clear that UV was a precursor to the new War in the Pacific and if you are frustrated with UV, I'm not sure why you be any less frustrated with WITP since the underlying game mechanics will be very nearly the same.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I am assumming that War in the Pacific will stick to the orginal PACWAR concept of scale and movement which I know I don't have a problem with because I've been playing it for years. If the designers start fiddling with the ground scale without adjusting the phasing to compensate then you may well be right and I shall be in exactly the same position.

[QUOTE][B]
But it is not and never was intended to be a tactical carrier battles game. [/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps given the chosen ground scale it needed to be to work (at least for me).

There is a grey dividing line between a tactical and strategy game and its not always easy to tell when that line has been crossed but the deciding factor for game designer has to be the comparison between ground scale, weapon range and movement rate. In a Napoleonic game where weapon range is measured is measured in yards and movement is relatively slow games don't enter the Tactical classification until the hex scale is around 100 metres per hex anything more than that has to be Strategy as the combat system has to be abstract. In WWII naval warefare where TF's can steam 720 miles in a day and aircraft can strike at targets 100's of miles away the dividing line between tactical and strategic must be higher up the scale.

In PACWAR the scale of 100 miles per hex didn't create a problem for me it was a strategic game and I accepted that combat was abstract. But I think perhaps 30 mile per hex has crossed the border for me. At this scale I personally expect more control at least over my own forces.



Hartmann -> (5/27/2002 4:03:09 PM)

I, too, was (am) a big fan of CAW. Thatīs why, in the first 30 minutes of playing UV, I was a bit irriated, too, that I canīt stop the game "to the minute", canīt assign search plane patterns, and canīt order strikes all by myself.

I realized soon enough, though, that UV is *not* just CAW with the additional option of moving some ground troops around. It is instead like Paul said: in CAW, you are Nagumo, in UV you are Yamamoto. Thatīs why, in UV, you donīt order how many planes are to be fueled at which time, where the search planes have to search, and what sighting has to be striked, but give the more general orders of a theater commander - if you want, you can do this day by day, but not every five minutes, for this would just be the wrong scale.

Did I say I love it? I really do! :)

(And btw, I also found a way to surprise those nightly raiding parties.)

That said, thereīs but one thing with the 24 hours period between "sightings" (and orders) which bothers me a bit, too. It has to do with the "react to enemy" feature again, but this time in the opposite direction than we had it before (where it seemed too "overeager" with the carriers): but now, when I have a group of CAs in the vicinity of some enemy transports (as near as two hexes), I sometimes seem to be unable to "catch" them even if I have perfect knowledge of their whereabouts. If I order to move my CA TF to where the sighting is, then the enemy TF has usually moved away when the CAs arrive (even if they should be faster than the APs). The thing is that "react to enemy" seems not to entice the CAs to go after those transports by themselves. So I basically have to try to estimate where the transports will be the next turn, and move my CAs there. This can take several trys .... Or am I doing something wrong here? :)

Hartmann

PS: Yes, in CAW, you can also manage the land based aircraft, and the "other" TFs. Thatīs true. But still the weight is on the tactical operation of the carrier TF clearly. I usually left the land bases and the other TFs to the computer, also partly because the game became too easy otherwise.



Didz -> Re: Whew! (5/27/2002 4:08:04 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mojo
[B]Thank god somebody posted this. I was afraid I was going to have to be the "flame bait" that did it.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, some sucker has to be first over the top.

My only hope is that somebody on the 'War in the Pacific' design team takes note. I've been waiting for that game for soooo long.

Its ironic really because it was the discovery of PACWAR that seduced me away from playing CAW (I just loved the idea of being in charge of everything) and now UV has made me want to go out an buy CAW again just so I can play this Coral Sea battle again.

[QUOTE][B]
I want to be the one to decide if we should launch the strike force against the enemy carriers immediately even though they are armed with bombs instead of topedoes or should I take the time to rearm and risk getting bounced with a deck full of ammunition and fully fueled planes.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yep! I remember those moments. Watching the clock tick round and praying for the deck crews to get those plane off the deck whilst trying to estimate how long it would be before the first jap stike reached you.

Or the agony of launching your bombers at a target which some stupid army pilot reported to have two flattops only to find they were tankers and the enemy CV's are 200 miles further north. Aagh!

[QUOTE][B]
I'm not complaining. UV is much more than I expected it to be. Just not more of what I wanted.

Now if that makes me a shallow arcade style game junkie so be it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Likewise, I love PACWAR but UV isn't PACWAR and the Coral Sea battle works better for me at a tactical level. It was after all a battle not a campaign theatre.



CTB123 -> (5/27/2002 8:59:18 PM)

I too was a huge fan of CAW. I was also very dissappointed when first playing UV this week. I tried the Coral Sea scenerio, and became frusterated at my lack of control. I wanted to control what to strike, when to strike it, and how to strike it. I missed watching the clock run, and stopping it for updated spotting reports. I missed watching the progress of my aircraft as they moved through arming, fueling and launching. I would love it if SSG or someone would come out with an updated version of CAW. After several tries at the Coral Sea scearnio, and with the same disappointment, I decided to try the campaign. What a difference! The UV engine is great for the large scale, long term campaign. I have played into the end of July, and am hooked. Once I got past what it was not, a tactical game, and accepted what it is, an operational game, I was hooked. UV is not good for the two or three day battle or schirmish. But the CAW system would be to overwhelming for a multi-month or year long campaighn. For those of you that are frusterated with some of the battles, try the full campaign. You may love the game as much I do.
Tony



BasK -> (5/28/2002 4:41:47 AM)

I have the same problem as some other posters on this forum/subject. I am an immense fan of operational to (grand) strategic wargames. So, UV did apeal to me and I highly anticipated to play it. But, because of the turn length and the movement of units, I cannot get a "feeling" for the game and the units I command.

When I compare it to a very old favourite of mine, BOSP (Battles of the South Pacific) by QQp (1995), it compares unvavourably.
Although this game is over 7 years old, it has continuous play which can be interrupted by the player, has no hexes, the units can be followed on the map and it has an enormous freedom of descision for the commander to form TF's, form and equip squadrons and build bases (airports, harbors, bases) anywhere on the map.

Where BOSP fails is in the tactical engagement part of the game, this is more of an arcade game than a serious wargame, but the strategical part is (IMHO) still one of the best ever done.

For some of you it might be worthwhile to test it against UV, as icoveres exactly the same ground as UV and has an almost identical approach to detail and the way a commander has to decide on all subjects (air-land-sea combat, training, supply, carrier warfare, submarine action etc.) The game can be found at The Underdogs (abandonware).

If you try it, please let me (and us) know what you think about it compared to UV on this forum.

BASKA



Hartmann -> (5/28/2002 5:36:14 AM)

WW2 battles of the South Pacific by QQP was great, no doubt. I still would not go back to it, now that UV is there.

I think the biggest problem is to mentally switch from the continuous play to the "get your orders for the day and then hit run and watch" type of play. Once I had myself accustomed to that (which was not that difficult, given I had played other Gary Grigsby games already), there was no problem anymore.

Hartmann



Didz -> (5/28/2002 6:33:33 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
[B]WW2 battles of the South Pacific by QQP was great, no doubt. I still would not go back to it, now that UV is there.

I think the biggest problem is to mentally switch from the continuous play to the "get your orders for the day and then hit run and watch" type of play. Once I had myself accustomed to that (which was not that difficult, given I had played other Gary Grigsby games already), there was no problem anymore.

Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

I think by now enough people (myself included) have made it clear that we have played and enjoyed Grand Strategy games for years including PACWAR. That ought to have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the this issue is not a symptom of player preference. The players complaining here and elsewhere about turn length are all long term strategy gamers who have identified a flaw in the design of this game.

The problem is the relationship between the timescale and the ground scale. For a WW2 naval game with a ground scale of 30 miles per hex a minimum duration of 1 day per turn does not allow players enough interaction with the game.

This thread has shown that a number of players are making unfavourable comparisons between UV and games covering a similar area of operation but with either continous or much shorter movement time frames.

Whilst a quick check of this thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20244

confirms even more people are wishing for short turn lengths or more opportunities to intervene in the play.

I would even put money on the fact that if Matrix introduced a 12 hour or 6 hour game turn option you would soon switch to using it yourself.

Hopefully Matrix will realise their error and correct the problem at a later release. More importantly I sincerely hope that the design team of WiTP will stick to the original 100 miles per hex ground scale or if they decide to reduce it to 50 miles per hex as suggested that they will realise the need to adjust the time scale accordingly otherwise we will see the same issue arise when that game is released.



svhrg -> (5/28/2002 7:34:28 PM)

I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however, I would not say that Matrix has erred with UV. Ever since early development, this game has always been represented as operational in nature with 30mile hexes and with min turn cycles of 24hrs. Plenty of individuals are enjoying the game the way it is and the discussion of having a 12hr or less turn cycle would fundamentaly change the game engine and the way the game is played. I think the AI in this game goes a long way in validating the longer turn cycles allowing the player to make operational decisions once a day and allowing local commanders to take immediate action based on the many varables of comabt. I am sure that in WWII, the operational commanders did not benefit of real time battlefield reports inherent in today's conflicts. In '42/'43, it took at least 24 hours to gather current intelligence, get updates from local commanders and determine changes in strategy/orders.

Anyway, it's always good to have people express their opinions so that it might lead to other games being developed in the future. However, I think UV is quite enjoyable the way it is. My only comment (which hopefully will be addressed in the first patch) would be to have more detailed information displayed on the events that occur between turn cycles.

Back to gaming

Cheers:cool:

R



Preacher -> (5/28/2002 8:11:49 PM)

This whole discussion is very similar to one going on over at Consimworld about a lady who posted negative reviews of GMT's Flagship at the Funagain site. Her problem? The game doesn't do what it never was intended to do (what?) - also known as, the "this game does exactly what it set out to do" problem. :) Put simply, she wanted the card game to play like a strategy game - sans combat. The card game itself, however, is advertised as - and always has been - a Tactical Space Combat game. The whole point of the game is to destroy - via combat - the other player's ships. This was the intent of the game from the beginning. It was made very clear. However, this lady comes along and rips it in a review because "the only way to win is through combat." Huh?

UV is exactly what is was billed to be - an operational level treatment of the action in and around the Solomons. To be honest, I am surprised that it has as many tactical options as it does. That nothwithstanding, the game does what it intended to do from the beginning. It is your prerogative (or anyone else's) to be "fed up" if you like. However, it is a bit silly, imho, to be frustrated with a product (or company) for doing what it was programmed to do. Like many before me have said: this is not a tactical game.

My .02

Preacher



iancollins -> (5/28/2002 8:26:44 PM)

Didz,

I've followed this thread carefully and I understand the frustration you get from the timescale/ground scale ratio of this design. That was also a feeling that I had initially.

I have had Task Forces positioned on the edge of a 10x10 hex area where I knew a major battle would occur within the following 24 hours and, like you, I had that feeling of frustration that, once I clicked Yes in the End Orders Phase window, I would have absolutely no personal control over what happened next. I had to watch (usually with horror) at what occured and wait helplessly until the next Orders Phase when I could once again take control (usually to pick up the pieces). I can't count the number of times I wanted to leap into one of my TF Commander's seat to tell him not to send his air squadrons to attack the enemy transports but to attack the damned IJN CVs that were breathing down his neck instead.

In this respect it is indeed a frustrating game. But, unlike you, I have not found that disappointing. Nor would I call the timescale/gamescale, which is what causes this frustration, a design fault. It brings us closer, surely, to the frustrations that Nimmitz and Yamamoto must have felt when reviewing the actions/non-actions of their TF Commanders that they sent into battle. I'm quite sure that both would many times have wished that they were in personal control of their task forces, carriers, etc to be able to influence the battle. But they weren't able to and couldn't take control at that level. Both had to fight their war with the operational tools they had. UV, I think, succeeds in mirroring this aspect far better than any other wargame I have played.

You are right, too, that there is a fine line between tactical and strategical game. I think UV is pretty close to that line. and I'm liking it that way. But I don't want the timesacle reduced.... that, for me, would move the game closer to the tactical level and away from the operational level: we would become more Spruance than Nimmitz.

And there are several aspects in the game that I'm only beginning to appreciate and use in the limited decisions I can make. One is the choice of Task Force Commanders..... the guys who end up taking the tactical decisions you want built into the game for yourself. Their influence, I suspect, plays a greater part in the outcome of their battles than we appreciate. I ignored them at first... along with fatigue and morale factors.... but I'm not doing that now and I'm seeing better results because of it. So I'm beginning to use another operational tool that Nimmitz and Yamamoto had. Sure....... it still goes pear-shaped when my (supposedly) well picked (by me) commanders don't perform as I think they should but they're the results of my operational decision..... and not the game's design.

I'm enjoying this game more and more as I get to know its depth and intricacies. I want to keep the basic design as it is.



IKerensky -> (5/28/2002 9:40:21 PM)

I guess I have to agree too that UV just isn't for me.

I loved CAW ( and still play it ) , GNB and other tactical and they are fine.

I loved PACWAR and other Gary Grisby games and they are fine.

I even enjoyed huge WWII 'managing games' like Battle of Britain or 12'O clock High with somewhat huge management to be done, but they are fine.

What amaze me is that UV just .. bore me. It is gorgeous, with plenty of detail and all the hype but I just doesnt find it fun. In fact he make me play PACWAR again.

I guess that part of the idea behind the release of UV is to test operationnal combat for WiTP and all the combat routine btw. And they are nice. But somewhere while zooming from strategical to operationnal something was lost and the fun isn't here anymore. I guess it is perhaps because there is so much thing to do and take care.

U.V. isn't really an operationnal wargame, sure his landscale is operationnal and his turn lenght too. But his unit scale and command are mainly Grand Tactical to Tactical. Except that we lack part of the tactical command we wil have to get. PAcWAr was great because it was detailled but still playable, UV is just too detailled to be enjoyable. there is a lot of thing the player had to take care of that can be automated and a lot of thing that are automated that the player want to take care.

I guess the problem come from the too big detail, this look like tactcal wargame, this taste like tactical wargame but this is operationnal wargame.

By example :
- You can command personnaly all and every of your air squadron and give it precise order as target, % cap , training and so ( in fact the bad thing is that you HAD to do so ). This is tactical control.
- You cant command them while in action , this is operationnal control ( and somewhat frustrating as you are deemed to do all the paperwork and cant do the fun part ).

I guess I will try WitP when it will be released and this time I will try to invest myself more deeply. From now on I look at the sc.17 starting map and thought: " Ok, there is a lot to do but it can be done ", then I look at the date and : " Forget about it, I wont invest that much just for an operation, I want to go to the bitter end, to Tokyo or bust ". Frankly I will love to have a UV that can play with the level of detail of PACWAr, with all thoses fine tactical tuning taken out of our operationnal control.



Didz -> Would you like shorter turns in UV? (5/28/2002 11:11:07 PM)

Well it seems to me that the membership is split of the issue of shorter turn lengths. I thought it would be interesting to take a poll on the subject but although the option exists in the New Topic options I couldn't work out how to do it.

I thought 6 options going from the status quo to the ridiculous and see where the consensus lies on this debate:

[list=1]
  • Happy with current turn length
  • 12 hour turns
  • 6 hour turns
  • 3 hours turns
  • Hourly Turns
  • Continuious play with option to intervene at will.
    [/list=1]

    Be interesting to see how many players like me would prefer shorter turns.



    • Reiryc -> (5/29/2002 12:33:14 AM)

    Well I was going to write up a long one here...

    But Iancollins and Preacher said it so well I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

    Reiryc



    Admiral DadMan -> CAW Memories (5/29/2002 12:46:40 AM)

    One thing that irritated me about CAW was that once you launched a strike, your TF just stayed there, and didn't close on the enemy TF, so they could just waltz out of range...



    Hartmann -> (5/29/2002 12:55:09 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
    [B]
    That ought to have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the this issue is not a symptom of player preference. The players complaining here and elsewhere about turn length are all long term strategy gamers who have identified a flaw in the design of this game.
    [/B][/QUOTE]

    So if your point about a design flaw is proven "beyond a shadow of doubt" by longterm strategy players, then there's nothing more to discuss, I guess. Those who disagree with you must all be newbies, eh?

    Hartmann



    Wilhammer -> Turn processing (5/29/2002 1:00:08 AM)

    OK,

    Each day is comprised of three "phases"; night, morning, and afternoon.

    During phase execution, what is happening?

    Does the game plot the movements of each phase in smaller increments? (Essentially deviding a phase into "impulses")?

    I am not certain.

    It seems to me, for example, that subs intercept shipping only at the end of the move. Suppose that the tracks of opposing warship plots cross. Is their a chance a move will be stopped due to a mid-course interception?

    I have just started to dig into it that deep, and I have so far found this to be NOT true.

    =====================================

    CV to CV combat.

    Is their some sort of "initiative" calculation?

    By this, I mean, does a chance that one side might get the jump on the other exist?

    That does seem to be the case.

    And if the "impulse" system works, then how do ships get spotted during impulses? Air missions (including search) happen AFTER ship movement.



    Didz -> (5/29/2002 1:50:48 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
    [B]

    So if your point about a design flaw is proven "beyond a shadow of doubt" by longterm strategy players, then there's nothing more to discuss, I guess. Those who disagree with you must all be newbies, eh?

    Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

    As you may be aware you are quoting me out of context above.

    My comments were in response to your original suggestion that those of us who would prefer a shorter turn length in UV were doing so because we had a natural preference for tactical rather than strategic games.

    My point was that by now the number of people who had raised turn length as an issue and also attested to being long term players of PACWAR and other grand strategy games ought to have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the issue has NOT arisen because of certain players preferences for tactical games but because a quite a few veteran stategy gamers like myself find the UV turn lengths to be too long.

    The question as to whether this is a flaw in the games design or not depends on whether you consider it a problem or not. If like me you feel it is ruining your enjoyment of the game then what else can you call it but a design flaw.

    BTW: I have even tried playing it with the fog of war turned off and I still find it irritating that both my TF's and the enemies are jumping huge distances in an extremely unpredictable manner. Such that one minute your CV TF can be in the middle of an empty ocean and next minute close alongside an enemy BB battlegroup with no warning or chance to react.



    Didz -> Re: Turn processing (5/29/2002 2:05:18 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
    [B]OK,

    It seems to me, for example, that subs intercept shipping only at the end of the move.

    [/B][/QUOTE]

    I get that impression too although its difficult to be sure without knowing the code. I have certainly never witnessed a TF attacked or spotted in mid phase and in my most recent game with the FOW switched off I was able to set up several submarines along the track of an enemy TF none of which managed to intercept them.

    I would have thought that the program would be testing for every ship in a TF and every aircraft in an air group everytime it crossed a hexside to see if it was spotted or spotted something else but its difficult to tell if that is whats actually happening.



    Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    4.1875