(Full Version)

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



Message

juliet7bravo -> (5/29/2002 2:13:58 AM)

I like the game alot, and am playing the **** out of it.

BUT...there's some problems. I definitely won't be playing this game 15 years from now like PacWar. It's sort of unfair to judge UV by PacWar, but PacWar IS the standard.

Mainly, you're at the strategic level, but your minions are idiots, and you get left with all tedious management chores.

(1) You can't let your commanders off the leash, or they do stupid stuff like driving their carriers up to Rabual on a reaction move. Ergo...reaction moves as useless, and you HAVE to play TF commander, only without any real ability to do so built into the game design. Leaves you basically a crippled and innocent bystander watching a train wreck in progress. Being able to give your TF commanders some operational level guidance and parameters would be nice...then if you want the guy to show some initiative, you put an aggressive TF commander in change.

(2) Game balance. Lots of things still need to be tweaked in the game. Not a bitch or a complaint, just a statement. PacWar is 15 years old and we're still tweaking it.

(3) The micromanagment aspect, especially supply. The interface is clunky for one thing. Another is the computer supply routines are really kludgy...you end up doing it yourself as you can't afford too many mistakes with the limited resources you have. It's really frustrating when your troop convoys split without loading all the troops, and loaded supplies instead. Irritating as hell to have to make 2-3 trips to pick up that HQ unit you need desperately to get your fighter CAP up and running. An option to load 50% supply, 50% fuel would be nice. Managing fuel is even tougher than managing supply since you have to make separate convoys to do so unless you have spare AO's/TK's around...more tedious beancounting.

One hundred screens, steps, and button clicks to go through to get anything done, and you're still left with "this isn't what I want to do".

It'd be nice to be able to give the AI orders "reinforce Lunga", and have it start gathering resources and moving supplies and troops with whatever it's got to work with...then be able to jump in and micromanage if you feel the need. Not sure if that's the answer, but something isn't "there". Like someone else pointed out, something got lost in the translation.

(4) The "it's too late for UV, but we'll consider it for WiTP" syndrome. Okay, why do I want to even get attached to this game? The point seems to be crystal clear that this game is a training run and test bed for Matrix. The glaring stuff will get fixed I'm sure, but after that it's going to be forgotten. What we got was "half a game", and we basically are paying to be beta testers for WiTP. WiTP is at least a year away, and the appeal for UV ain't gonna stretch that far. The half we got is pretty cool...but it's still just half a game. How great the half we got is, just highlites the half we didn't get.

(5) It's supposed to be a strategic level game...but other than making the strategic decision "I'm gonna take out Lunga first, then island hop to Rabaul", the rest is all beancounting as you have no real operational control. You can't define objectives to subordinate HQ's and let them handle anything. You can't tell your carriers to "proceed to point X at flank speed" or to launch strikes against specific targets...it's really frustrating to have 6 carriers "barge busting" with a damaged carrier TF in range and running away. You can't issue orders to subordinates; you have to literally feed, cloth, and move each individual unit, monitor their health, hope they have good attitudes, personally hold each unit commanders hand, and then when it's time for combat you push them off the cliff and hope they learn how to fly before hitting bottom.

(6) The AI is...odd. About the most agression I've seen is the bombardment runs on Gilli Gilli...which came to a fast halt with some well placed mines. Units committed piecemeal. The first full scenario 17 I played, I didn't see a IJN carrier at all. Finally loaded up as the IJN player, and there was 1 CV, 1 CVL in Truk, the rest were in Japan.



FAdmiral -> (5/29/2002 2:23:09 AM)

I think what it boils down to is "Whose shoes are you (player)
filling in these games. In CAW, you were Halsey or Spruance
in command of carrier task forces. In the orginal PacWar, you
were Nimitz and MacArthur in command of entire theaters with
the logistics that went with it. In the upcoming WITP, you will
play them again. But in UV, your role is Ghormley and later on
Halsey (his theater commander role) guiding the SW Pacific
operational structure. SO, what commander do you really
enjoy playing???? I take quite a fancy to playing Nitimz myself.
In UV, the map is a little to compact for my tastes althought I
dearly love the game. But I yearn for the days when I can again
control the entire pacific like in the upcoming WITP. SOMEDAY.
I will get my ultimate game, control of the entire WW2 war machine on both sides of the USA.

JIM BERG, SR.



Hartmann -> (5/29/2002 2:33:58 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
[B]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, I forgot the SNIPs, sorry. I probably misunderstood your remark about the long term strategy gamers, still it seems to me that "proven beyond ...." was
meant to relate to "design flaw" in the next sentence, which is the reason I quoted those two sentences together. (For "design flaw" was your alternative to my "player's preference", no?)

Anyway, let's forget that. I agree with what you wrote in the last paragraph just now. I think, though that this is not a problem of the 24 hour turns per se. Rather, this could be quite easily remedied by a somewhat more sofisticated set of animation frames for displaying the 24 hours period, i.e. instead of units "jumping" we should be able to see them moving from hex to hex (like it is usually done in games which separate the orders phase from the execution phase). If this would be introduced in a patch, everything would be more than fine with me.
Hartmann



Reiryc -> (5/29/2002 2:49:57 AM)

quote:

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.


Uh...

You wouldnt call it a design flaw. What you would say is that you dislike the current choice of time management. Now let's be clear here, one is about personal preference, the other is about a something that causes the program to not operate as intended. The 24 hour time frame does allow the game to operate as intended, but some, such as yourself, don't like it.

That's a personal preference, not a design flaw.

The game's web page stated what it would be and the turn lengths would be anywhere from 1 to 7 days. The question for a design flaw would be, did the current design of the game achieve it's stated goal? I would say it does since the game does operate along the lines of 1 to 7 day turns. Just because one has differing preferences on what a turn should consist of, does not indicate a design flaw. Additionally, having 1 day turns in an operational game is and has been an acceptable form of operational gaming which is what UV is.

I have no problems with anyone saying they would prefer shorter turn lengths, what I do have a problem with is someone saying that the game has a design flaw without them. I believe that is a misrepresentation of the game. And as someone who wants to see this game succeed so that Matrix can succeed to provide us more quality games of this nature, I feel it necessary to point out the difference. This isn't about semantics to me, its about the perception being given that the game itself has a problem when it's the user that has the problem.

Reiryc



Henri -> (5/29/2002 3:15:44 AM)

I have to congratulate the participants of this thread on the polite and respectful tone of the discussion.

I went this morning after a long absence to the Combat Mission forum to check on the status of their upcoming game only to find a similar thread where a participant was criticizing the game for not being what he wanted (more operational). He was being raked over the coals, tarred and feathered with personal attacks, told to program his own game if he was not happy, and so on and so on. IT reminded me of why I voluntary left that forum last year never to return.

I posted a message pointing out the different attitude (including that of the designers and moderators) compared to the matrix forums, and was told that this is due to the larger number of messages on the Combat Mission forum. Wrong. it is a matter of attitude.

A paying customer should be allowed to vent and even criticize on a forum (within reasonable limits) without being the object of insults and assaults designed to humiliate him. The balance here is pretty good. Matrixgames respect their customers.

Tonight, I put Morrowind on pause (not to mention Lost victories where I am still on the second scenario...) and launch into the Pacific War. The following court martial will not be pretty... :D



Paul Vebber -> (5/29/2002 3:35:30 AM)

With ocassional flare ups, this board is indeed an oasis in what can be a desert out there of common courtesy...

The thanks goes to the members here, who by internet standards are remarkably civil! (at least we seem to keep the uncivilized holed up at the Art of Wargaming forum :D )

My personal thanks to you all!



pad152 -> (5/29/2002 3:41:02 AM)

Henri


If anybody wants to be the object of insults and assaults they have to go to news group comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical,they hate everything!:D

If someone went there to sell quarters for a dime in that news group, the discussing would be why dimes are better than quarters!



Sid -> Carrier's at War comparison (5/29/2002 3:47:13 AM)

When you say Carriers at War I think you may mean Combined Carriers at War, which is the only form in which it is still available. And it is an amazing game - the best of its kind so far.

UV is NOT like CCAW, as you are noticing. You are a FLEET ADMIRAL, and you do NOT get to make tactical decisions for your carrier commanders. This is realistic, if frustrating.



Hartmann -> (5/29/2002 3:52:36 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pad152
[B]SNIP If someone went there to sell quarters for a dime in that news group, the discussing would be why dimes are better than quarters! [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, we can do that, too! :D For starters, dimes don't take as much room and are lighter than an equal amount of quarters in the wallet. This is backed by the fact that dollar bills, which are definitely worth more than quarters, are lighter than quarters, too. Finally, if someone sells dimes for quarters, he only adds proof to our opinion that dimes are valued more than quarters. So how can this individual dare to come here and think we are idiots falling for his dirty little tricks! :mad: Never will he get our precious dimes in exchange for totally worthless quarters! :D

Hartmann



IChristie -> validation vs. Verification (5/29/2002 3:56:51 AM)

In my other working life (building h/w and s/w for the space program) we often get into long periods of "violent agreement" over the concepts of verification vs. validation

Validation is: Did we build the right thing

Verification is: Did we build the thing right

A subtle difference but one that is the source of much of the discussion here. I think this is the distinction the Reiryc is making.

Validation is infinitely harder than verification. To verify a design you simply test it against its requirements. To validate requirements you have to ascertain what your customer really wants and then write requirements that will give it to him. This is an immensely difficult thing to do. We frequently say that if you put 4 astronauts in a room and ask for their evaluations, you will typically get at least 5 responses.

I think the same would apply to any knowledgeable, passionate user community which this clearly is, as well. Of course, I am disappointed that not everyone finds UV to their taste, but I think that I have to agree with Reiryc that it does a good job of meeting the requirements that were set out for it.

Also it has to be realized that the suggested changes might very well be as unpopular with an even larger segment of the community. This is always the debate when you try to validate requirements.

If there is a large segment of the user community that feels that this approach does not result in a playable of enjoyable game then Matrix and 2 by 3 would have to rethink the whole concept of the WITP and follow on games. I, for one, hope that they do not, because I find the concept to novel, interesting and enjoyable.

In the end, I suspect that the final tale will be told by the sales figures anyways.



Reiryc -> (5/29/2002 3:58:03 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
[B]

Well, we can do that, too! :D For starters, dimes don't take as much room and are lighter than an equal amount of quarters in the wallet. This is backed by the fact that dollar bills, which are definitely worth more than quarters, are lighter than quarters, too. Finally, if someone sells dimes for quarters, he only adds proof to our opinion that dimes are valued more than quarters. So how can this individual dare to come here and think we are idiots falling for his dirty little tricks! :mad: Never will he get our precious dimes in exchange for totally worthless quarters! :D

Hartmann [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL...bravo! Well done sir!

Reiryc



juliet7bravo -> (5/29/2002 6:24:47 AM)

I think the best analogy would be being the owner AND pitcrew of a race car...you pay the bills, do all the scut work, and get left at the pit wall biting your nails while the driver gets all the fun (and is prone to periodically crashing into the wall while you watch in horror).



Burch -> (5/29/2002 7:49:07 AM)

After playing UV for several days, I have to agree with several of these posts. I think the answer to many of our problems (at least mine:D ) would be a "player operational control" like in PacWar. I would love to be able to turn the tedious supply runs over to the AI and yet have the option to manage it myself if I wanted/needed to. At the same time I would like to tell an air group to bomb the Shortland airfield and it actually happen, weather permitting, turn after turn!
One really annoying thing that I have experienced is loading a task force with troops, supplies, fuel etc., the next turn they are not quite loaded so I leave them loading and continue to the next turn only to return and find them unloaded or unloading on the next turn!!!!!:mad: Or they get halfway to the target base and turn around (I'm not talking about running from carriers etc)!!
Someone posted earlier that UV bored them, I can relate to this. While I love the game, it can become needlessly tedious and/or frustrating. It is not a lack of turn by turn action that is boring it is the turn by turn micromanagement.
Let me say again that the subject and scope of this game is great as well as the game as a whole. I enjoy the ability to micromanage but don't want to do it all the time. If I do micromanage I want my orders carried out!



Didz -> (5/29/2002 3:32:10 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hartmann
[B]

Yeah, I forgot the SNIPs, sorry. I probably misunderstood your remark about the long term strategy gamers, still it seems to me that "proven beyond ...." was
meant to relate to "design flaw" in the next sentence, which is the reason I quoted those two sentences together. (For "design flaw" was your alternative to my "player's preference", no?)

[/B][/QUOTE]

Sure! No problem:)

I was just concerned that having tried hard not to incite a debate that would divide this forum into a war of two camps my words were being quoted as a rallying call for just such a division. I was therefore keen to put the record straight.

I tried to word my initial post carefully to reflect the fact that this thread is about 'Why I' am getting fed up with UV and it was never my intention to suggest that the game was unenjoyable or unplayable for everyone else.

What has transpired since is that a significant number of other players have come forward with similar concerns. Enough I think to prove that there is an issue here to be addressed.

I accept that this game was advertised as having 1-7 day turns and a 30 mile hex scale but with the best will in the world its difficult to assess the impact of that in playing terms without actually playing the game particularly if your main area of interest is Napoleonic's. I was merely re-assured by the statement that this game would be based upon Gary Grigby's PACWAR which is a game I have always loved playing and I am surprised at how much difference the change in ground scale has made.

At the end of the day it is the game designers job to produce a game thats playable and enjoyable and for the vast majority of purchasers they have succeeded but I'm afraid in my case they have failed.

My only interest at this point is:

a. Can an option for a shorter move be introduced in a later release so that I can enjoy this game too?

b. Will this issue be avoided in WiTP?



JJKettunen -> (5/29/2002 7:39:03 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Henri
[B]I went this morning after a long absence to the Combat Mission forum to check on the status of their upcoming game only to find a similar thread where a participant was criticizing the game for not being what he wanted (more operational). He was being raked over the coals, tarred and feathered with personal attacks, told to program his own game if he was not happy, and so on and so on. IT reminded me of why I voluntary left that forum last year never to return.[/B][/QUOTE]

The big difference between these cases is that Didzīs criticism of UV was presented in a civil mannered way. The criticism of CM was NOT presented in a civil mannered way.



Erik Rutins -> Some answers... (5/29/2002 9:52:18 PM)

Burch,

I'm jumping in here since your post raised some specific points that I wanted to comment on.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burch
[B]I would love to be able to turn the tedious supply runs over to the AI and yet have the option to manage it myself if I wanted/needed to. At the same time I would like to tell an air group to bomb the Shortland airfield and it actually happen, weather permitting, turn after turn![/B][/QUOTE]

While there is apparently a bug with some CS convoys, they are working here and certainly do fulfill the automated supply role. Set them up, send them out and forget them.

As for bombing Shortland - they will bomb regularly (weather permitting) in my experience as long as you've also assigned them enough escorts. Bomber pilots hate being shot down. ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burch
[B]One really annoying thing that I have experienced is loading a task force with troops, supplies, fuel etc., the next turn they are not quite loaded so I leave them loading and continue to the next turn only to return and find them unloaded or unloading on the next turn!!!!!:mad:[/B][/QUOTE]

That only happens if you forgot to set a destination. Always set their destination immediately after you start them loading. Otherwise, you're simply conducting a loading/unloading training exercise as you've told them to stay in port.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burch
[B]Or they get halfway to the target base and turn around (I'm not talking about running from carriers etc)!![/B][/QUOTE]

This sounds like that CS/Routine Convoy bug, which is being worked on. We hope to have that fixed soon.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burch
[B]Someone posted earlier that UV bored them, I can relate to this. While I love the game, it can become needlessly tedious and/or frustrating. It is not a lack of turn by turn action that is boring it is the turn by turn micromanagement. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to say I respect the position of those who feel this way, but I found that PacWar required much more micromanagement from me each turn than UV does. Nevertheless, I'd love to see even less micromanagement. We'll make improvements as we can.

Regards,

- Erik



Sid -> One fix already in UV!!! (5/29/2002 10:23:12 PM)

UV takes some learning because the manual does not explain it all in detail (hint hint). The matter of a cargo unloading in its port of loading is a function of software. Irritating it is, but it is a USER error, not the program. WHEN YOU DESIGNATE THE CARGO DESIGNATE THE DESTINATION. If you do that, when the cargo loads, it will go there to unload! IF THE DESTINATION HAPPENS TO BE WHERE YOU ARE, IT GOES THERE - which is to say it stays there! Perfectly reasonable simple if you think the way a computer does. The game WORKS, but you have to grasp you are dealing with an itiot that does not reason, it literally does what you order! If you TF says "Destination = Noumea" and you ARE IN Noumea, then the computer thinks you want to unload in Noumea, no matter where you got it (even in Noumea). Make sense? Repeat, if you want the cargo to go to Lungy, SAY SO at the time you load it, which means you don't have to remember to say so later. If you don't want to leave port at once, say "patrol/do not return" and you won't leave either! Just learn to use the controls.



Marc von Martial -> (5/29/2002 10:32:53 PM)

[QUOTE]He was being raked over the coals, tarred and feathered with personal attacks, told to program his own game if he was not happy, and so on and so on. [/QUOTE]

Aha, so nothing changed over there hmm ;). Itīs not a matter of how you present something over at Battlefrontīs board, itīs just about the game. You donīt like the simplest feature oc CMBO, you get flamed big time. Even worse then on "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical" , hehe. The Art of War board here is a sandbox compared to the newsgroup, LOL.



Burch -> (5/29/2002 10:41:25 PM)

Thanks for the lesson guys. I was foggy on the whole destination thing, and it sounds like it will take care of some of my problems. However, that being said, there are still nuances in controlling TFs of all kinds that are hard to get a handle on (trial and error). Some manual help as in "TF Control for Dummies" might have been helpful.
PacWar did have a lot of micromanagement IF you chose to do it. It also had a few little quirks. Air group control was something I never got very good at with PacWar.
I am enjoying the game very much. I love the Pacific Theatre in WW2!!



Sid -> It is a good game (5/29/2002 10:44:05 PM)

Let us try to remember this is a good game. It is more respectful of integration of land units with navair ops than any other. I cannot stand PACWAR - mainly because no one in a whole club of gamers in a major metroplex can understand what it is about. It is too abstract to comprehend or use. This game we can understand and it mainly works.

Game scale DOES matter - it is the MOST IMPORTANT design decision. But so does the level of command. We mainly play games that are too operational or tactical - this is a STRATEGIC game and your have to let your (computer) subordinates make their own decisions.

That said, it IS frustrating the AI does not allow the Japanese to take advantage of longer range planes. Indeed, for unclear reasons, a Kate cannot use her longer range - she is limited to the range of the Val -- which is not correct - albiet she does not carry as much to extended range. And the TBD for some reason has too much range with a torpedo!!!! It uses its lighter loading but carries a torpedo all the way! But that does not change the fact it is a wonderful game. Data creates opportunities for errors and there is massive data here.



Burch -> (5/29/2002 10:52:03 PM)

Sid,
I am very pleased with this game and it does everything it was designed to do. Yes there are some things I would like to add but I feel this is an excellent game.
My comparisons to PacWar are only because IMHO PacWar and possibly QQP's Battles of the South Pacific are the only games that I have played that could even be comparable.
I like the operational strategic level it is why I bought the game, but do feel some of my subordinates are morons at times!
Burch



Henri -> (5/30/2002 12:44:42 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burch
[B]
I like the operational strategic level it is why I bought the game, but do feel some of my subordinates are morons at times!
Burch [/B][/QUOTE]

I like to have a few morons among my commanders, it allows me to blame them for my own shortcomings when things go badly, not to mention increasing the nail-biting in tight situations like when your planes go after the wrong target...

Henri



FAdmiral -> (5/30/2002 2:56:11 AM)

Check your history guys, we had alot of morons back then too.
But fortunately, it got balanced out with some fairly smart ones.
I dearly love this type of game but if you want to see
why your orders are sometimes not carried out to the
letter, check the units morale level. When it is very low, things
don't go as planned.

JIM BERG, SR.



Sid -> Something good about something bad... (5/30/2002 4:59:35 AM)

Actually, at Metro Seattle Gamers, we LIKE the fact that weather and maybe staff or command problems mean your missions do not fly (etc.) In particular we like the fact that leaders have an influence, and that we can assign them (at least in the campaign games). This is much more a simulation of high command than I have seen before commercially (I do private sims much more complex, with HUMAN judges playing computer in the middle, but that is much harder to do -- this is just start it and play).

But it SHOULD be possible to plan an attack ahead of time and have SOME chance of events going as planned for much of the first day. Indeed, it is TOO easy to do an amphib op, and there is NO delay to do it as far as I can tell -- which is unrealistic. I was first of all a Gator (Navy slang for amphib sailor) and it STILL don't work that way. Indeed, if you rush it, the chance of mess ups should be greater. It is said among professionals and historians that amphib ops are the most complex military operations in history.



Burch -> (5/30/2002 9:21:23 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Henri
[B]

I like to have a few morons among my commanders, it allows me to blame them for my own shortcomings when things go badly, not to mention increasing the nail-biting in tight situations like when your planes go after the wrong target...

Henri [/B][/QUOTE]

Good Point:)



Mojo -> (5/30/2002 9:49:53 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Henri
[B]

I like to have a few morons among my commanders, it allows me to blame them for my own shortcomings when things go badly, not to mention increasing the nail-biting in tight situations like when your planes go after the wrong target...

Henri [/B][/QUOTE]

Got any openings in your Navy?:D



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1