What To Expect in the Patch (Full Version)

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



Message


David Heath -> What To Expect in the Patch (6/3/2002 9:42:01 AM)

Yes we are hard at work on the first patch. This is not a set list but will give you a good idea.

Items for Uncommon Valor version 1.01

1) Major rewrite of the Naval to Naval combat code. Results should now seem more realistic, when used with new data base.

2) Minesweepers will now clear friendly, offensive minefields. Task forces will avoid friendly offensive minefields, when determining shipping routes.

3) The mine warfare text message has been changed from “will MINE” to “will conduct mine warfare ops”.

4) Non-penetrating hit locations are now displayed in naval combat.


5) A bug that allowed the Allied player to see Japanese fleet dispositions during the replay in PBEM and hot seat games has been corrected.

6) Task Forces of greater than 10 or more ships now suffer an anti-aircraft penalty.

7) Graphics clipping for the bottom bar has been fixed and during the execution phase, the top line of the thumbnail map should no longer be visible.

8) The average pilot fatigue is now displayed on the air group screen, immediately below group morale.

9) A bug which prevented Japanese submarines from refueling to full tanks at bases has been corrected.

10) The code for laying, entering, searching minefields has been rewritten. Minefields placed anywhere other than a friendly base are now defined as offensive mines. These are not as well mapped or maintained as well and are much more likely to damage friendly ships.

11) Please note that the program will now run inside of a window, instead of full screen, if the command line parameter –w is used.

12) Air groups bombing ports now target significantly fewer ships in port. Port facilities, supply, fuel and base troops are now targeted more often. The greater the number of ships in port, the greater the chance that one or more will be bombed. Also, note that ships in port take a reduced amount of damage from being bombed.

13) The computer opponent strategic abilities and options have been extended.

14) Sub chasers (SC) may now train to a higher level, the level of destroyers, in shake down cruises.

15) Patrol craft attacking submarines will now always report the attack.

16) The program should no longer require 100% of CPU capacity.

17) A bug which allowed air groups to transfer to carriers, such as the long Island, not on the map has been corrected.

19) Text error, “Sub attackat X,Y” fixed.

20) A new number now appears immediately after the unit name on the ground combat screen. This number is the assault value of the unit or the number of artillery pieces being used in the battle for artillery units. That value can be reduced via bombardment, casualties, fatigue or disruption, during the combat phase. This should provide clues as to how the units are faring during combat. Note that units with no assault value or bombardment capacity, such as headquarters units, do not appear on the list. The units listed are considered to be in or directly supporting the front line. The player will first see text which tell which attacking units are bombarding and if the bombardment does any damage, the numbers for the defending player will be reduced. Counter battery fire may occasionally reduce attacking unit numbers. He will then see text telling which units are attacking. At this point the attacking unit numbers may be reduced substantially. This represents fire from the defensive fire phase. He will then see text telling which units are assaulting or providing support fire. These will come one at a time and the numbers for the defender will be reduced. This is the offensive fire phase. After all this, the player may see reductions in defender player artillery and other units not on the front line, that have been overrun. Finally, the player may see text saying that units, including non-combat units have been destroyed. These units have also been over run and captured.

21) Naval combat description has been enhanced. The player should now see more text items at the bottom of the combat screen, including the results of the maneuver attempts by the task force commanders, such as “Fletcher has crossed the ‘T’ “ or “Russell has dispersed task force and is evading”.

22) Pilot rotation for training, search and anti-submarine missions has been reworked to allow pilots with less experience to fly more missions. This should help relieve the problem of the best pilots flying all the missions and becoming very fatigued.

23) The Japanese auto-victory conditions have been changed. To achieve an auto-victory, the Japanese player must now hold one of the following: Townsville, Rockhampton, Brisbane, Noumea, or Luganville after January 1, 1943 with twice the supply needed to operate the base.

24) Movement on a major road should now be less fatiguing than before. And, no matter how tired troops are, they should now be able to move at least 1 mile per day, across any terrain.

25) An extraneous space was removed from the ship sighting message.

26) The land based combat screen now shows the Japanese forces on the top of the pop-out box and the Allied forces on the bottom. Icons for armor, infantry and any other forces assigned an attack mission will appear, to a maximum of 26 units for each side. Extra text messages describing the battle have been added.

27) New graphics were added for land combat and some improved aircraft graphics were also updated.

More in the works.....................




Reiryc -> (6/3/2002 9:57:11 AM)

Looks really good so far =)

Reiryc




Caltone -> (6/3/2002 10:02:38 AM)

Sounds great David. Your level of support continues to impress. thanks for the update.




Hartmann -> (6/3/2002 10:20:27 AM)

Great so far! 8) I´m really looking forward to the patch. And I also love the "more in the works" part ... :):):)

Hartmann




Sinjen -> Anti-Aircraft Penalty for more than 10 ships??? (6/3/2002 10:23:25 AM)

Just curious what the reasoning for this is. Right now I have a task foce with 2 CV 1BB 4CLAA 8 Destroyers. Which is right at the current limit of 15 before you get penalties as I understand it. To make a decent CV TF after the patch it would have to be something like 2 CV 3CLAA 5 Destroyers. This seems rather limiting....I would think that TF's with 4 to 6 CV's with escorts were not entirely uncommon. The Pearl harbor attack fleet had 6 CVs and escorts if I'm not mistaken. Also the Midway fleets had 4CV on the Japanese side and 3 CV on the american side with escorts.

Lets hear your thoughts as to why anti aircraft fire is being penalized in TF's of more than 10. I would think that a proper carrier TF should consist of atleast 15 ships.

I can see where after 15 ships you might not gain anymore AA bonus's but I really can't see any justification for penalizing TF's with more ships.




Supervisor -> (6/3/2002 10:32:44 AM)

Just a suggestion here.

After reading a couple of the other threads about keeping carrier AGs when sending them back to Pearl Harbor/Truk to gain experience, I have quick-tested doing so. The AGs do stay around afterwards (as long as you transfer them off the ships first :D).

The point that I'm thinking about here, is that there is no guarantee that the carriers will make it back to the theatre. The carriers could end up being needed elsewhere. So the point of stripping AGs off of the carriers would not be allowed (as a carrier w/o an AG is not worth a whole lot). So when a carrier is sent back I believe that the associated AGs should also be withdrawn along with the carriers.

Just a thought . . .




Rob Roberson -> Scary question (6/3/2002 10:53:03 AM)

If I load the patch is my AAR dead. Some of the improvements/repairs are necessary for the game, but I would hate to start the AAR over because it doesnt support 1.00..:).

Rob




David Heath -> (6/3/2002 11:33:21 AM)

We do not think it should effect your current game BUT back it up to be safe.




dpstafford -> Showstopper (6/3/2002 12:09:26 PM)

The list of fixes in the patch is impressive. But it would seem that you have ignored the biggest showstopper: the fact that in PBEM games, the IJN player sees the combat replay from the view of the US player........
....... blowing a rather big hole in the 'fog of war'.

Given the weak IA (understandable in such a complex game, can't you at least try to make the PBEM option workable?




Paul Vebber -> (6/3/2002 12:11:11 PM)

A formation much larger than 4 ships in the center line with 3 in line on each side, gets spread ot to the point full mutual support may not be possible.

Could it be 13, adding a ship to each line? Perhaps. Or 16 or 9, but 10 works well in game terms.

IF you have 4 CVs and 16 escorts, 20 ships can't be cramed together woithout getting into each others LOS (you don't want the AA fire that misses landin gon the friendly ship near-by) or just being stretched range wise. Better to have to 10 ship TF's operating together bu not part of one big gaggle.

10 may be a bit arbitrary but makes sense from the 3-4-3 3 column formation (or a 2+8 screen kilo with 45 degree sectors for each escort) as an arguable limit for effective full mutual coordination of close in AA cover to the High Value Units..




Paul Vebber -> (6/3/2002 12:13:29 PM)

[QUOTE]5) A bug that allowed the Allied player to see Japanese fleet dispositions during the replay in PBEM and hot seat games has been corrected.[/QUOTE]

That blurb means the replay is fixed, David got the "who sees whom" backwards I think...




dpstafford -> (6/3/2002 12:16:53 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]

That blurb means the replay is fixed, David got the "who sees whom" backwards I think... [/B][/QUOTE]


I sure hope you're right!
And that the programmer will take an extra few minutes to encript the passwords in the save game files.




Sinjen -> CV TF Formation (6/3/2002 12:41:49 PM)

OKay you have 4 CV with 8 cruiser\bb escorts and 8 destroyer escorts. 4 CV in center flanked by the flak cruisers 4 deep on each side...the destroyers on the perimeter providing an ASW screen....4 deep on each side.

My question is. What exactly is the penalty if you assemble the above TF with say 4 CV 4 CLAA 1 BB 3 CA 8DD.

Is the advantage of the CLAA, BB, CA flak support taken away? I can understand the destroyers not adding to the flak defense of the carriers, but each column should be able to support the columns running next to them. Thus the Carrier gets the maximum AA support from the two flanking columns of CLAA, BB, and CA's. This is realistic and an arbitrary penalty for any TF over 10 ships seems rather drastic to myself and my friends. Both sides historically had rather large TF's built around their carriers with the CA's typically providing flak cover for the carriers and the destroyers functioning as an ASW and perimeter AA screen.




JohnK -> (6/3/2002 12:56:22 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]
10 may be a bit arbitrary but makes sense from the 3-4-3 3 column formation (or a 2+8 screen kilo with 45 degree sectors for each escort) as an arguable limit for effective full mutual coordination of close in AA cover to the High Value Units.. [/B][/QUOTE]

Please define what "Penalty" means. I do hope that an 11 ship TF doesn't have LESS AA fire than a 10 ship one?

If it is a VERY gradual sense of diminishing returns (a 12 ship TF has more AA fire than a 10 ship TF, but not 20% more, more like 10% more, and as each ship is added it adds to AA fire less and less per ship) than that's fine.

If it's not a very gradual sense of diminishing returns, then this is TOTALLY at variance with reality; I can't fathom why the previous 15 ship break point was a "problem" needing to be fixed.

Task forces constantly got LARGER throughout the war, not smaller. A 1944 Carrier TF had at least 15 ships and as many as 20. Why is this change being made on the THEORY that larger TFs are less effective when we know historically that TFs of larger than 10 ships had MORE AA protection as they got larger? And they kept getting larger and larger as the Kamikaze threat increased.

The reason that the US was using 1 CV task forces in 1942 was that they didn't know any better; it turned out to be stupid to spread out CVs singly with small escorts (and even then, on several occasions, these ONE CV TFs had more than 10 ships) and they later decided to group them together.

So the question is, do you force a gamer to do something stupid just because that was what was done historically (in 1942)? This is a thorny problem; I suggest that artificially imposing AA penalties on TFs above 10 ships (again, much is dependent on what is meant by "penalty") when in reality larger TFs DID increase AA fire, is not a good idea. There's no way you can artificially keep the educated gamer from KNOWING that 1944 Carrier TFs had 20 ships in them and had MORE effective AA fire.

Perhaps one issue to look at is the ORBAT and whether the US really had ALL of the DDs in the SW Pacific that it very quickly accumulates even by July and August of 1942 in UV.

Also, how does this affect large transport TFs?

If people have to break their transports into groups of 6-8 with 2-4 escorts to have effective AA, you're gonna have the US having to have 8-9 different transport TFs just to land a couple of divisions and their supply and support units.




JohnK -> Re: What To Expect in the Patch (6/3/2002 1:07:27 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath
[B]10) The code for laying, entering, searching minefields has been rewritten. Minefields placed anywhere other than a friendly base are now defined as offensive mines. These are not as well mapped or maintained as well and are much more likely to damage friendly ships.
[/B][/QUOTE]

What about the issue of laying mines in water too deep? Eliminating the 10% effectiveness business for deep water? And I suspect many of the mysterious "shallow water" hexes are 90% or more comprised of ocean floor far too deep for mines, too.




von Murrin -> David and Paul, (6/3/2002 1:16:17 PM)

It's been what? Not even two week's since release? All I can really say is thanks for publishing such a great game, thank you again for getting on top of the problems in what I have to assume was just days after release. IMO, that's what makes Matrix stand out from the others. :cool:




legio -> (6/3/2002 1:30:26 PM)

How about the replacement notice and quick save key board short cut?




Joel Billings -> (6/3/2002 1:33:14 PM)

[QUOTE]If it is a VERY gradual sense of diminishing returns (a 12 ship TF has more AA fire than a 10 ship TF, but not 20% more, more like 10% more, and as each ship is added it adds to AA fire less and less per ship) than that's fine. [/QUOTE]

My understanding is that the penalty is something like what you describe above. I was also told that the diminishing returns from 11-15 is less than what it has been (and still will be) for over 15 ships.

As for the minelaying in deep ocean hexes, I've picked up some discussions between Mike and Gary that sound like they will result in greatly reduced deep water minelaying. A lot of discussion and effort has gone into tackling the mine issue and I know the testers are on the issue along with the Matrix staff and Gary so I think you'll ultimately be happy with the results.




Matto -> Welcome patch 1.01 !!! (6/3/2002 3:42:47 PM)

All changes sounds good ... hope to have your patch so early ;)
Waiting Matto




vils -> ACtivate Mouse-roller!!! (6/3/2002 3:45:21 PM)

Please do, i am totally addicted to it.

Should be extremely easy, no?




Matto -> Compatibility ??? (6/3/2002 4:15:23 PM)

I have a question to compatibility with old version. Do I use my old saved games and pbem games with new patch ???
Matto




brisd -> good news (6/3/2002 11:50:05 PM)

The changes incorporated in the patch will definitely improve the game which already has me hooked. Thanks Matrix and 2by3 for tweaking an already superb product! :cool:




Yamamoto -> (6/4/2002 12:15:42 AM)

As one who likes the current mine warfare routine, I’m wondering how the changes will impact the game. Currently I mine enemy ports. Now you are saying that my mines will have a significantly increased chance of hitting my own ships. That means that I will have to send in a minesweeper first whenever I want to invade. That means sticking around with carrier support while the minesweeper does his job. I prefer to hit with the invasion force and get out as quickly as I can. Also, if the invasion fails, I’ve just cleared the enemy’s port of all of my mines.

How much of an increase will my ships have of hitting their own mines after the patch? If I dump 200 mines in a hex what are the chances of hitting one?

Yamamoto




Paul Vebber -> (6/4/2002 12:34:13 AM)

From what I understand the AA penalty was a "step function" that kicked in at 15 ships that made ships added to that total count less than "full value", so what happens now is a more level decrease from 10 to 15 in this penalty. As I under stand it the penalty is "total teh AA firepower of teh task force and if it has 10 or fewr ships its that total, if 11 ships its reduced a little, 12 ships reduced a little more - the penalty not being bigger than the addition f teh ship, but reflective of the fact that every ship could not engage every target as the task force got large. So yes, at some point adding ships to a very large task force added no real increase in total firepower because an attacking air group could not be engaged by it if it attacked from the opposite side of the formation . So in effect it "wasn't there". Trying to model the exact geometry of teh formationand what ships can bear would not yield a significantly different result than by not increasing the AA strength very much after you have lots of ships.

The diminishing returns was accepted, as the player can as the cost for massing force. But you should not get to just assume that every ship in the task force applies its full AA firepower against every attack, that is obviously impossible. This game doesn't allow for "simultaneous time on top multi-axis attakcs", that japanese Kamikazes tried to perform late in the war. WITP will likely have some accounting in its kamikaze rules.

As I understand the mining rules,

1) You will have to load mines at Noumea or Truk. There were not hordes of mine techs and you could just load them from anywhere. This will help keep mining in or near enemy base hexes as was historically done as you won't have time to lay 10's of thousands of mines everywhere.

2) There was a Japanese deep water mine. There were also floating mines that sank after a short time or exploded. Mine fields in deep hexes are only 10% as effective and that paltry capability is halved each day until they vanish the third day after being laid. Reflects that at least the Japs TRIED to mine on occasion in deep water, you will likely have the same lack of success they did. With the loading of mines restricted to the depot locations, I can't see many folks using this for 4 days very limited effect.

3)There is a VERY VERY small chance you can hit mines you lay defensively. ONce you capture a base, you are assumed to discover the "secret plan" for the minefield (since all the ships had to have it...) and it becomes friendly to you (and remains friendly to the enemy). WHen you mine his bases, and them capture the base, since such offensive fields are laid with an eye to speed and not care, you have to treat them like an enemy minefield and sweep them.

3) A hot key will cause a small s to appear in shallow hexes.




dgaad -> (6/4/2002 1:31:55 AM)

All the changes sound logical and goodness. Can't wait. However, couple of questions :

1. Will games in progress be able to be continued with the patched version? If not, consider embedded, seamless workaround code to allow this.

2. ASW by aircraft. Juliet7bravo conducted an extensive test with the editor on the relative effectivness of aircraft against subs, particularly allied aircraft. I think you should read his thread.

While I consider that the opinions of some people that aircraft should be killing subs at an increasing rate to be way overblown (especially in a game that measures time in one day increments) I do think his test shows a flaw in the implementation of ASW and naval missions for patrol aircraft. Anyway, right now, its almost impossible right now to kill a sub with ASW patrols. In my game I've had Hudsons and other non-patrol aircraft on ASW for 4 months and never gotton a hit or a kill from them. It could be because I sunk all the Jap subs with destroyers, I don't know. Just look into it at a code level, I think there might be a problem with loadout or attack algorithims, as juliet described in his thread.




Joel Billings -> (6/4/2002 4:29:52 AM)

Based on the testing by Juliet7bravo (nice job), I mentioned the concern regarding ASW aircraft to Gary. He has just confirmed that there is in fact a bug in the code that prevents aircraft with torpedoes from loading out with bombs when on ASW or Naval Search missions (he intended for bombs to be carried). Since I don't know exactly where the first patch stands in the testing process, I can't say if Gary's proposed fix will get into the first patch or in a later patch, but it has been reported to Mike and David so I'm sure they'll get it in as soon as they can.

By the way, based on a question I saw in a previous thread, I used the book The Lost Patrol to come up with the following numbers regarding US subs lost in all theaters from 12/7/41 - 12/31/43:

Operational/Friendly Fire Losses - 6
Sunk by Enemy Surface Ships - 6
Sunk by Enemy Sub - 1
Sunk by Enemy Aircraft - 1
Sunk by Combination of Enemy Aircraft and Surface Ships - 4 (in these cases the plane spotted the sub and surface ships finished it off)
No Known Reason - 7 (almost all of these were assumed to be from minefields or surface ships, not aircraft, but no one knows for sure)

As you can see, not many sunk by Japanese aircraft. I would guess Japanese sub losses to US aircraft was much higher.




Nikademus -> (6/4/2002 5:19:37 AM)

Great news (on the patch) and it's specifics

cant wait to try it out. Just as with SP:WAW, Matrix and crew deliver and deliver quickly after user feedback. If only certain other gaming companies were as responsive.

Kudos too on tweaking the AA situation. IIRC this was a long-standing complaint from back in the PacWar days when players would constantly build 20 ship TF's (with the majority composed of crusier and AA cruisers) to maximize Flak firepower and inflate it to unbelievable preportions.....so much so that an IJN player would be lucky to get two or three actual "shots" at their targets with all the rest either being hit or shot down.




rhohltjr -> Patch Patch whos got da patch. (6/4/2002 6:45:59 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Great news (on the patch) and it's specifics

cant wait to try it out. Just as with SP:WAW, Matrix and crew deliver and deliver quickly after user feedback. If only certain other gaming companies were as responsive.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I hope the first patch will deal with that dang 'fatal click o death' /
'click to CTD' that some of us are having.

Lemmee see, there used to be that game co., same one that did
PacWar IIRC, that used to be pretty good at backing up their work with patches,... SSI yeah. Course they had the 2x3 crew there then. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D




Ron Saueracker -> Submarines (6/4/2002 7:20:32 AM)

Just a suggestion. When one leaves subs under AI control, they wander all over the place and perform things like wolfpack tactics and such and when one places them under human control, they have to be watched extremely closely for endurance and ammo issues, and I've found they rarely attack unless put in choke points that are very shallow and well defended. It seems that there is too little or too much control.

What about doing what was done during wartime (at least for the allies this was done)? Assign subs patrol areas which have a multiple hex area and within which subs must remain for their patrol or until sent elsewhere. This way the AI reacts to contacts and returns when deemed fit, and does not cross into other sub patrol areas (something which USN doctrine adhered to until late 1944). Might be a happy middleground with both types of gamers, it would be for me.;)




juliet7bravo -> (6/4/2002 7:25:44 AM)

Glad the ASW is getting looked at.

Japanese should most definitely get a severe handicap for AC on ASW patrol. Them not even having an ASW option wouldn't be too far out of line.

IJN lost something like 128 subs out of 174, and that includes training/obsolete subs as well. My database isn't configured to break ships down by method of loss, but the majority were sunk by DD's and DE's. Without getting wrapped up in it, doubt if it was more than 4-6 subs lost in all of '42 to LBA. Which is what my bomb armed PB's were doing in game, roughly 1 kill per month on shallow water subs, with maybe another 1-2 non-fatal hits...so once they get the correct loadout they should be fine.

One thing sticks out, stemming from ASW testing...I think UK ships included at scenario start (long campaign) should get somewhat higher experience levels than they have...they've been at war much longer. Same with any USN ships included that were part of Asiatic Fleet, they've already had their OJT the hard way.

Mine warfare...the IJN is handicapped by not having a high speed DMS class in game to keep up with SC/Bomb TF's. The Matsuki class DD's were also rated as DM/DMS prior to conversion. Why not rate some of the ones not converted* to APD's as high speed DMS's instead of retaining them as DD's?

*Note: Seems to be some confusion over between Watts/Jentschura whether they were all converted to APD's or not in '41/'42?




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.53125