Uncommon Valor-post ideas for improvement

Uncommon Valor-post ideas for improvement (Full Version)

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

Message

rickklahorst -> Uncommon Valor-post ideas for improvement (6/23/2002 8:20:46 AM)
To anyone out there who will listen and would like to comment. As per 2by3's request I am just offering a couple of suggestions on how to make UV, which is already a great game, even better. I think it would really nice to have an option for continuous action. That is, for example, has anyone out there noticed how iritating it can be to have to keep left mouse button clicking to close the combat report windows? It would really be nice I think if the combat results window would stay on for like 10-15 seconds and then close by itself. Or at the very least, make it so that a person could also close the window by simply hitting the enter key on the keyboard. What does everyone else out there think. Mr Grigsby and company has told me that if enough people felt the way I did and expressed it they might consider the change on a future patch.

Erik Rutins -> Response... (6/23/2002 10:22:09 AM)
It's a good idea, but you should know that the ESC key already does what you'd like the Enter key to do. Regards, - Erik

rickklahorst -> enter key (6/27/2002 7:01:55 AM)
thanks for the info regarding the use of the esc key instead of mouse clicking to close all those combat results windows.

AlvinS -> (6/27/2002 7:21:16 AM)
Waypoints. :cool: Although it probably does not belong in an operational level game, it would be nice to set waypoints to steer around obvious areas where subs usually hang out. Mainly it would be useful when sending an Air-Combat TF out of Noumea or Truk. My sub chasers do a pretty good job of finding them or being found by them, but its painful to loose a carrier because they take the same path out of port. Just my 2 cents

jerryandlinda -> Ships sunk (6/28/2002 7:26:41 AM)
I would like to see a date and location of any ships sunk on the info screen showing points awarded for ships sunk. Maybe even points for damage to ships (in the longer campaigns)

svhrg -> (6/28/2002 11:08:41 AM)
It would be nice to summarize the individual pilot's air-to-air kills in a table format rather than displaying each one individualy. Would save a hell of a lot of time in major air combat engagements. R

Sven Nyqvist -> Ships Sunk (6/28/2002 2:02:49 PM)
It would be nice to be able to see Japanese or Allied ships sunk only as well as all. Also a table like the one in the old Pacwar would be good to see were all these points are coming from. The indivdual list can after all grow really long

AlvinS -> (6/28/2002 6:29:11 PM)
[QUOTE]It would be nice to be able to see Japanese or Allied ships sunk only as well as all. Also a table like the one in the old Pacwar would be good to see were all these points are coming from. The indivdual list can after all grow really long[/QUOTE] I like this idea. The further you get into the long campaign the longer it takes to sort through the "ships sunk" list. Just have a button for Japanese ships sunk, and one for allied ships sunk.

Spooky -> Re: Ships sunk (6/28/2002 7:32:24 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jerryandlinda [B]I would like to see a date and location of any ships sunk on the info screen showing points awarded for ships sunk. Maybe even points for damage to ships (in the longer campaigns) [/B][/QUOTE] Well, since the damaged ships can be repaired or sent back to Japan/PH ... and then returned to operation after repair, I do not really understand your point ?

U2 -> (6/28/2002 7:37:21 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AlvinS [B]Waypoints. :cool: Although it probably does not belong in an operational level game, it would be nice to set waypoints to steer around obvious areas where subs usually hang out. Just my 2 cents [/B][/QUOTE] Hi This has been on my mind for a very long time. I think this must be fixed. Otherwise I can predict convoy movements and place my subs there. Perhaps it should be an option otherwise some people would start to complain "must we control everything?":) Dan

Spooky -> (6/28/2002 8:20:21 PM)
I want Way Points :) For instance, the quickest way for Japanese convoys to go from Truk to Rabaul is to pass through the Rabaul western sealanes (south of Kavieng). It is short ... but dangerous (LBA !) if PM is allied controlled :( If Lunga is hold by the Japanese then I would like my convoys to go through the the Rabaul eastern sealanes - a little longer ... but less dangerous :) And a waypoint would allow it ... Spooky

WW2'er -> (6/28/2002 10:06:02 PM)
I asked in another thread if Way Points had already been thought about and rejected because of the operational level of the game. (Hard to believe Gary Grigsby wouldn't have considered them from the beginning.) I also asked if it would be possible to add them at this point of the game's development. (Unless you are a programmer, I don't think the rest of us have a clue as to what time committment it really takes to add many of the things we ask for!) Anyway, I never got an anwer back on either point. It doesn't bother me much though. I figure Matrix is just too hard at work on the next patch to respond to every request for info! (And that is just fine with me. :) )

Rex Bellator -> Shameless copy & paste from another thread (6/28/2002 11:20:22 PM)
:D An easy fix which would help save our mouse fingers during TF creation would be have the default TF commander be the standard junior commander rather than the highest available senior commander. As the Japanese I'm now totally fed up of having RADM Tanaka automatically selected as TF commander for every single TF I create, even tiny supply convoys, and then having to go in and change him. The way the ships are listed could be refined as well. When I click on a ship to add into a TF the list will suddenly jump to the top or bottom and then needs scrolling back to the next ship I was going to add. Also it would be very handy for the default display of ships on lists including TF creation to be by 'ship type' IMO. I seem to view almost all lists in this format, and suppose other players do as well. Finally (for now ) the Ships Sunk screen definitely needs splitting between Japanese & Allied vessels, again defaulting to ship type if possible. All of the above would help the interface enormously.

jerryandlinda -> points for damaged ships (6/29/2002 9:40:01 AM)
my point to possibly getting points for damaged ships is that if the ship is damaged enough to be sent back to Pearl/Truk, the effect is the same (for this game) as having the ship sunk - you lose the use of the ship. This became painfully evident when (in scenario 17), I lost the Saratoga but severly damaged two Japanese carriers. The Japanese got a bunch of "victory points" - I got 0, even though for all practical purposes, they had lost two carriers to my one.

Spooky -> Re: points for damaged ships (6/29/2002 4:13:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jerryandlinda [B]my point to possibly getting points for damaged ships is that if the ship is damaged enough to be sent back to Pearl/Truk, the effect is the same (for this game) as having the ship sunk - you lose the use of the ship. This became painfully evident when (in scenario 17), I lost the Saratoga but severly damaged two Japanese carriers. The Japanese got a bunch of "victory points" - I got 0, even though for all practical purposes, they had lost two carriers to my one. [/B][/QUOTE] That's why "damaged ships" points exist for all scenarios except for the longer ones (1.5 year) :) In your example, the 2 damaged Japanese CV will be out for a max of about 300 days and then will be back ... while the Saratoga won't :(

rhohltjr -> Minefield improvement (7/1/2002 1:35:36 AM)
Erik, would it be possible to include a field in the friendly base screen that says what sort of Minefield density you might have? Trouble is at friendly ports you send your ML TFs in and they go about it but your can't tell if you are making any sort of improvements or not. There is no accounting? Just a thought. RHohltJr. :mad: CTDs to the Left. :mad: CTDs to the right. CTDs from above, below and everywhere. :mad: Never surrender!!!!

John Lansford -> (7/1/2002 2:53:32 AM)
Some method of finding where a land unit's component parts are located would be nice, too. I had sent the Americal Division to Russell Island but didn't realize a regiment was sitting alone on Efate until I clicked on the base. My submarines are still firing torpedoes at barges. PT boats tried this infrequently with poor results, but you'd think that a sub commander wouldn't bother using such an expensive weapon on such a small target. My land based dive bombers also won't attack barges at all, even though they are heading to Tulagi while my planes are on Lunga!

Spooky -> (7/1/2002 2:59:23 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford [B] My land based dive bombers also won't attack barges at all, even though they are heading to Tulagi while my planes are on Lunga! [/B][/QUOTE] I suggest you take a look at the page 83 of the manual - all aircrafts except fighter bombers must be set at an altitude of 100' in order to attack barges or PT TF. Spooky

RayM -> Fix Subs being sunk by gunfire (7/1/2002 11:28:41 AM)
I think this may have already been mentioned..... Too many of my US subs are being sunk by surface gun fire (often from supply ships). I continue to be amazed that the subs will often surface and fire its gun at targets. I can't say whether or not the IJN subs do the same. And of course, the IJN return fire is very good from what I have seen to date. While US subs certainly did use their gun depending upon the target (the smaller the better), I think it is happening far too many times. From what I have read over the years, subs would normally avoid surfacing right in the middle of their attack, just to add the gun to the attack. This behavior usually results in subs being sunk of course. This "death wish" needs to be fixed or at least minimized.

msaario -> (7/22/2002 3:02:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford [B]Some method of finding where a land unit's component parts are located would be nice, too. I had sent the Americal Division to Russell Island but didn't realize a regiment was sitting alone on Efate until I clicked on the base.[/B][/QUOTE] This is on my wish list, too. There should be a button for locating all subunits belonging to the same unit. Also, when you are evacuating a ground unit, the pick up unit window won't sort by location. You have to browse through every unit in the map. That's really annoying! --Mikko

Gabby -> Air Units (7/22/2002 9:44:48 PM)
Something I noticed that would help would be to add Moral, and fatigue to the List Land/Naval air units screen. This would provide a quicq way to look at your air units, and quickly tell which ones need to be rotated to the rear.

RayM -> (7/23/2002 7:40:21 AM)
In the opposite direction: How about a scorecard for kills for each sub? We keep track of air kills, etc., so why not something for the subs?

LTC B -> (7/23/2002 11:29:11 AM)
under the ships sunk screen, add the date in which the ship sank.

Spooky -> (7/23/2002 6:34:46 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LTC B [B]under the ships sunk screen, add the date in which the ship sank. [/B][/QUOTE] Already suggested a long time ago :) BTW, I think it should be the "date ship is reported sunk" for enemy ships because of FOW...

Sonny -> (7/30/2002 1:59:55 AM)
While we're asking - on the list of commanders for a task force - instead of having to click on each one to find out who is a good invasion fleet commander, just make the list wider and put it in the list. Use that space that is now used to list them when you click on a commander to widen the list. Don't have to get all fancy just several columns with SUR INV CAR etc. for surface, invasion, carrier etc. And make it sortable on these columns. As you can tell, unlike some of the folks on this forum who can tell you how many rivets went into making a Corsair I don't know a heck of a lot about the commanders and their traits/personalities/habits/sexual preferences and mothers maiden name.:)

WW2'er -> Oldie, but a goodie... (7/30/2002 4:23:48 AM)
Ok, I know this was mentioned many times right after the game was released, but it hasn't been discussed lately and it hasn't been changed in a patch yet, so I will bring it up again to be sure it hasn't been forgotten about. [B]Add "REST" to the flight options of air squadrons.[/B] Having to set them to "Training" and then set the training level to "0" to have them rest is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If you are going to track "fatigue" and make it an important indicator of mission success, then please make it easy to "Rest" our air crews. Thanks!

Black Cat -> Re: Oldie, but a goodie... (7/30/2002 9:04:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WW2'er [B]Ok, I know this was mentioned many times right after the game was released, but it hasn't been discussed lately and it hasn't been changed in a patch yet, so I will bring it up again to be sure it hasn't been forgotten about. [B]Add "REST" to the flight options of air squadrons.[/B] Having to set them to "Training" and then set the training level to "0" to have them rest is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If you are going to track "fatigue" and make it an important indicator of mission success, then please make it easy to "Rest" our air crews. Thanks! [/B][/QUOTE] Item # 13 as implemented in the 1.2 Patch takes care of this quite nicely, but not in the way one would want...

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.46875