What an EXELLENT IDEA!!

What an EXELLENT IDEA!! (Full Version)

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

Message

vils -> What an EXELLENT IDEA!! (7/2/2002 2:19:30 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by segorn [B]I agree, I'd like to have some capability to request specific ships and/or classes. Maybe some form of buy point system would work e.g. I'll trade you that 300 VP carrier you were going to send me for 20 15 VP Assault Transports... [/B][/QUOTE] This is an exellent idea! Say, you get x points every day, and you can choose if you should aim for carriers or subs or transports! Of course you should only be able to 'buy' ships after their historical appearance. It should be very easy to tweak the point system so that you never get to much pts.. Imagine, this game would become extremely alot better with this! Matrix, what do you say??? :eek:

Didz -> Re: What an EXELLENT IDEA!! (7/3/2002 1:29:20 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by vils [B] Say, you get x points every day, and you can choose if you should aim for carriers or subs or transports! Of course you should only be able to 'buy' ships after their historical appearance. It should be very easy to tweak the point system so that you never get to much pts.. [/B][/QUOTE] Personally, I'm not too keen the idea of trading points for ships. I was thinking more along the lines of a priority system where I could indicate a preference for transport vessels rather than surface combat vessels and the reinforcement schedule would expedite the arrival of that class of vessel whilst retarding the others. So, for example assuming the historical schedule listed the following: CA 10 days DD 12 days AP 15 days AK 16 days DD 17 days CV 22 days This schedule would remain unchanged unless I registered a priority needs for Transport vessels at which point the program would seek to expedite the AP and AK by a random increase in the speed the arrive time reduced whilst delaying the combat vessels by a similar random rate. Thus 10 days later the schedule might look like this: AP 1 day (4 days early) CA 2 day (2 days late) AK 2 days (4 days early) DD 6 days (4 days late) DD 9 days (2 days late) CV 18 Days (6 days late) The theory being that resources are being fed into freeing up and preparing the transport vessels whilst the effort in making the combat vessels ready is being given lower priority.

worr -> Re: Allied Transport Poverty (7/3/2002 3:04:23 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by segorn [B] I have 10 APs and 2 AKs in theatre. The game obstinantly refuses to send me transport reinforcements. I fact, the sum total of transport resources for all of 1943 was 2 LSTs and 2 LCIs. Many other transports reached Pearl, but none made it out to me. Is anyone else running into this? If so, is there a solution? Alternately, does Matrix need to change their ship release formula to release ships based on class needs e.g. I'm not running out of ships in general, but I sure am running out of APs? A [/B][/QUOTE] Been there; done that, seagorn. I've husbanded my transports very carefully in two games....and found myself still unable to reinforce all my succeeses. I've even sent back fleet carriers in order to change the commitment level in theater only to have them send back CVs. while Pearl keeps all the APs TK and AKs at home. Something is out of balance there. Especailly when you play one of the scenarios which start later in the war. Then you see all the resources that are availble in theater and you cratch your head. I stopped playing UV for this reason...only to wait for a patch to fix the bugs and the OOB problems. Worr, out

worr -> (7/3/2002 3:26:19 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cyberwop [B]Remember the south pacific in 42 and early 43 was a secondary theatre. The U.S. west coast was concidered threated let alone Hawii. [midway, alaska, ect] [/B][/QUOTE] When you play one of the scenarios that begin in mid 43 you'll see the committment level is much higher than you'll ever get if you play the larger campaign. Worr, out

mjk428 -> (7/3/2002 5:21:29 AM)
[QUOTE]When you play one of the scenarios that begin in mid 43 you'll see the committment level is much higher than you'll ever get if you play the larger campaign. Worr, out[/QUOTE] Based on what I could glean from the manual, if I set ship commitment to 100% and use a "fixed" replacement schedule, I would get the historical order of battle. That not the case?

siRkid -> (7/3/2002 5:28:04 AM)
I'll tell you what I did out of desperation. After losing most of my transports and not getting any from PH, I quit sending the damaged ones back for repairs. The damage does not affect the amount of cargo they can hold just the speed. (Maybe this should be fixed?) I now use them for the short runs and save my undamaged ones for the long runs. I have some transports with as much as 60% sys damage and they are still hauling cargo. Would this happen in the real word? Maybe, if a Theater Commander was as starved for transports as I am. Rick

segorn -> (7/3/2002 6:25:25 AM)
Yeah, I tried that too, but ultimately a transport moving at half speed is only half as valuable as one moving at full speed b/c delivers 1/2 the supplies per unit time. The problem, I think, is mre subtle than just jimmying with the replacement schedule. The replacement schedule ultimately represents the shipbuilding that the United States actually laid down and constructed in response to the actual situation during WW II. I guarantee you, had the Japanese been victorious at Midway, sinking the American carriers and not the other way around, the US would physically have laid down more aircraft carriers. Conversely, if the United States merchant marine were decimated by the Japanese, I guarantee the nation would have laid down more transports. As we play the game and alter the path of the war away from that which historically happened, the game need to alter its shipbuilding and delivery to factor that in. In my mind, this means bulding more ships where there is a deficiency, and even building less than the historical numbers of ship classes where a clear superiority exists.

siRkid -> (7/3/2002 6:36:20 AM)
I agree. Maybe the way to handle it would be to set a level for each category of ship. For example if the number of mine sweepers fell below a certain level then a priority of High would be assigned to releasing mine sweepers. Just thinking out loud.

segorn -> (7/3/2002 6:40:40 AM)
Yah. I don't even know that we need to, as players, be able to set the priority I'd just like the game to keep seperate target levels for different ship classes. e.g. the January 1st, 1943 target levels could be (Allied) CV X 4 BB X 4 CA X 8 DD X 40 AP X 30 AK X 20 TK X 15 A0 X 10 DMS X 8 ML X 4 If a particular ship class is overrepresented then, build/send less of them to the theatre. If a particular ship class is running low, then build/send more of them to the theatre. I'd still want to put in place some sort of a cap on industrial production e.g. just because I stupidly lost my whole navy and am way under the commitement level in all classes of warship doesn't mean even the US war economy can replace those kinds of losses in a month.

siRkid -> (7/3/2002 7:04:18 AM)
I would sign up for that.:)

Admiral DadMan -> (7/3/2002 7:30:02 AM)
Yes, it would be nice when you know you're not going to make any advances for a month, you could send some ships back for refit and get direct replacements if warrented. Conversely, if you wanted to make a major thrust and needed more support, you should be able to make requests for the forces necessary to do the job.

worr -> (7/3/2002 9:26:07 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428 [B] Based on what I could glean from the manual, if I set ship commitment to 100% and use a "fixed" replacement schedule, I would get the historical order of battle. That not the case? [/B][/QUOTE] I was speaking from that same context--100% and "fixed". I'd say I almost can double my transports by starting with a scenario that begins mid 43 rather than take one that starts early and bring the war successfuly to that point. Worr, out

doomonyou -> It is pretty strange.... (7/3/2002 10:10:16 PM)
I agree with this thread....later in the main scenario you can have lost actually very very few ships numerically and end up on the short end of the stick. I can't imagine that once liberty ships started rolling off the lines (I believe that those were every three days or so?) that A desperate request by a successful commander that went like "Well I am pushing the Japs out of the southern pacific, but I can't supply my bases without twenty more supply ships...so I guess there gonna roll me back and threaten austrailia again..." would be so instransigently ignored by HQ

Blitzer -> (7/4/2002 1:44:10 AM)
Good point about the Libertys, but consider the demands of the ETO during late 42 and 43: Torch/Sicily, not to mention the swarms of ships plying the Atlantic to Britain. This is a good example of how Allied grand strategy affects (and should affect) UV. I completely agree that granting players more comprehensive control over naval deployments would introduce an intriguing new facet to the game, but wouldn't this also imply a level of management beyond its current scope?

juliet7bravo -> (7/4/2002 3:56:53 AM)
Perhaps an option to request specific types of ships from the ones present at Pearl and historically available? Your "request" being weighted by what is available, what committment points you have ect.

HARD_SARGE -> (7/4/2002 4:35:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blitzer [B]Good point about the Libertys, but consider the demands of the ETO during late 42 and 43: Torch/Sicily, not to mention the swarms of ships plying the Atlantic to Britain. This is a good example of how Allied grand strategy affects (and should affect) UV. I completely agree that granting players more comprehensive control over naval deployments would introduce an intriguing new facet to the game, but wouldn't this also imply a level of management beyond its current scope? [/B][/QUOTE] Hi Blizter but I think you are missing the point, the ships in question are not in the ETO, or going to the ETO, they are sitting in PH was justing reading about the attack on Tarawa/Makin, 17 Carriers (10 CV and 7 CVE) 12 BB, 8 CA, 4 CL, and 66 DD, to protect 36 Transports HARD_Sarge

Blitzer -> (7/4/2002 5:22:34 AM)
Hey Sarge, I didn't forget where the Libertys are. Taking into account the reinforcement probability (for whatever respective scenario), it can happen that those ships will never become available, even if significant tonnage exits the SOPAC theater. Of course this only shores up the argument for more discretionary control by players, which I'm not averse to in the least. I suppose what I'm really after is a clarification of where command resides in this magnificent game. When we sit riveted to our screens is our chair meant to be located in Washington, Pearl, or Noumea? I fear tinkering with ship availability might produce a different answer than what the design team intended. Any thoughts?

mjk428 -> (7/4/2002 7:48:36 AM)
[QUOTE]I suppose what I'm really after is a clarification of where command resides in this magnificent game. When we sit riveted to our screens is our chair meant to be located in Washington, Pearl, or Noumea? I fear tinkering with ship availability might produce a different answer than what the design team intended. Any thoughts?[/QUOTE] Hi Blitzer, The general (no pun intended) consensus seems to be that we are sitting in the seats of both MacArthur and Ghormley. The back of the game box says the following: "Famous commanders like Nimitz and Yamamoto held the fate of nations in their hands. CAN YOU DO BETTER?" I would like system that allowed me to request a type of ship in some abstract way. MacArthur didn't have control of release but he could influence it to a degree. He certainly made requests. I think a system like this would actually strengthen the immersion level and make it feel like you were in command of a theater. Some abstract idea of how the rest of the war is going would add to immersion as well. I realize that all this speculation will likely never be implimented in UV but it's fun. Also, it may influence WitP although it's not as applicable. However, should a Med game be made using this engine, it would be quite applicable. I hope Matrix/2by3 milk this system for all it's worth and release several games using this engine. Continuing to improve and expand a gaming system is a proven way to go. It may not make anyone rich but it at least helps amortize the costs.

Ron Saueracker -> Transports (7/4/2002 11:43:33 AM)
1942 was a year of husbanding forces for allies. Most of the merchant bottoms were in Europe until 1943. Still, I've got tons of spare allied TRs. Only lost maybe half a dozen by Dec 42.

eMonticello -> (7/4/2002 11:39:58 PM)
Could it be that those transports that appear to be "sitting" in PH are actually in convoys destined for Auckland/Noumea or other parts of the Pacific Theater? It seems that the routine rear-area convoys need to be modeled in the game, especially since the UV game engine will be used for WiP. Chock this game up as a lesson in logistics. Personally, I feel the game pace is too fast since operations required several weeks if not a month or more to plan and implement. I have other issues with the game that can be addressed using house rules (organizational separation of SWPAC and SOPAC) and others that would require changes in design (a TF hobbled together overnight should have severe combat/movement penalties since it requires training to work together as an effective fighting unit).

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.235352