UV vs. SSI/QQP "Battles of the South Pacific"

UV vs. SSI/QQP "Battles of the South Pacific" (Full Version)

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

Message

Slim -> UV vs. SSI/QQP "Battles of the South Pacific" (9/26/2002 2:46:14 PM)
Has anyone else played Grigsby’s SSI game “Battles of the South Pacific” (or some similar name) or QQP’s “WW2: Battles of the South Pacific?” They were published late 80’s/early 90’s and are essentially the predecessors to this game. I still play the QQP version today, and recently while searching the web for information on it I came across the Matrix web site and Uncommon Valor. I instantly saw this game as the modern version of those and ordered a copy. I’ve only played the game a little so maybe I’m missing something here, but this game seems to me a big disappointment because of the 1-day turns and your reliance on AI commanders (vs. 1-hour control and you as the omni-present commander in the earlier SSI/QQP versions of the game). It really pisses me off because the AI makes mistakes that would be featured on the History Channel’s “Greatest Blunders” if they happened in real life, ruining hours of good play. For instance: twice, in Coral Sea-size battles (Shokaku, Zuikaku, and Shoho vs. Yorktown and Lexington), I have had the F4F’s set on Escort w/ 60% cap (default setting; also what I use in SSI/QQP versions of the game), and the AI commander (or “the rules”) has sent some of the SBD flights with escorts, and some without! IF IT’S GONNA ESCORT SOME OF THE SBD’s, WHY NOT ESCORT ALL OF THEM ? ? ? I could see occasional navigational screw-ups (didn’t that happen with those TBD’s at Midway), but both times half the bombers arrived with no escort and the other half arrived with only like 3 escorts. 40% x 24 F4F’s does not equal only 3 escorts! Also, one of those times enemy transports were in range and the AI sent some of the SBD’s after the transports, with the rest going at the carriers. Now THAT is GALACTICALLY stupid! You do not waste your air assets attacking transports when there are enemy carriers in the area! You sink the carriers first, then pick off the transports at your leisure! The pilots also irritate me by going after cruisers in the carrier group. Smart pilots attack carriers until they are UNDER WATER. I mean, what was the carrier the IJN thought it sank at Coral Sea, only to have it bushwhack them at Midway? Maybe pilots sometimes went after those cruisers in real life, but allow me in a war game the ability to but a stop to that kind of stupidity. After all, if I were an Admiral, I’d ground those pilots. Basically, the 1-day turns and reliance on AI commanders take all the fun out of the game and drives me crazy with their stupidity. In the SSI/QQP version of the game, 75% of the fun was loading your SBD’s up early because you were anticipating an enemy attack, anxiously waiting hour by hour for the enemy carriers, sighting them, then sending at them everything you had. This game takes away the fun parts of operational naval combat and makes it all stodgy, strategic, and difficult to control. I get so irritated trying to get AI commanders to do what I easily could have done in the SSI/QQP versions of the game. I’m very disappointed with this game so far. With the power of modern computing, why did they make a game that’s only 25% as much fun as the originals? It might be more realistic to rely on AI commanders, but not when they’re as dumb as a box of rocks. And it’s also less fun.

Luskan -> (9/26/2002 3:50:46 PM)
Sorry to hear that. However mistakes, screw ups, stuff ups, and terribly galatically stupid decisions ARE a part of war (a larger part than brilliant plans and excellent decisions possibly). Also, your subordinates are not brilliant, some of them are down right bad - from pilots who get lost (still happens today even with GPS) to air group commanders who send planes off to kill transports - and then after they've launched, find out about a CV group nearby. The realism of games like UV, and Close Combat makes them a thousand times better than non-realistic "optimal-option" AIs, like the early command and conquer (you created your mini gun army, sent them off to die in their thousands, and not one of them thought about disobeying etc.). The variation in response, quality and decision making by AI commanders during 1 day turns makes the game infinitely replayable. I respect your opinion - but I disagree. If you think 1 day turns is bad, you'd hate 7, which is probably more likely to be the realistic setting where the supreme Admiral checks in/gives new orders to his forces maybe once a week.

Slim -> (9/26/2002 5:06:06 PM)
If this were a game covering the entire Pacific, I would agree with you. But I feel the South Pacific is a narrow enogh theater to be able to exercise a more precise level of command, with 1 hour turns and being able to direct specific strikes. I think it would also be more fun that way. As for realism, simulating chains of command is just lame. Sure, it would be more realistic to just pick commanders and say "here's your objective", but that's just lame. A lot of command/leadership is picking the right people, but what fun is that in a war game of this scope? I wanna say "Send everything at the Shokaku!" not "Head to hex XX,XX, and be defensive." I mean, come on, why simulate something if it's no fun to simulate, which I feel relying on AI lieutenants is. Maybe they could make a version of the game with 1-hour turns and more precise control. On a side note, I'm an FAA-certified multi-engine, commerical, and instrument rated pilot, and ain't NOBODY gettin' lost with (working) GPS. It's the easiest & best way in the world to navigate.

thantis -> (9/26/2002 6:43:30 PM)
Over the course of a year and a half campaign, with one-hour turns (estimated 500 + days) = 12,000 turns. A little much to micromanage an entire theater of WWII, including supplies & dozens, perhaps hundreds of squadrons & hundreds of ships. Halsey did not manage every single airstrike, and in UV that is who you are. You get to direct everything at an operational and strategic level, but the tactical fighting is directed by your subordinates. If UV covered one battle, or maybe only a month of actual time, it could work, but in the context of the campaign that kind of management would bog not only the system down, but also pretty much kill any excitement generated.

Sabre21 -> (9/26/2002 6:44:27 PM)
Hi Slim I have been playing GG's games for 20 years, I actually consider UV closer to his original Guadacanal. As for this game, sure it's frustrating to see a flight of SBD's go in unescorted and get wiped out, but things like that happened...and a lot. The variance coded into this game is what makes it really great. Between the unpredictible weather, the lack of coordination between your squadrons, the unfortunate luck of misidentification on targets...or missing targets altogether..indicates the human element is a big part of this game, and I don't mean the player sitting at the computer. I find this game far more challenging and exciting than the games of old where you could calculate the results of battle before you even attacked...no...this method is far more realistic and I hope this carries over to WiTP which I expect it to. Oh..and on a side note..I too am a pilot for 20 years now, and Instrument certified and an Instructor pilot...and people do get lost on occasion despite a working GPS. Sabre21

msaario -> (9/26/2002 7:44:24 PM)
I have had both the original War in the South Pacific (and Guadalcanal Campaign, Carrier Force & Carrier Strike) by GG and QQP's now ancient south Pacific game (didn't play it much, though). I assure there is no reason to revert back to those older titles. UV is not perfect, and if you simply dislike it, play something else. But, those other titles will not even come close to the fun and realism of UV. It is constantly tweaked and there are a lot of crazy things happening as you have noticed. That's life... sometimes you have a bad day. The detail is absolutely unsurpassed and there is the War in the Pacific game coming ... sometime soon... --Mikko

Admiral DadMan -> Re: UV vs. SSI/QQP "Battles of the South Pacific" (9/26/2002 9:15:21 PM)
As 21st Century (PC) Warriors, we tend to forget the handicaps of those mid-20th Century Real-Life Heros. Battleship Admirals were still trying to cope with the threat from the air, etc. One has to strip away our instant gratification centered lives of today to get the flavor of what our Fathers and Grandfathers went through. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Slim [B] ... one of those times enemy transports were in range and the AI sent some of the SBD’s after the transports, with the rest going at the carriers. Now THAT is GALACTICALLY stupid! You do not waste your air assets attacking transports when there are enemy carriers in the area! You sink the carriers first, then pick off the transports at your leisure! [/B][/QUOTE]Area Commanders issue Operational Level orders, not tactical ones. They look something like, "With CarDiv Five (SHOKAKU, ZUIKAKU), you will proceed to Rabaul. After replenishing, you will escort and provide air support for RAdm Tanaka's Special Transport Group (SENDAI, flag) to Lunga Point. Destroy all enemy targets of opportunity." If an air strike misses the Carriers and turns back, then spots the Transports inbound, what are they going to do, wave as they do a fly-by? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Slim [B] The pilots also irritate me by going after cruisers in the carrier group. Smart pilots attack carriers until they are UNDER WATER. I mean, what was the carrier the IJN thought it sank at Coral Sea, only to have it bushwhack them at Midway? Maybe pilots sometimes went after those cruisers in real life, but allow me in a war game the ability to but a stop to that kind of stupidity. After all, if I were an Admiral, I’d ground those pilots.[/B][/QUOTE]The carrier was YORKTOWN. As for hitting escorts instead of Carriers, if the pilots thought that a Carrier were on fire, they would divert to and escort. This did happen at Midway where SBD's did divert to escorts (no hits recorded). In the attack on HIRYU, the SBD's split between HIRYU and and escorting BB. When the first group all missed HIRYU, the other group diverted to HIRYU, hitting her hard. Also, Cruisers were often mistaken for BB's. Finally, if the pilots couldn't find the Carrier, they would attack the best target of opportunity. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Slim [B] Basically, the 1-day turns and reliance on AI commanders take all the fun out of the game and drives me crazy with their stupidity. In the SSI/QQP version of the game, 75% of the fun was loading your SBD’s up early because you were anticipating an enemy attack, anxiously waiting hour by hour for the enemy carriers, sighting them, then sending at them everything you had. This game takes away the fun parts of operational naval combat and makes it all stodgy, strategic, and difficult to control. I get so irritated trying to get AI commanders to do what I easily could have done in the SSI/QQP versions of the game. I’m very disappointed with this game so far. With the power of modern computing, why did they make a game that’s only 25% as much fun as the originals? It might be more realistic to rely on AI commanders, but not when they’re as dumb as a box of rocks. And it’s also less fun. [/B][/QUOTE]My kids are disappointed because it's not a shoot-em-up kinda game. I guess I'm an old fart. Look, this game was not meant to be a first person, micromanaged shoot-em-up. You're just not going to see that here. You have to let go, and let.. uh... Nagumo or Spruance.

patrickl -> (9/26/2002 9:35:41 PM)
From the US player's point of view, I think there are advantages of NOT having fighter escorts for the dive & topedo bombers : the Japanese player would attempt to use all his fighters as CAP to protect their Carrier TFs and consequently would spare few fighters to escort their Vals & Kates - which mean the US player can use his fighters and AA to have Mariana Turkey Shoots as early as Jun 1942! By late 42 or early 43, depending on the fortunes of war, the Japanese Army & Naval Air Force could be a spent force. UV is part of the long line but not many WWII games that focus on the Pacific. Whether it will become a cult game, only time will tell. Comparing PacWar to UV, I think UV is superior in some ways : 1) It has ASW, CAP, mine warfare, etc built into it ; 2) The developer - Matrix & 2by3 spent alot of time & effort coming up with patches. Boy, I think the US Defence Dept should give these guys medals for their dedication for getting people to have fun and simultaneously be aware of the histories, sacrifices and suffering of millions of people in the Pacific not too long ago; 3) There is a limit to the number of land units that can be activated for battle - 20 odd I think, excluding the HQs. In Pac War, I could activate up to 50 divisions (by changing base HQs) for a battle in one target - quite ridiculous considering how big an island say Truk is. And many more. With WITP coming along, we can look forward to spending many hours, days, months, years and perhaps decades playing it - and waste our life away? :) I would be thankful because it may be another decade before a good Pacific War game comes around- remember Pacific General? At the meantime, I would occasionally play my Aces over the Pacific (airplane simulation), Task Force 1942 (surface action simulation), Silent Service II (submarine simulation), UV, PacWar & WITP (strategic simulation) - Enjoy!:cool:

Matt Erickson -> (9/26/2002 10:27:02 PM)
I think this game already has hit cult status it's all I really play right now:cool: cant wait till the release witp (hope they spruce up the maps thou)...cheers.

Paul Vebber -> (9/27/2002 6:38:26 PM)
Bottom line as has been said many times - the "carrier battle" type games people often compare it to are tactical level games of at most several days duration. UV is an operational level game at the heart of it so players can do campaigns of many, many months, form the point of view of the operational commander. In that it succeeds brilliantly!

RayM -> Would like to check out QQP BOTSP (10/1/2002 10:44:41 AM)
Reading about this early game has piqued my interest. I downloaded the game and patch and would like some help in getting it running on my old Win3.1/MS-DOS6.22, 233 MHz machine. After extracted the zip file, I ended up with two folders: 1 and 2. I then moved all of the contents of folder "1" to C:. I started the install in DOS and got up to the point where it asks for Disk 2. Since Disk 2 is really a folder on the C: drive, I reached an empass. Do I need to create two ZIP drive disks, one containing the contents of "1" and another for "2?" Any suggestions as to how to proceed will be appreciated. Thanks, Ray

wpurdom -> realistic results (10/1/2002 8:43:59 PM)
What you are complaining about are realistic results. At Midway, with everything going according to plan and Spruance ordering a coordinated 2 CV raid, none of the attacks from the Enterprise and Hornet actually wound up being escorted - the Hornet escort lost a big part after flying around aimlessly and the Enterprise escort intended to escort the TBD's but waited on a never heard signal to "come on down." With the later Yorktown attack, the TBD's were escorted. Thus, out of five attacking groups, one was escorted. As for target selection, it is typical performance. At Coral Sea, the Japs launched a full attack at what they thought was a CV group and actually got an AO and a DD. The US thought it was attacking a major fleet and wound up heading after insignificant ships but fortunately the Shoho was nearby. At Santa Cruz, attacks that were intended to go after CV's wound up attacking all sorts of targets, even though they were sent to hit CV's. Sometimes the pilots see planes on the periphery and dispair of finding the CV before running out of fuel, sometimes, particularly for Torpedo bombers the distance, angle, and direction of the CV's make surviving to put in the attack impossible, sometimes the fighter opposition is too heavy and the pilots decide it is time to dive on something before they are shot down. All this is when the fleet CO is sending out the attack with the right orders, not a brainless subordinate who doesn't understand.

byron13 -> (10/2/2002 8:13:45 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21 [B] Oh..and on a side note..I too am a pilot for 20 years now, and Instrument certified and an Instructor pilot...and people do get lost on occasion despite a working GPS. Sabre21 [/B][/QUOTE] Lost with GPS? Must have been Cobra pilots!

Supervisor -> (10/4/2002 9:21:20 PM)
I know for sure that the level of detail in this game far exceeds any of the other titles mentioned. As far as having control of every air strike is concerned, it would not only detract greatly from the realism, It would not be any fun. I think Slim is looking for a very simple game that basically equates to . . . "I found your carriers first, you're dead, game over" If that were realistic, the war would not have gone on for so long. Maybe you should try "Battleship" from Hasbro.

wpurdom -> Admirals shouldn't ground pilots (10/5/2002 12:06:18 AM)
"Maybe pilots sometimes went after those cruisers in real life, but allow me in a war game the ability to but a stop to that kind of stupidity. After all, if I were an Admiral, I’d ground those pilots." This seems a prescription to get the sort of after-action reports the Japs were getting in late 1943. "We attacked 6 enemy carriers and despite the fiercest immaginable opposition we sunk 4 of them and damaged two others. All bombs were on target." I think the USN would rather frown on the practice also - it seems to run contrary to USN command doctrine to meddle in that fashion that far down the command chain. In the long run, aloowing initiative by those on the spot is the only answer.

Supervisor -> (10/5/2002 1:01:56 AM)
Bump

Slim -> My response to everyone. (10/5/2002 5:36:40 PM)
I’m surprised everyone disagrees with me. Maybe that’s because all the people who don’t like the game don’t post in the forums. I’ll respond to all the various points made. About unescorted fighters: I only played 4 carrier battles, but each time a lot of my (American) bombers were unescorted, and none of the Japanese flights were. Maybe that was just coincidence. It would be unrealistic for a commander with command over the whole theater in this game to command individual airstrikes/task forces, but why not also let the player fill the role of task force commander as well? I think that would be more fun. The AI just drives me crazy with the decisions it makes. I’d say I disagree with 75% of the decisions it makes. Also, it is just a pain to combine task forces at sea with one-day turns. That’s the sort of thing I constantly do in the other games. I don’t see how the micromanagement of ordering pilots to only bomb carriers would lead to exaggerated damage assessment reports in real life. I would simply order my pilots (assuming there are carriers around I want to bomb), “Do not bomb ANYTHING but carriers, even if they are on fire to the point you can’t aim accurately. If you don’t see any carriers, just toss your bombs in the water and fly home. Even if you see Tojo, Hirohito, and Yamamato all sunbathing on the top of an unmoving battleship.” It’s just a waste of resources to attack anything but carriers if there are any enemy carriers around, because once the enemy carriers are destroyed you can eliminate the enemy at your leisure. I don’t think that hour long turns and tactical decisions would slow the game down. The other games have more decisions to make than this game (what with deciding what planes to launch, what to target, etc.,) and they flow fairly fast. I mean… this game is pretty much identical in all intents and purposes to QQP’s Battles of the South Pacific, mainly excepting the one hour turns and airstrike/TF micromanagement, and year long campaigns in the QQP game don’t take all that long considering they’re strategy games. To put it another way, you can have that sort of micromanagement in a year-long strategy game, and have things flow quickly. Don’t tell me it can’t, because I’ve played the games and it can! Simply sitting back and ordering a carrier TF to cover an amphibious assault TF would be fine on a Pacific-Wide campaign, but for just this map (which is actually smaller than the other games), I want more control. And for you, HeadsUp, I especially wanted to reply to you, since you have such a snappy, condescending tone and a bumper sticker signature. You’re wrong on every point, except the realism one, but like I said, that’s what makes the (other) games fun. Sighting the enemy’s carriers first is a big advantage, but it hardly means you’ve won. Regarding the Hasbro Battleship comment: Screw you. I really didn’t expect to find such an a-hole (and I would spell the word out if the forum didn't auto-censor me) as yourself on a forum for a computer game.

Raverdave -> (10/5/2002 7:13:56 PM)
You come out of cloud cover, having finally shaken the Jap zeros that were all over your tail. Looking down from 10,000 feet you can see what looks like 50 white wakes all twisting this way and that. Your tail gunner shouts a warning, he has just seen another Zero popping out of the clouds.....where the hell are those d@mn fighter jocks? Selecting a target you comitte yourself to the dive, It looks like a BB but to tell the truth your not really sure, and nor do you care the sooner you get rid of this bomb the lighter and faster you will be. The BB (or is it a CA? Hard to tell) that you are aiming for keeps twisting out of your aiming point......flack is not making it easy to aim either...infact it is getting too close. Suddenly an explosion knocks your plane sideways and your aim is thrown off. Altitude altitude! Pickle the bomb! You can feel the aircraft jump once the bomb is released....haul back on the stick and weave to shake off the flack, to busy with flying the plane you don't see the bomb hit, but your gunner thinks that it did....he saw a hugh plume of water......near the stern and water sprayed all over the deck...it must be a hit. Time to start thinking of home.....the plane is holed, but feels fine, keep it low and fast....no boggies have seen us...but you have not seen a friendly either, point her home, fly the plane. Our hero makes it home........it the stress of battle he was not able to find a CV, they WERE there but things were just so busy that in the end he aimed for what he thought was a BB.......turns out it was a CL, and he missed that anyway. Sometimes your planes will get there with fighters and sometimes they won't....some times they will hit the target and sometimes they won't.

Admiral DadMan -> Re: My response to everyone. (10/5/2002 10:48:31 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slim [B] It would be unrealistic for a commander with command over the whole theater in this game to command individual airstrikes/task forces, but why not also let the player fill the role of task force commander as well? I think that would be more fun. The AI just drives me crazy with the decisions it makes. I’d say I disagree with 75% of the decisions it makes... ...It’s just a waste of resources to attack anything but carriers if there are any enemy carriers around, because once the enemy carriers are destroyed you can eliminate the enemy at your leisure. [/B][/QUOTE]About 2 more years of coding and the name,"*Uncommon Valor: Carrier Command"* would be what you're looking for. That would be a blast. Maybe we can convice Gary Grigsby to develop a realtime tactical version of this game, because that's what you really want. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Slim [B] I don’t think that hour long turns and tactical decisions would slow the game down... ... I want more control. [/B][/QUOTE]So, what I'm hearing I think is, play strategically (turn length in days) until an engagement is imminent, then going to tactical (turn length in hours). Nice precept, but not the scope of this game. One big thing you could lose in your suggestions would be the PBEM value. I didn't think much of PBEM until I got slaughtered in a couple recently. I'm playing the Allies, and I've been caught with my britches down several times in ways that the AI never thought of testing me. Your desires are valid, they just don't fit this game.

Paul Vebber -> (10/6/2002 12:17:38 AM)
The key to "why not" is information...players in games have information form "playing" at multiple levels that their counterparts at that level didn't have. So playing the game at theater level and then "warping" to the CAG role, can;t "take away" the info you have based on being able to be in multiple battlegroups at the same time. Why are there so man incidents in the the "real war" of lower level commanders being "stupid"?? Becasue of the lack of the ablity to move the necessary information around fast enough. Letting the payer be "everywhere at once" would skew those tactical decisions and allow the player far more flexibility and much less "fog of war" resulting in a very "short war" because the players would be able to get obtimum results when you had to settle for "75% disagreement" in real life. So the players hands would have to be tied to prevent the year and a half scenario from being over in about 2 months becasue he could avoid the "mistakes" that drug the real campaing out. "Realism" in infirmation and its distribution is the biggest obstacle to a "multi-scale player does everything" game.

Luskan -> I have to know!!!! (10/6/2002 10:55:59 AM)
Ok, I know that it is dangerous to admit any kind of ignorance on these boards (too many aussie bastards!) ;) but I really want to know what "bump" means when posted on its own . . . Takes cover in case of flaming for stupidity

Paul Vebber -> 'Bump" (10/6/2002 11:29:35 AM)
It "pushes" the topic back up to the top of the list. The poster is trying to bring attention to the thread before it "falls off the first page" and generally to obscurity.

Luskan -> oh . . . thanks (10/6/2002 1:44:03 PM)
How disappointing. Judging from Slim's later post I thought that maybe it was something a bit more volatile.

Drongo -> (10/6/2002 3:33:39 PM)
Luskan, I think Slim was referring to HeadsUp's first post.

Supervisor -> (10/7/2002 7:54:19 PM)
Yes he was. A classic rsponse from the man who has run out of ideas.

HMSWarspite -> (10/8/2002 2:02:54 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber [B]The key to "why not" is information...players in games have information form "playing" at multiple levels that their counterparts at that level didn't have. So playing the game at theater level and then "warping" to the CAG role, can;t "take away" the info you have based on being able to be in multiple battlegroups at the same time. Why are there so man incidents in the the "real war" of lower level commanders being "stupid"?? Becasue of the lack of the ablity to move the necessary information around fast enough. [/B][/QUOTE] Just to add to this: if you put the average person (or even the average grog) in the situation that a lot of the 'stupid' commanders of various wars have been in, WITH THE INFORMATION THEY HAD, you will find that they (we!) are just as likely to make the same mistakes. The good commanders are exceptional people. To give an example, many years ago, a wargaming magazine (this was when wargames had paper maps, and chits (remember them?)) published a version of Little Big Horn. Now, in order to avoid the instant recognition, it was set in South Africa, with British cavalry against Zulus. Now, an experienced wargaming friend of mine given the appropriate information, and motivation (points for winning, lose points for casualties, bonus for 'newpaper headlines') duly steamed in, separated his forces and was defeated in detail. Now you can argue this is a one off, but I have umpired many games, and you see silly moves all the time, THAT MAKE SENSE TO THE GUY ORDERING THEM. If anyone wants a carrier tactical simulator, UV isn't it. The point of this game is to win taking account of the pitfalls and mishaps on the way! :D Oh yes, and many pilots couldn't reliable identify a ship in peace time, let alone when it shot at them. In the Bismark battle, Swordfish crews looking for Bismark (German, Battleship, 41000tons+) found Sheffield (British, Cruiser, <10000tons - can't remember exactly), and tried to torpedo it, even though she signalled to them AND DIDN'T FIRE BACK!

Supervisor -> (10/8/2002 2:19:44 AM)
Slim, Sorry you have taken my post so personally. It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek response and not meant to offend (just to jostle a bit). You had been so steadfast in maintaining your position that abstractions be removed from operational level war games (even in the face of 100% opposition from all responding) that I thought it was time for a little joke. The last thing I want is to start a flame war with any gamer serious enough to participate in these discussions. I do not agree with any of your points, but I certainly don't want to keep you from making comment on any game in the Matrix lineup. The "bump" post was simply to show agreement with the post immediately preceeding the bump. I forgot to include the contents of the previous post - sorry about the confusion. We have just finished play testing the next patch for UV and spent a tremendous amount of effort dealing with just this type of "abstract" game concept. Operational games will always have less player control than tactical games. That is, after all, the primary trait that distinguishes between the two. A great deal of effort goes into keeping things realistic and a tremendous amount of discussion goes on related to every aspect. For example, one of the most recent round of discussions concerned a closely related topic of allowing the player to direct the individual aircraft squadrons to attack particular task force sightings. Perhaps a window would pop-up listing all the sighted forces in range & the player could select from the list etc. The end result was that this sort of decision making would simulate a sighting and intel capability far beyond anything that was available to flight commanders of the time. All of this lends a great deal of credibility to your comments. They may not all get included, but the development team wants to discuss every option to ensure the best game possible. "... I did nothing but get caught with my britches down. Mr Savak you go right on quoting regulations."

Admiral DadMan -> (10/8/2002 2:56:17 AM)
"... Let's see how badly we've been hurt..."

pcpilot2 -> (10/9/2002 1:15:48 AM)
I understand that this is an operational game and the AI simulates the underling idiots in your command who follow your orders. What I would like to see is a version of THIS game with more control for the human commander. Kind of a cross between tactical and operational. Sort of like Avalon Hills Flattops or Great Naval Battles of the North Atalntic. In the first game you could fight thru the whole southwest pacific campaign, battle by battle, same as this game. And it didnt take inordinate amounts of time. And yet YOU commanded not only the deployment of your forces but also the tactical employment of those forces. And it wasnt terribly time consuming. If all the little details like fuel, weather, etc. are handled by the PC then HEY! you've got what Im looking for in a CV battles game. There is the strategic element AND the tactical element. Kinda like Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic. How about it Matrix? You've done a fine job with this game and I play it a LOT. But it is not quite what I want. I want it ALL...BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!...CHOKE...GASP...gotta...quit...doin that...*

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.765625