Re: Re: Convoy Escort

Re: Re: Convoy Escort (Full Version)

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

Message

Mike Wood -> Re: Re: Convoy Escort (12/8/2002 2:44:47 AM)
Hello... Gary chose to classify the Beaufighter as a bomber. When I questioned him on the subject, he said that the uses serrved by the model of the plane used in this game approximate bomber better than fighter-bomber. It might please you to know that in WIP, of the 4 models of Beaufighter which appear, one is classified as a night fighter (intruder). Hope this helps... Michael Wood ___________________________________________________ [QUOTE]Originally posted by Reg [B]...I can understand that the things may have been set up this way for reasons not obvious to us (for British users of the same aircraft types in WITP for instance) but if that is the case, please tell us and put us out of our misery. Cheers, Reg. [/B][/QUOTE]

Possum -> (12/10/2002 5:21:29 AM)
Then Gary is just plain Wrong...... I again point out that the following missions that were performed by RAAF beufighters, that are unable to be assign at present. 1) LRCAP 2) Bomber Escort 3) Fighter Sweeps The following missions are currently allowed, but where NEVER performed by RAAF beaufighters. 1) Torpedoe carrying Naval attack. 2) Level bombing Bases 3) Supply Transprt 4) ASW patrol 5) Naval search missions. But seeing as it's infallible Garry's brainstorm to treat Beaufighters this way, I guess we will never have this problem fixed.:(

msvknight -> (12/15/2002 6:37:06 PM)
To be honest I'm a bit sick of this argument. Obviously lets not let the facts get in the way of a good game. I'll make a deal with both Rich and Gary. Give us an editor so that we can change our own Beaufighters into Fighter-Bombers and we'll all go away and modify our own versions. If not; then you're WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! :D

Iron Duke -> re: Beuafighters (12/15/2002 8:25:48 PM)
Just been glancing through 'A Chronology of Australian Armed Forces at War 1939-1945 and spotted these two items 30th November 42 - Arafura Sea: Beaufighters of No. 31 Sqn RAAF drove off 14 Japanese aircraft attacking the corvettes Armidale and Castlemaine. and 3rd March 43 - Huon Gulf: Shortly after 9am , the Lae reinforcement convoy was attacked by RAAF Beaufighters and USAAF B-17s and B-25s, while American P-38s dealt with the Zero escort. The B-17s attacked first, then the Beaufighters led the low-level attack, conducting beam-on strafing runs from little more than masthead height. Maritime Strike fighter and Long range escort fighter ?? Cheers

Jeremy Pritchard -> Too common of an attitude (12/16/2002 1:26:59 AM)
Hi, I have been noticing this epidemic of negative attitude on every single message board for every single game created in the last 5-6 years. It is almost as if they owe us something for us buying their game (something beyond a stable gaming platform, I am all up for protesting a game that is unplayable due to stability issues). I do believe that problems should be addressed, and that this is a valid discussion. However, they way things are worded tend to have a negative effect to discussion which ends up in nothing getting accomplished. Typing things in CAPS is tantamount to yelling. I use CAPS in order to emphasize a single word in a sentence so misunderstanding does not take place. However, most use CAPS in order to yell (i.e., type their post, or a significant portion of it in CAPS). This thread started 1/2 in CAPS, and immediately was hostile to the developers of the game. The response by Matrix Games has been typically polite, yet the abuse continues. You have to realize, that sometimes things that appear to be 100% logical will not appear in the game. To them, it is 100% logical to have the Beaufighter as a Tactical Bomber (possibly due to balancing issues, or for whatever reasoning). Even if you say something should be fixed in the most polite manner, don't always expect it to be 'fixed' either. In regards to editors, they are a relatively new 'invention' for games. The first heavilly editable wargame (to my recollection) was the Wargame Construction Sets (like Age of Rifles). Before this time, editors were made by fans, or were very limited. I remember 8 years ago using PWReports to edit Pacific War, something that makes UV's editor look amazing. They never said that UV will have a strong editor, and it appears as if it was an afterthought. PacWar did not come with a single editor, same with most games of that era. In regards to historic determination of units/equipment, it is really up to the developer's interpretation as to how things work. It seems like they have decided how they want Beaufighters to work in UV. It really is a minor poroblem, based only on historic interpretation instead of game mechanics. So, please, whenever you start a thread on something that you would like changed/fixed, in any game, don't use insults or rude behaviour to try and get your point across (no matter how much it appears like they are not listening). It really makes developers not want to continue helping make this game better. When you don't get what you want, please be respectful of those who put the game together. Indeed, we did give them money for this game, but without them, there would be no UV to buy, with or without its 'faults'.

Jeremy Pritchard -> (12/16/2002 1:29:38 AM)
Also, just like with ANY game out there without an editor, or an all encompassing editor, I am sure that someone out there will find a way to modify aircraft types, and all of the other little things that currently cannot be modded. Remember, it did take 8 years for an editor that can change almost 100% of PacWar. For those years people were playing a game that many considered to be historically innacurate in some respects, but was still fun to play.

Possum -> (12/16/2002 5:36:18 AM)
Jeremy, Have you read the first set of posts in this series?? We (the Australian posters) politely provided many references to the incorrect assignment of the beaufigher, long befor version 2 came out. We where told it would be addressed. V2.0 came out with no correction, and no explanation. Given how expensive this game is in Australia, and given how much effort when into making the game accurate, I (an presumably many other Austyralian posters) feel betrayed.... Also, with the advent of more modern simulation engines, we have an increased expectation of things opperating as they did in real life. Additionally, UV has been the only stratagy game I've purchased in the last 2 years that did NOT come with a fully functional editor, or the data in text files, to allow editing with a text reader. Given how every other stratagy gaming company has gone with open databases, I'm very disapointed with matrix for re-inventing the coded, closed database, and not providing a functioning editor. (Yes I've already tried hex editing the Aircrat DB, with no success.) Personally, I have had many bad experiences with Gary's games. I doubt that I will be buying War in the Pacific, unless, it comes with a fully fuctional editor.

pasternakski -> (12/16/2002 6:32:54 AM)
Maybe nobody cares about this, but isn't this thread talking about a single squadron of aircraft that, unless you gave them atom bombs to carry, would have no more than a miniscule effect on game play? I agree with what Jeremy said about the shrill, negative harping that has, of late, begun to infect these forums. This is the site of a company (the best, I would argue) that manufactures games. The games, as well as the forums, are here for fun (I would have capitalized that word, but I am not prone to yelling). Because your favorite ox seems to be getting gored is no reason to start dictating the terms of game design and making threats like "do it my way or I'm not buying your products anymore." I suggest that, if you can find better products than UV or better support than Matrix gives it, you go buy 'em and support 'em. Personally, I'm in for the duration, even though my real-life uncle LCDR Fenton of VF-42 seems to get killed all the time, especially just after he achieves ace status. Let's all just calm down and have some FUN (oops, sorry), shall we?

Ron Saueracker -> Twins? (12/16/2002 12:57:16 PM)
Do you have twin uncle Fentons, as there are two in VF 42. Both get killed on Ya:) !? I have to agree that the point of this thread is a minor one getting blown entirely out of proportion. There are much bigger fish to fry than this one at this time and Matrix has the fire stoked.;)

Reg -> (12/16/2002 2:12:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]I agree with what Jeremy said about the shrill, negative harping that has, of late, begun to infect these forums. This is the site of a company (the best, I would argue) that manufactures games[/B][/QUOTE] I recently read a review intended for people who know nothing about the game, which implied that the game was substandard without the patches. I totally disagree as I thought Version 1.0 was and still is a great game. It's just that the later versions are even better. I think that we had better be careful with the tone of what we say or others wil get entirely the wrong idea. I have been presenting historical data in an effort to give the designers the benefit of material that they may not have access to and to let them know of the things that we as players feel is important (a high level of historical authenticy in my case). However, this does not give us the right to dictate terms and I think that we must respect the designers right to make the changes they deem appropriate to their product. They may also be basing thier decisions on factors that we know nothing about (look at the B-17/CAP play balance issue). [QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]Maybe nobody cares about this, but isn't this thread talking about a single squadron of aircraft that, unless you gave them atom bombs to carry, would have no more than a miniscule effect on game play?[/B][/QUOTE] Normally I would have to agree with you but having the Beaufighter in an inappropriate upgrade path seriously distorts the Australian (& NZ) force structure into something that is definitely unhistorical. (The RAAF ends up with a numerous Beaufighter squadrons and no Beauforts by mid '43 - could never have happened for a lot of reasons). Couple this with a perceived unrealistic operational role and it seriously erodes the credibility of the game to reflect the real world. The game still plays well but I think it loses its magic with those who are familiar and have an attachment with the units and the era. Now that the issue has been brought up I sure they are aware of it and will deal with it with regard to their own priorities. [QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]Let's all just calm down and have some FUN (oops, sorry), shall we? [/B][/QUOTE] YES YES YES (now you've got me doing it...) :D :D :D Cheers, Reg.

Reg -> Editors new??? (12/16/2002 2:54:20 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard [B]In regards to editors, they are a relatively new 'invention' for games. The first heavilly editable wargame (to my recollection) was the Wargame Construction Sets (like Age of Rifles). Before this time, editors were made by fans, or were very limited. I remember 8 years ago using PWReports to edit Pacific War, something that makes UV's editor look amazing. [/B][/QUOTE] I have just blown the dust off my Jan '86 issue of the RUN 5 magazine published by SSG (who are still around). The third article contains about four pages of seemingly random numbers that will recreate the Relief of Wake Island scenario for their Carriers at War game (for the Apple II or C-64). Further more, the appendix contains data for all the Japanese and Amercian ship classes up to 1942 for use in your own scenarios. Some games must have been ahead of their time. Cheers, Reg.

Jeremy Pritchard -> (12/16/2002 11:08:06 PM)
I have seen the history of this, and it was fairly polite. However, because it was not implemented, even though they said that they will do something about it, does not deserve an "attack", even after a few patches. It possibly is very VERY low on priority. There are probably some balance issues involved with the Beaufighter as well. When I made it a Fighter Bomber in PacWar in one of my tests, it became an uber-fighter-killing-machine (along with the Mosquito IV). So, it could possibly be that this was done for balancing, or, as many people say, an OMEN OF DOOM FOR WITP! ;) I believe that they are not making many major changes to the game because of the true fact that whenever they make a change, it tends to please population X, but piss off population Y. Every time the 'fixed' air-air combat, a group became happy, while another group protested. Reg: That still is a farily limited scenario editor. Not only do you have to know how a hexeditor works, but have one. Also, you could only modify scenarios, not individual units and their abilities. I remember editing for the game Wing Commander I back in the early 90's. It involved a hexeditor, where you can change a few stats on your shields and armour, and your opponents as well. There were rudamentary editors from the existence of computer games (as they were easier to crack, thereby easier to modify). However, skill was required in order to set up these modifications without error whereas it is commonplace to have editors that a anyone can use their first time out nowadays. This tends to be a good thing, but is not necessarily a requirement for the game to be good. Given time, I am sure someone will find a way in editing aircraft types on their own.

Piiska -> (12/18/2002 4:15:52 AM)
More than anything else, wrong classification is just one of those things that annoy the hell out of the people who enjoy to see that details are being thought of. To my belief many historians and realistic war game fans fall into this category and these two types of people seem to be the ones playing UV. Instead of comparing wrong classification to game mechanics, it should be compared to a news footage portraying F-14 Tomcats taking of a carrier while the reporter tells you that F-16s have been conducting some air missions in the middle of Siberia. To the majority of the people it is completely trivial where the plane takes off and whether the plane in the TV is a Mig 29, a Corsair or the Santa�s sled, but for the people who do know, it undermines the credibility of the reporting. Personally, I just get very annoyed when SWAT teams use laughable tactics in films, when patients are brought back to life after their cardiograph is drawing a flat line, when a Finnish RK-62 assault rifle is identified somewhere as Russian AK-47 and when Michael Jackson is trying to claim that he has never had any plastic surgery done on him. I agree with you Jeremy that a lot of times the tone of writing might seem negative, and unfortunately sometimes it is, but I sincerely believe that 90% of the people who post �complaints� are actually trying to help. Sometimes they articulate themselves well and the game gets improved, sometimes they don�t and we get unnecessary flame wars. Sometimes they truly are selfish bastards who think the life on the planet earth revolves around their silly bellybuttons, but these guys usually have a pirated CD anyway, so F*** them. Now back to the topic. It would be very nice if the planes would be classified properly as it is my belief that many people here enjoy the realistic atmosphere of UV over the other products that do not pay attention to the details. After all, it is the details that create the atmosphere for a game, and without a good atmosphere even the best game engine is castrated.

aoffen -> Beaufighters are fixed!!!!!!! (12/19/2002 6:22:24 PM)
From the patch 2.2 thread : 10) Updated weapons choice, long range capability and artificial intelligence code to reflect change of Beaufighter to fighter-bomber Yahoooooooo...........

Drongo -> Proof is in the Pudding (12/20/2002 11:06:24 AM)
From a sneak preview of 2.20 AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/03/43 Weather: Thunderstorms Japanese Sweep attack on Dobadura , at 13,38 Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 27 Allied aircraft Beaufighter VIC x 18 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero x 8 destroyed Allied aircraft losses Beaufighter VIC x 3 destroyed Beaufighter VIC x 3 damaged PO R.Elster of No. 30 Sqn RAAF is credited with kill number 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Japanese Sweep attack on Dobadura , at 13,38 Japanese aircraft A6M3 Zero x 17 Allied aircraft Beaufighter VIC x 14 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses Beaufighter VIC x 1 destroyed Beaufighter VIC x 1 damaged LCDR J.Kawasaki of F1/253rd Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My, someone's fighters must have got a shock in the first listed battle. I know the Beaufighters shouldn't be used as CAP but what the hell. Durability of 38 helps. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!

tanjman -> Beaufighter's new armament (12/20/2002 11:27:31 AM)
Hey Drongo, Can you tell me (us) what replaces the Mk IX 18in torpedo? I hope its the 8 rocket projectiles. Drool Beaufighters at 100ft against Marus :D

Reg -> Re: Beaufighter's new armament (12/20/2002 5:44:01 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman [B]Hey Drongo, Can you tell me (us) what replaces the Mk IX 18in torpedo? I hope its the 8 rocket projectiles. Drool Beaufighters at 100ft against Marus :D [/B][/QUOTE] Take it easy, rockets weren't introduced for RAAF Beaufighters until 1944. The intention was not to create uber fighter-bombers but to reflect actual usage. A question to the playtesters. Do you think the assigned characteristics reflect the Beaufighters true abilities?? They should: a. Be capable of disengaging from fighter interception with minimal casualties on either side whilst on strike missions (they would outrun pursuit unless cornered). b. They should not be able to scythe large numbers of lightweight fighters from the sky with their massive firepower. In reality, the zeros would be all over the Beaufighters if they attempted to dog fight and they would have difficulty bringing their guns to bear. I get the impression from reading unit histories, they generally gave pursuing fighters a quick squirt (which was usually enough for a kill) and then got out of there fast if they were smart. A couple of examples where Beaufighters tried to mix it with nimble fighters did not have good outcomes. (I am not trying to imply they were useless aircraft in the air to air role, just not the best dog fighters). Could this reflected in a low manuverability rating (if one exists) which would make the Beaufighter less attractive for abuse as a super fighter (my greatest fear) but still leave it with a formidable ground attack but an average dogfighting capability (good firepower??). I think the high durability is justified as there are many examples of damaged aircraft limping back to base. I can quote at least two examples where a Beaufighter squadron destroyed over twenty aircraft in a single mission but that was when the targets were on the ground!!! The accurate upgrade path will also prevent them from becoming far more numerous than they historically were. Thankyou Matrix for being so responsive to our requests. Cheers, Reg.

tanjman -> Beaufighter Armament (12/20/2002 8:23:27 PM)
Reg, You're right about the rockets :o No problem 4 x 20 mm cannons and 8 x .303 in MGs will still do a number on Marus and ground targets :D With the new replacement rate of 6 per month (down from 20) I doubt that any one will get away with using it in a CAP role. BTW Matrix/2by3: The maximum air group size for No. 30 Sqn RAAF is still 16 ;) I see no problem with this because IIRC RAF and and other Commonwealth fighter squadrons had 16 aircraft, not the 24 that they currently have.

Drongo -> (12/22/2002 12:18:11 PM)
Posted by Reg [QUOTE]A question to the playtesters. Do you think the assigned characteristics reflect the Beaufighters true abilities?? They should: a. Be capable of disengaging from fighter interception with minimal casualties on either side whilst on strike missions (they would outrun pursuit unless cornered). b. They should not be able to scythe large numbers of lightweight fighters from the sky with their massive firepower. [/QUOTE] Reg If you haven't had a chance to check things out yet, then a) The Beaufighters best historical attribute (high speed at low alt) isn't in the game (AFAIK). The only way (IMO) to fully represent its historical attributes is to cap its operating altitude at something like 10000 ft and then give it a speed of 360+ (so that it if faster than Zeros and Oscars at low alt). It probably should also have its durability dropped under those conditions (to represent the low chance of survival if an engine is knocked out at low alt). b) In my opinion, they wont be a super-fighter. If the pilot is good and the Beaufighter can line up a shot, it will blow anything out of the air. However, poor manueverability should limit its opportunities vs the Jap fighters. From the small amount of testing I did, 1) It makes a great interceptor v Jap bombers. 2) Durability gives it high survivability vs Jap fighters. 3) Hard hitting on low level attacks.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375