2.1 Observations

2.1 Observations (Full Version)

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

Message

bilbow -> 2.1 Observations (12/2/2002 11:12:40 AM)
A few observations from today's games: 1. Air to Air is brutal. In the one major carrier battle of the day, at least 2 CV each side, strike and counter strike with over 150 planes combined each time. Both air forces annihilated each other, not a single ship hit. 2. Level bombers seem much more lethal to ships. Tired B25 and B26 squadron flying at 6000 ft against APs scrored many hits, far more than I would expect. Fortunately I wasn't the victim. 3. In a game started under 2.0, Jap ASW is lethal. I'm the allies, it's early July, and all I've got left for subs are 3 busted-up S-boats. I routinely keep my subs in deep water, moving a hex every turn to hinder spottng, but when they attack any escorted TF, they usually get nailed. A lot got nailed before the 2.1 patch, so it appears the 50% cut in Jap ASW that was to be in 2.0 doesn't seem to be working. Not necessarily bugs, just unsettling observations. Any other opinions? Bill

Mike Wood -> Re: 2.1 Observations (12/2/2002 11:26:42 AM)
Hello... 1) Yes. Brutal. 2) The changes of a level bomber hitting a target were not changed from what they were in version 2.0. The attack may have just had good rolls. 3) In version 2.11, we have added a chance for the submarine to evade depth charges, based on manuverability and an experience roll by the skipper. Should help out, some. Have Fun... Michael Wood __________________________________________________ [QUOTE]Originally posted by bilbow [B]A few observations from today's games: 1. Air to Air is brutal. In the one major carrier battle of the day, at least 2 CV each side, strike and counter strike with over 150 planes combined each time. Both air forces annihilated each other, not a single ship hit. 2. Level bombers seem much more lethal to ships. Tired B25 and B26 squadron flying at 6000 ft against APs scrored many hits, far more than I would expect. Fortunately I wasn't the victim. 3. In a game started under 2.0, Jap ASW is lethal. I'm the allies, it's early July, and all I've got left for subs are 3 busted-up S-boats. I routinely keep my subs in deep water, moving a hex every turn to hinder spottng, but when they attack any escorted TF, they usually get nailed. A lot got nailed before the 2.1 patch, so it appears the 50% cut in Jap ASW that was to be in 2.0 doesn't seem to be working. Not necessarily bugs, just unsettling observations. Any other opinions? Bill [/B][/QUOTE]

CapAndGown -> (12/2/2002 11:29:08 AM)
1) Escort seems to be having less effect on interceptors; bombers have much less protection now. 2) Bombers seem to shoot better now. In a few trial runs I had Betty's that were more lethal than zeros. 3) Pilot rotation seems much improved. I am finally getting the newbies trained up ( a real Darwinian process if there ever was one for the Japs). Also, the pilot allocation scheme seems to be working, somewhat, though not perfectly. Lots of new pilots showed up recently. This is where I learned about pilot rotation: the newbies were dying in droves! :D (My operational losses suddenly spiked after I moved to 2.1) 4) The problem with sqaudrons that transfered having no pilots has reappeared. Also, some squadrons have not gotten new pilots. From what I can tell, it is the squadrons on the carriers that have only been flying CAP. Squadrons flying ASW have been filling out. It may be because the extra pilots were not needed for escort missions. But it would be nice if the squadron filled out so I could know just how bad the newbies were. Overall, I do not like 2.1 yet. Have not seen a surface combat yet, so can't comment on that. Was looking forward to it.

DoomedMantis -> Re: Re: 2.1 Observations (12/2/2002 11:49:24 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood [B]Hello... 1) Yes. Brutal. 2) The changes of a level bomber hitting a target were not changed from what they were in version 2.0. The attack may have just had good rolls. 3) In version 2.11, we have added a chance for the submarine to evade depth charges, based on manuverability and an experience roll by the skipper. Should help out, some. Have Fun... Michael Wood __________________________________________________ [/B][/QUOTE] Version 2.11, another patch already?

dpstafford -> Re: Re: 2.1 Observations (12/3/2002 12:42:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood [B]2) The changes of a level bomber hitting a target were not changed from what they were in version 2.0. The attack may have just had good rolls. [/B][/QUOTE] I hate to say this, but based on history it would seem that you guys don't know what you changed or when you changed it. It is clear that your HEARTS are in the right place, but.........

David Heath -> (12/3/2002 1:07:18 AM)
Hi Guys Yes do know what we change...... the problem is sometimes you darn players do things we and the testers miss. The bottom line is there is a code error with the pilots phase in the game. Thanks for someone providing a save file we were able to track it down. This error would also cause the strange air to air results. So Uncommon Valor v2.11 will be released very soon and should correct the problem. David

SoulBlazer -> (12/3/2002 1:48:26 AM)
David, Just wanted to say I LOVE what you are guys doing with this game. You just did something very few gaming companies would actually do in public -- admit a mistake was made and promise to correct it as soon as possible! If all gaming companies had the same attitude, games would be much better. :) It takes real courage to release a good game, listen to all of us (and I know a lot of us whine and moan and other stuff), help us out, take notes, and work on patchs on a regular basis. And admitting when you guys are wrong -- it's almost enough to cause this 20 year computer user to fall over! :) Many thanks again for all you do. I'll be supportive of this company and your products until the day I die. In fact, I might just go buy another Matrix game today. :) Keep up the good work and many thanks.

bilbow -> Another observation (12/3/2002 3:53:28 AM)
With 2.1, transferred squadrons usually (not always) do NOT increase their fatigue level, and in some cases pre-existing fatigue was gone. I've seen this in multiple games on both sides. It's not consistent, but common. For example, I transferred 4 B17 units from Australia to Luganveille. All 4 started with some (fairly low) fatigue. When they arrived at Luganville, 3 had 0 fatigue amd the fourth had the same value it started with. anyone else seen this?

DoomedMantis -> (12/3/2002 5:20:10 AM)
Yes I have as well, and when you transfer a group with a damaged plane, the group arrives with say 15 planes no pilot, and left behind is 1 damaged plane 16 pilots.

AlvinS -> (12/3/2002 5:36:28 AM)
bilbow wrote: [QUOTE]With 2.1, transferred squadrons usually (not always) do NOT increase their fatigue level, and in some cases pre-existing fatigue was gone. [/QUOTE] I had the same thing with C-47's. I transfered 4 from Cairns to Townsville and before the transfer they had any where from 23 to 32 fatigue level. After the transfer one unit still had 23 and the other 3 had zero.

EricLarsen -> Yet another patch??? (12/3/2002 11:37:55 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath [B]So Uncommon Valor v2.11 will be released very soon and should correct the problem. David [/B] David, This is getting a bit ridiculous. Every time a new patch appears another has to be following right in it's tracks to fix new foulups. I know you guys are working hard to improve the game but it's starting to get a bit old that we can't really trust the new patches because they just cause new problems that mar the play of the game. Slow down the releases and test them more carefully so we don't always have to have a new patch to correct the foulups of the last patch. Also when are you going to get smart and make these patches cumulative? It's getting to a point where there are just too many patches to have to apply should one want to reload the game. I'm not real happy with being stuck with the true update either since I'd rather save the updates to my computer so that I don't have to download them again if I were to need them again. Eric Larsen

Basement Command -> (12/4/2002 12:07:15 AM)
Every patch you ever downloaded via True Update is still there in your UV folder and can be set aside and saved for future use. I do not have the game in front of me right now, but I do belive the subdirectory is called Patches, or something very much like that. Personally, I am moving away from the Tue Udate thing and downloading the files from the DL site when they become available as I have a phone modem at home where the game is, and access to a T1 line elsewhere.

Erik Rutins -> (12/4/2002 1:08:33 AM)
Eric, quote: This is getting a bit ridiculous. Every time a new patch appears another has to be following right in it's tracks to fix new foulups. I know you guys are working hard to improve the game but it's starting to get a bit old that we can't really trust the new patches because they just cause new problems that mar the play of the game. Slow down the releases and test them more carefully so we don't always have to have a new patch to correct the foulups of the last patch. We agree, the last release was slowed down. :( Unfortunately, the problems that appeared were thanks to one of those last minute snafus that has nothing to do with testing and is completely unavoidable when it occurs. 2.11 should be out _very_ soon. quote: Also when are you going to get smart and make these patches cumulative? It's getting to a point where there are just too many patches to have to apply should one want to reload the game. I'm not real happy with being stuck with the true update either since I'd rather save the updates to my computer so that I don't have to download them again if I were to need them again. We already did. 2.0 is a cumulative patch. The patch path right now is 1.0 -> 2.0 -> 2.10 (and soon -> 2.11). As pointed out by others, True Update saves all downloaded patches in the UV/Patches folder for future access. Regards, - Erik

Nikademus -> Give them a break (12/4/2002 1:29:24 AM)
I would like to respectfully suggest that we cut Matrix some slack here. Ok, so 2.1 got rushed a little causing a couple new bugs to pop out. The reason they rushed it was to try to give us, the players an unexpected holiday treat. They could just as easily have delayed the patch for another week or two or three. Personally i was grateful for the patch, quirks and all over the holiday weekend. The major issues have been identified and acknowledged and a followup patch is already in the works. Few other companies work as hard for our satisfaction as these guys.

mogami -> Bugs and not bugs (12/4/2002 2:32:52 AM)
Greetings, Many of the changes that have evolved are not the result of "bug" fixes but response to player inputs. However these changes sometimes do produce unforseen results. Having "x" number of play testers test a change still leaves "xxxxx 10thpower actual players to find "create" new bugs ( or differance of opinion) Each new patch, besides being a bug fix also introduces new game features (and new bugs/differance of opinion) I have maintained PBEM games through all the changes from 1.4? (help me Dan) to the present. I do not think either player (we have two scen 17-1 from each side) attributes "bugs" to the present condition of our respective forces. (OK I admit we are both play testers) The basic point is UV has always been a playable game. Many persons might dispute this claim however I would only say that they are basing their opinion on preconcived notions. I hvae always been able to adapt to where ever the prevailing winds blew. If the game was "War at Sea" "A brand new invention" then people would have to play by what ever results the game produced. It is a game about WW2 in the South Pacific so results should be in the "ball park" for that. However the Japanese did not attempt many of the things I have seen posted in the last 6 months (would not have dreampt of it) Midway seldom occurs in UV (most players opt for scen 17 or 19 in PBEM) I played UV for over 30 hours without sleep after I recieved it. I had no problem with what the game produced then. I agree with many of the changes that resulted from player feedback. I suspect we are nearing the end of the great changes in UV. I think Matrix and 2by3 can be very proud of the product. I think persons who enjoy this type of game have something that will still inspire interest far into the future. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best thing since sliced bread "Hell yes"

XPav -> (12/4/2002 3:22:34 AM)
Its not that UV isn't playable, its just that every version adds a bunch of new good features and then has a bad bug. Case in point: The IJN AAA bug. Any campaigns started with that version (1.3? 1.4?) are unplayable unless you don't mind Yamato going into battle a few 18"s short. Its discouraging to think that a PBEM game that's been going on for a few months could be smacked by a bug introduced in a new version. That's my main problem. And would someone please tell me why Long Island is still broken?

wie201 -> (12/4/2002 6:29:17 AM)
Kudos to Matrix for still patching the game to get it to where they want it, and where they think will provide us the most realistic experience they can conjure up. A few unnamed companies simply give up after a patch or two, then release a new game that should have been the old game fully patched. Still, I agree with Eric Larsen, it is frustrating. At this point, enough players are willing to play every patch that comes out so that any future bugs or errors, if any, will be caught, and Matrix's track record is clear that they will correct same. So if you are like me, married with children, and don't want to have to answer to the dear lady of the house why I am still playing in 5/2/42 after several months (she's not an idiot!), just sit back and wait as I intend to until this program is just right (kind of like warm porridge).

dpstafford -> (12/4/2002 6:36:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wie201 [B]So if you are like me, married with children, and don't want to have to answer to the dear lady of the house why I am still playing in 5/2/42 after several months (she's not an idiot!), just sit back and wait as I intend to until this program is just right (kind of like warm porridge). [/B][/QUOTE] That's just plain nuts. By the time you are ready to play the game, the rest of us will have moved on to WitP. (Where I fully expect we'll have to deal with these same problems all over again.) You'll post a question, or seek a PBEM opponent, and the rest of us will wonder why you are still playing the five year old game......

bilbow -> Re: Give them a break (12/4/2002 10:03:04 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus [B]I would like to respectfully suggest that we cut Matrix some slack here. Ok, so 2.1 got rushed a little causing a couple new bugs to pop out. The reason they rushed it was to try to give us, the players an unexpected holiday treat. They could just as easily have delayed the patch for another week or two or three. Personally i was grateful for the patch, quirks and all over the holiday weekend. The major issues have been identified and acknowledged and a followup patch is already in the works. Few other companies work as hard for our satisfaction as these guys. [/B][/QUOTE] My sentiments exactly, which is why I titled the thread the way I did. Bugs? Maybe. Differences, certainly. Maybe we wouldn't have some of these apparent issues with every new patch if the Matrix guys weren't so accomodating with player requests and or whines for new features. So maybe the price we pay for all these great new features to an already great game is a few unintended consequenses. I for one will gladly pay it. And if it forces the end of a game then it creates the opportunity to start another. The fun is in the voyage, not the destination. Bill

medicinman -> (12/4/2002 11:38:43 AM)
Hi all I have been playing UV for about 1 month now progressing through the learning curve. I liked 2.0 and several updates and fixes. I considered not even going to 2.1 from reading the posts but decided to anyways. In one day using 2.0 save the entire PM air defense was destroyed in air to air. Several squadrons decimated not even considering mostly destroyed not damaged. I will take over 1 month to replace a/c from replacement rates. 2.0 was light but 2.1 is ridiculous maybe 2.11 can fall somewhere in the middle. I hate to complain on my first post especially considering I have waited a long time for a computer UV game of this quality and depth. I know the many lines of code make this game very difficult but please keep up the good work and support. Combat reports as follows - Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 60 A6M3 Zero x 34 G3M Nell x 18 G4M1 Betty x 40 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 6 F4F-4 Wildcat x 49 P-40E Kittyhawk x 7 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 28 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 6 destroyed A6M3 Zero x 2 damaged G3M Nell x 1 destroyed G3M Nell x 1 damaged G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat x 6 destroyed F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 damaged F4F-4 Wildcat x 45 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 damaged P-40E Kittyhawk x 4 destroyed P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 damaged Hudson x 2 destroyed Hudson x 1 damaged A-24 Dauntless x 2 destroyed A-24 Dauntless x 2 damaged LTJG E. Bassett of VF-42 is credited with kill number 5 LTJG E. Bassett of VF-42 bails out WOUNDED and is RESCUED Allied ground losses: Men lost 26 Airbase hits 3 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 16 Attacking Level Bombers: 5 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet 9 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet 3 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet 2 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet 7 x G3M Nell at 6000 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet 5 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet 7 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet 9 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet and follow up carrier attack Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 42 D3A Val x 42 B5N Kate x 78 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 F4F-4 Wildcat x 23 P-40E Kittyhawk x 5 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero x 8 destroyed A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged D3A Val x 9 destroyed D3A Val x 1 damaged B5N Kate x 10 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 damaged F4F-4 Wildcat x 14 destroyed F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 destroyed Wirraway x 3 destroyed Wirraway x 2 damaged LTJG J. Sutherland of VF-8 is credited with kill number 4 LT M. Kobayashi of DI-1 Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED Allied ground losses: Men lost 134 Guns lost 1 Airbase hits 6 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 36 Port hits 3 Port fuel hits 1 Port supply hits 2 Attacking Level Bombers: 12 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet 18 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet 17 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet 21 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet Any other agreements on the realism/ playablity of air combat?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.859375