(Full Version)

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

Message

Admiral DadMan -> (2/13/2003 9:05:20 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Welcome! [B]I remember someone saying a long time ago that Carriers would have never enter the Slot because of the lack of room to maneuver. [/B][/QUOTE]That's becuase they felt it would be suicide, based on chance of detection, the need for a great deal of room for air ops, and the threat of enemy LBA. The doctrine of the time was that Fast Carriers needed room to operate. Even nominal air ops required steaming into the wind for 30 minutes. There just isn't that much room in The Slot. The US CV's based from Noumea or Espiritu Santo, and operated ESE of Guadalcanal (between San Cristobal and Santa Cruz), or in the Solomon Sea, keeping The Slot between them and Truk. The IJN operated mostly NNW of Guadalcanal (near Santa Isabel), as they most often sortied from Truk.

Attack Condor -> PBEM games in progress...? (2/13/2003 11:20:49 PM)
Not much to add to the accolades, but a humble thanks for the support. (I would have paid $75 for the game, but don't tell the marketing department at Matrix ;) ). A question.... With a projected (?) release sometime before the next 570 turns of my PBEM are completed, will the patch be able to be used with games in progress? The question was probably asked somewhere for 2.2, but my first game was with v2.2. Once again...thanks for the support.

pasternakski -> (2/13/2003 11:45:54 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy [B]I dont understand why a few people are constantly complaining and griping about the continuing support of Matrix and their patches. I have never understood the philosophy of people who dont like patches. If you dont like it dont download it. Just pretend the game is finished and go away. You dont have to download the patch!!! Most of us are grateful for the constant support and improvement of the game and continue to hope for future patches and the continued response to our suggestions. I have never been involved in or owned a computer game that had such great support from its company. Thanks Matrix and keep up the great work. I look forword to future patches that can only make this game better and better!!! PS- Each patch they make is for WITP and UV!!!!! So if they stop testing UV and improving it then that hinders the testing and improving for WITP!!!!!!!!! Please understand this people please... [/B][/QUOTE] Well, so much for lighthearted humor...

Full Moon -> (2/14/2003 12:21:41 AM)
[QUOTE]A UV 2.30 patch is now being tested by the Matrix UV beta testers. Our goal is to release the patch to the public by the end of the month.[/QUOTE] I can hardly wait.:)

Admiral DadMan -> (2/14/2003 12:24:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]Well, so much for lighthearted humor... [/B][/QUOTE] pasternakski shhhhhh, this too will pass:D

Poindexter -> Sweet (2/14/2003 12:58:46 AM)
Throwing in my praise as well. Wow. Just thought the next patch would be some smaller fixes. Once again, 2x3 and Matrix defy all logic and hammer out some really nice and significant fixes along with the small stuff. Best $50 I ever spent.

iceboy -> (2/14/2003 1:09:19 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]Well, so much for lighthearted humor... [/B][/QUOTE] hehe...sorry i had to get that off my chest :rolleyes:

Howard Mitchell -> Re: UV 2.30 patch is now in test (2/14/2003 1:29:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings [B] 12) Enemy ships at anchor in a port can now be detected by recon missions. The roll-over text on an enemy anchor symbol on the map will now give an estimate of the number of ships in port and estimated reports on up to 10 specific types. The accuracy of the estimate is effected by the detection level of the base. [/B][/QUOTE] Thank you! (personal peeve of mine to)

Joel Billings -> Re: PBEM games in progress...? (2/14/2003 2:14:27 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Attack Condor [B]Not much to add to the accolades, but a humble thanks for the support. (I would have paid $75 for the game, but don't tell the marketing department at Matrix ;) ). A question.... With a projected (?) release sometime before the next 570 turns of my PBEM are completed, will the patch be able to be used with games in progress? The question was probably asked somewhere for 2.2, but my first game was with v2.2. Once again...thanks for the support. [/B][/QUOTE] At this time the patch does not invalidate saves and we hope and will try hard to keep it that way. There are no guarantees however as we go through the testing process. By the way, we appreciate the praise, but we'd appreciate it even more if you tell your friends that don't yet have UV. Thanks for all your support. Joel

Bulldog61 -> (2/14/2003 2:18:58 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex. All looks great (Better than I'd dreamed), but can you give us a reason for #17? It will make covering invasions much harder. Normally we just had the CV follow the transports. Now that won't be such a good idea. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] Personally, I tend to keep my carriers separated by several hexes and use long range escort. I think this represents the limits placed on carrier manuevering near large bodies of land.

Bulldog61 -> (2/14/2003 2:26:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer [B]Well, there better not BE another one.....I agree that it's time to move on to WITP after this patch is released. [/B][/QUOTE] I think as features are developed for WITP they are retro-fitted into UV. Rest assurred WITP playtesting goes on. The game is sweet even in the alpha version.

Mr.Frag -> (2/14/2003 2:29:59 AM)
[QUOTE]At this time the patch does not invalidate saves and we hope and will try hard to keep it that way. There are no guarantees however as we go through the testing process.[/QUOTE] If ya break it, ya break it, these changes instead of being a little patch are in the catagory of a major overhaul and a fair number of folks will probably want to restart under these rules as they are staggering in their implications. Personally, I'd rather conceed a game vs delay out a patch and waste your resources trying to make the upgrade seemless. Perhaps you should pop up a poll on the issue. While being extremists by nature, we understand reality. Thats why we play wargames instead of silly RTS stuff :D People who want both can probably just dub a copy of UV into a different directory and maintain a separate unpatched 2.20 for purposes of finishing off current games.

brisd -> (2/14/2003 2:44:34 AM)
Joel, Thanks for a great patch listing and contiued support for UV. I smelled smoke drifting down from Encinitas from all those key strokes but I guess the rain yesterday put out the fire :)

Sonny -> Re: Re: PBEM games in progress...? (2/14/2003 3:05:57 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings [B]At this time the patch does not invalidate saves and we hope and will try hard to keep it that way. There are no guarantees however as we go through the testing process. By the way, we appreciate the praise, but we'd appreciate it even more if you tell your friends that don't yet have UV. Thanks for all your support. Joel [/B][/QUOTE] Unfortunately, because of the time I spend on UV I have no friends.:eek: :cool:

pasternakski -> (2/14/2003 3:12:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy [B]hehe...sorry i had to get that off my chest :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE] Well, and I agree with what you say. The support for this game (and the interesting way that support has now evolved into design refinement for WITP) is gratifying. The only thing about patches is that they tend to derail the trolley of games already underway, but what the hey - when the game improves, we all benefit. I think back on some of the "dark times" when it was obvious that there was something drastically wrong with the current version of the game and compare that to recent times, where it has been more a matter of fine-tuning an already smoothly running machine and count my fifty bucks (and hundreds of hours) as well spent. Besides, I get the chance to post on these forums and trot out my particular brand of chauvinistic idiocy (while hiding my true identity behind a pseudonym). Not to mention meeting friendly, intelligent people with no prejudices and always a positive, insightful, well-considered comment to make on nearly every subject imaginable ... where else would you get the remarkable value presented by the "Bismarck" thread? But that's another story.

SoulBlazer -> (2/14/2003 4:26:32 AM)
Hey, some of us play both wargames AND RTS games. :D I just went out and bought C&C Generals, as a matter of fact...... :)

crsutton -> (2/14/2003 5:00:19 AM)
Thanks for your efforts.

pasternakski -> (2/14/2003 5:21:56 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer [B]Hey, some of us play ... RTS games. :D [/B][/QUOTE] Good luck with that. Just keep 'em on your side of the fence, okay?

SoulBlazer -> (2/14/2003 5:27:43 AM)
Are you kidding? C&C are some of my favorite games, I enjoy romping my roomie in a game of Counter Strike now and then, System Shock 2 and Elite Force are games I still play a few times a year, and nothing beats a hard day at work like playing a Contra game. :) Besides, they have the advantage of being able to play them when you only have 15. Really can't do that with a wargame. :D

jcjordan -> (2/14/2003 6:57:17 AM)
Joel/Matrix Something I would like to see in a future patch, definitely in WITP would be how the AI handles damaged ships. As it stands now if a ship is badly damaged it immediately sends it to a home base(Truk/Noemea). If the ship has alot of flooding it ends up sinking before it gets to port even when there is a large port closer. It would be better if you could have the AI send it to the nearest port to have the flooding brought under control then have it sent to home base. In all the battles I've done vs the AI IJN most of the ships sunk have been done this way & if it's AP, then there ends up being little in the way of offensive measures the AI could do so the game becomes one sided & boring as I can take any base at anytime with my assets. Also an upgrade in the AI where it won't send AP TF into the frying pan to be sunk by me without some kind of escort be it air or ships. This is what leads to the first problem of ships sinking on the way home.

Bulldog61 -> (2/14/2003 8:27:50 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jcjordan [B]Joel/Matrix Something I would like to see in a future patch, definitely in WITP would be how the AI handles damaged ships. As it stands now if a ship is badly damaged it immediately sends it to a home base(Truk/Noemea). If the ship has alot of flooding it ends up sinking before it gets to port even when there is a large port closer. It would be better if you could have the AI send it to the nearest port to have the flooding brought under control then have it sent to home base. In all the battles I've done vs the AI IJN most of the ships sunk have been done this way & if it's AP, then there ends up being little in the way of offensive measures the AI could do so the game becomes one sided & boring as I can take any base at anytime with my assets. Also an upgrade in the AI where it won't send AP TF into the frying pan to be sunk by me without some kind of escort be it air or ships. This is what leads to the first problem of ships sinking on the way home. [/B][/QUOTE] Good point I've observed the same thing!

Hard Sarge -> (2/14/2003 9:04:30 AM)
Strange, in my games, the AI sends most of it's damage ships to Shortland (thinking to stop the flooding ?) and then later sends them back to Truk of course, since I hammer the Port most of them never really get any repairs done, but have seen a number of them slip away and sail back to Truk HARD_Sarge

Admiral DadMan -> CS: BaseName Convoys (2/14/2003 10:02:05 AM)
Shuttle convoys still divert to bases in need instead of keeping their shuttle runs.

wobbly -> (2/14/2003 11:06:47 AM)
Speaking of AI. i can't help thinking that it wont be able to keep up with the changes being made: will carriers go into base hexes, will AI use info of ships in harbour, do I really care I'm playing PBEM... the list goes on.

denisonh -> (2/14/2003 11:09:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jcjordan [B]Joel/Matrix Something I would like to see in a future patch, definitely in WITP would be how the AI handles damaged ships. As it stands now if a ship is badly damaged it immediately sends it to a home base(Truk/Noemea). If the ship has alot of flooding it ends up sinking before it gets to port even when there is a large port closer. It would be better if you could have the AI send it to the nearest port to have the flooding brought under control then have it sent to home base. In all the battles I've done vs the AI IJN most of the ships sunk have been done this way & if it's AP, then there ends up being little in the way of offensive measures the AI could do so the game becomes one sided & boring as I can take any base at anytime with my assets. Also an upgrade in the AI where it won't send AP TF into the frying pan to be sunk by me without some kind of escort be it air or ships. This is what leads to the first problem of ships sinking on the way home. [/B][/QUOTE] Easy solution: play PBEM:D

Joel Billings -> (2/14/2003 12:26:22 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wobbly [B]Speaking of AI. i can't help thinking that it wont be able to keep up with the changes being made: will carriers go into base hexes, will AI use info of ships in harbour, do I really care I'm playing PBEM... the list goes on. [/B][/QUOTE] In many cases Gary had the AI playing more realistically than the rules. He had AI carriers trying to avoid coastal hexes of all kinds. No guarantees given all the changes, but Gary thinks they will only help the AI vs a human, not hurt it. Joel

Krec -> (2/14/2003 2:48:54 PM)
ah yes, the old carrier hugging the coast trick, never really thought much of it . of course give a human an inch and he'll take a mile. my problem is i tend to hope my opponent will also try to play a realistic game, but we all know the jap player will run that carrier force down the slot first chance he gets . carriers leading the way hugging every island they find then parking that CV TF right into the habor hex at GC. if my shore batteries ever would fire on the sucker and sink those carriers maybe they would stay away from the coast like in real life. oh well i think we are going in the right direction. matrix you guys are awesome!! keep up the good work.:D

Grotius -> (2/14/2003 9:40:30 PM)
Well, there is one existing downside to running IJN CVs through coastal hexes: Coastwatchers. For the IJN, there's much less chance of being spotted if you take to the high seas instead.

Admiral DadMan -> (2/14/2003 9:56:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grotius [B]For the IJN, there's much less chance of being spotted if you take to the high seas instead. [/B][/QUOTE]And that's what they did historically

mogami -> IJN CV (2/14/2003 11:08:36 PM)
Hi, I avoid coastal hexes as much as possible as IJN. (For every TF) Sometimes I have to drive the TF's by selecting hex and do not retire one day and then setting a new hex the next day. (My CV use the creep up method to avoid coastal hexes and then when ready made one long move (hopefully in bad weather) To arrive in their op area. I don't think I've ever ran a CV TF (IJN or USN) down the slot. (I'm too afraid of detection/mines/subs)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.890625