(Full Version)

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



Message

Point Luck -> (2/28/2003 6:42:30 AM)

Question

Will the new patch work with already established custom scenarios? Included upgrades etc.



Leahi -> (2/28/2003 11:44:58 AM)

Thanks again for the advice, Mr. Frag. But I must say that I'm more concerned about the enemy keeping **his** CV's afloat. I just ended a campaign (US vs. AI Japan, standard settings) in early '43 after sinking 5 IJN CV's, 3 IJN CVL's, and 3 IJN BB's, while losing just 1 USN CV and 1 USN BB.

The other BB I returned to Pearl Harbor for repairs, but never got back. So I was left with 5 CV's and 3 CVE's, plus Guadalcanal, Gili-Gili and Buna, but no BB's to support further invasions. The info screen indicated no likelihood of imment release of major ships, despite many BB's at Pearl Harbor, so I knocked off, about 3000 points up. (I did read the post that suggest sending some AK's and AP's back to PH might help release some of those BB's; but knowing the new patch is coming I just decided to wait.)

My previous campaign had a similar outcome, so I'm hoping the new patch will make the AI a better competitor. I hope, too, that the ship-release logic will have changed somewhat, as another player also recently expressed some frustration in this regard. But it may be that reducing allied medium bomber effectiveness against Japanese ships -- at least early on -- will help play balance. If not, I'll just try the campaign variant that has Russia in trouble, releasing more Japanese forces for the Pacific.

At any rate, I'm very grateful for the changes already being made, and looking forward to WiTP, so I'm not asking for any further changes in UV beyond the immenent 2.30 patch. I'm betting WiTP is going to be very, very good and keep me quite challenged.

Thanks again. Good gaming....



CapAndGown -> (2/28/2003 12:04:10 PM)

If you want play balance, then try PBEM. Even with the new patch, the USN will still be able to kick Jap butt, but at least against a human there is always the possibility that they will out play you. That will never be the case, NEVER, with the AI.



Leahi -> (2/28/2003 12:09:47 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]If you want play balance, then try PBEM. Even with the new patch, the USN will still be able to kick Jap butt, but at least against a human there is always the possibility that they will out play you. That will never be the case, NEVER, with the AI. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, Cap and Gown. But isn't PBEM awfully slow? Plus I'm in a time-zone 5 hours away from EDT, 6 from EST. Wouldn't that create additional delays?

Anyway, sorry to hear the AI will not be able to provide a good opponent. Especially since that suggests I'm not a military genius after all....:(



Joel Billings -> (2/28/2003 12:31:44 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Oh oh :( I know where they will by parked ...

Interesting question that just came to mind:

I generally use a Sub mine TF with multiple subs located in it due to the low number of mines...will these subs (ie: a Transport or Mine Warfare sub TF) be subject to the new sub rules about stacking since they are NOT on patrol missions or will subs be permanent loaners no matter what the mission type is set to? [/B][/QUOTE]

Gary says all sub missions are counted for the stacking penalty.



denisonh -> (2/28/2003 12:36:26 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leahi
[B]Thanks, Cap and Gown. But isn't PBEM awfully slow? Plus I'm in a time-zone 5 hours away from EDT, 6 from EST. Wouldn't that create additional delays?

Anyway, sorry to hear the AI will not be able to provide a good opponent. Especially since that suggests I'm not a military genius after all....:( [/B][/QUOTE]

AI can challenge you early, but gets overwhemled as the game progresses.

And Cap & Gown is right.

And the excitement and challenge of PBEM MORE than make up for the pace. I have a game that goes 1-2 turns a day, and it is a good, tight game through DEC 42. It has provided months of enjoyment and challenge. And my opponent is in France with me in California. Works out well. I return a turn in the morning and at night.



Mr.Frag -> (2/28/2003 12:49:38 PM)

[QUOTE]Anyway, sorry to hear the AI will not be able to provide a good opponent. Especially since that suggests I'm not a military genius after all....[/QUOTE]

Since the bomber changes only apply against the level bombers (not the torpedo boys), this should give Japan a slightly better advantage at staying afloat and keeping the Allied navy in it's proper place :D

The AI is not all that bad, it just has a limited set of objectives in mind, and gets stuck in a rut a bit. If you find yourself smacking it around something fierce, try and remember that the Allied player has a huge advantage in ships and troops and planes as the game progresses which is difficult even for a human player to be able to counter (hence the Jan 1st auto victory rules). Have a go at playing Japan, you'll find it much more fun playing the underdog and trying to do better then history with the odds stacked against you. I always play the underdog for that very reason as it is always more rewarding to turn history on it's ear :)

Playing the Allies you pretty much know that all you have to do is sit back and wait until you automatically win the game against the AI ...

You can also kick up the skill level a notch and find out just how rough the AI treats you then. I was quite shocked to find 3-4 Zeros eat through a squadron of F4F-4's like they were made of rice paper. On Very Hard, you'll find the AI will wipe you off the map in no time at all so there is certainly enough challenge built into the various skill levels. You can also adjust the commitment levels to help out the AI by cranking the computer up to 200% while cutting yourself back to 70% ... Lots of options and as you said, UV while being a great game in it's own right is just a set of training wheels for WitP :D



Leahi -> (2/28/2003 12:49:50 PM)

Thanks, Denisohn. By the way, was that marathon Civil War debate ever concluded? I'm afraid to go back and look. You made some good points, IMHO.



Leahi -> (2/28/2003 12:54:30 PM)

Good suggestion, Mr. Frag. Thanks. I remember playing the Japanese side back in Gary Grigsby's old War in the South Pacific game, and it was fun. May try that while waiting for WiTP.

I was reluctant to change the AI difficulty because Joel Billings once seemed to confess that the computer does cheat at higher levels. I just wanted it play smarter -- not cheat me. Swapping sides may be the best solution. Thanks.



Mr.Frag -> (2/28/2003 1:00:05 PM)

[QUOTE]Gary says all sub missions are counted for the stacking penalty.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Joel, as always with the blazing quick replies.

Well, they didn't call them the silent service for nothing, poor lonely subs it will be ... gonna be lined up for parade duty now.

Now you need to convince Gary that he needs to adjust the follow command with the follow but one hex behind command, so we can string them together in a chain and only have to give orders to the first link :D



denisonh -> (2/28/2003 1:03:51 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leahi
[B]Thanks, Denisohn. By the way, was that marathon Civil War debate ever concluded? I'm afraid to go back and look. You made some good points, IMHO. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks,

I haven't recieved a note saying it has been posted to, and I have no desire to turn it into the next "Bismarck Thread":D .



denisonh -> (2/28/2003 1:07:44 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leahi
[B]Good suggestion, Mr. Frag. Thanks. I remember playing the Japanese side back in Gary Grigsby's old War in the South Pacific game, and it was fun. May try that while waiting for WiTP.

I was reluctant to change the AI difficulty because Joel Billings once seemed to confess that the computer does cheat at higher levels. I just wanted it play smarter -- not cheat me. Swapping sides may be the best solution. Thanks. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, PBEM is the solution. This game is well suited to PBEM.

The key is getting an opponent with the same committment level as yourself. 1-2 turns a day is a good pace.

I had never played PBEM before UV, as I thought I lacked the patience, but found the challenge more than compensated.

I am now a UV PBEM junkie:D .



Admiral DadMan -> (2/28/2003 8:07:40 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Thanks Joel, as always with the blazing quick replies.

Well, they didn't call them the silent service for nothing, poor lonely subs it will be ... gonna be lined up for parade duty now.

Now you need to convince Gary that he needs to adjust the follow command with the follow but one hex behind command, so we can string them together in a chain and only have to give orders to the first link :D [/B][/QUOTE] CONGA LINE!



Welcome! -> (3/3/2003 6:40:48 PM)

[QUOTE]26) Ships out of fuel cannot launch aircraft.[/QUOTE]

even onboard floatplanes from AV docked at a base with plenty of supply but no fuel ? because certainly the other floatplanes at the base supported by the AV if any will fly.

-----

Another subject. Is there a rule for replenishment TF like this:

if (sys+flot) > 50 or Fires than this tanker can't be used for replenishment


because ships even badly damaged don't sink in this game easily and continue to operate, it should be enough to just disabled them.



SpitfireIX -> (3/3/2003 9:39:57 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]
1) Corrected aircraft 94 designation from “Spitfire Vb” to “Spitfire Vc”, and aircraft 95 designation from “Spitfire IX” to “Spitfire VIII”.
[/B][/QUOTE]

:(

Seriously, though--will the RAAF finally get some _replacement_ Spits so that we can actually send the squadron into combat?



bhdhtx -> Nells (3/4/2003 9:52:12 AM)

I wonder if the graphic for the top view for the Nell is ever going to be changed to the correct one. The Nell did in fact have a dual tail. I only can see a single tail just like th Betty in the game. Can anyone make a quick fix to that? Its nervewrecking!

:-)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125