Why do YOU like UV? (Full Version)

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



Message

mandt -> Why do YOU like UV? (5/1/2003 5:47:56 AM)

For the first time, I understand what it's all about.

Every day the same thing. Flying over 100s of miles of ocean to attack a heavily armed base, sometimes at low level, and then fly back. Depending on the distance, they might do it again in the afternoon. Friends would die, and one grueling mission would run into the next.

In between it was sleeping, eating, cardgames, reading the same letter again for the 20th time, listening to Armed Forces Radio (if they were lucky) and otherwise just killing time in 100+ temperatures, dew-point humidity, and millions of the most aggressive insects on the planet. Tomorrow, you do it all over again. It is no wonder that maintaining morale in the Pacific was such a challenge.

The key to victory was often the commander's ability to keep his men rested and their morale up. It's not necessarily how many planes you have, or how good they are, but rather how well supplied and happy you can keep the crews.

UV nails this. I find my greatest battles and challenges lie, not with the Japanese, but with the task of keeping my flight crews rested and eager. It is the best and most accurate representation of this aspect of warfare that I have ever encountered, and one reason why I'm hooked on this game.



Marc von Martial -> (5/1/2003 9:30:54 AM)

Thanks alot, I think this is one darn good compliment to Gary, Joel, Keith and Mike [IMG]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/icons/icon14.gif[/IMG]



Reiryc -> (5/1/2003 10:19:49 AM)

Hard to explain why I like it...

It just seems to get just about everything right in the fun/realism factors and how they are blended. Often times a game will concentrate a bit too much in one area over another leaving the game wanting.

This game has hit my all time favorite in recent weeks, topping close combat 1 which has been my number one since july of '96 when it was released. To say that's quite a feat is no understatement in my book. :)

WiTP will probably replace UV simply because they are taking the already successful UV formula, expanding it immensely and adding tons of goodies from Pacwar and of course new goodies on top of that.



Raverdave -> (5/1/2003 3:46:42 PM)

Ha! Just you all wait till UV Med comes out!:D
Stukas! ME 109s! JU-88s! The Eighth Army! The Afrika Corps!



Drex -> (5/4/2003 2:30:26 AM)

UV Med just might occupy my interest for quite a while but it won't be out until after WitP.



pasternakski -> (5/4/2003 4:09:23 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]Ha! Just you all wait till UV Med comes out!:D
Stukas! ME 109s! JU-88s! The Eighth Army! The Afrika Corps! [/B][/QUOTE]

Keep the faith, brother. Not to mention Hope and Charity.

Can you imagine fighting a Pedestal convoy through to Malta? Executing the night raid against Taranto? Fighting Littorio and company against Warspite et al? Mounting the Torch operation? Reinforcing Malta with Spitfires launched by Wasp? Invading Gibraltar? Defending and then relieving Tobruk?

Gimme this game.



Deathtreader -> The uncertainty............ (5/4/2003 7:15:47 AM)

Hi all,

For me its the lack of total control over who does what, where, when, and how. I love the idea that an overly aggressive commander might hang in there just long enough to salvage a stunning victory or just a little tooooo long & get the stuffing kicked out his command while a more timid commander may have presented the aforementioned disaster or snatched defeat from the jaws of victory....................
Just a pearl of a design all wat around. :)



Mr.Frag -> (5/4/2003 7:34:23 AM)

Hmm, thats a tough one.

How about "I like UV because Harpoon 4 doesn't exist yet" :D

or

"Because it is a good training platform for WitP" ;)

or

"Because GG hasn't done Jutland yet" :(

or

"Because the Underdog played perfectly can win!" :cool:



Chiteng -> (5/4/2003 7:50:33 AM)

I am not sure I do like it. It has some glaring flaws.

However since it is the only game of its genre it basicly has
the field all too itself.

If it were more realistic, then I would say I was hooked.

But quite simply...some things detract greatly.

The abundance of mines when none were actually used, at least
not as they are used by players.

The invulnerability of the B-17, or The lack of defence from the B-17. Either way.

The inability to use historical tactics to obtain historical outcomes.
(Like Savo island and Tass)

Arbitrary limitations that in no way reflect reality(example AAA dropoff after 10 ships)

Yes the game does some things well but one simple example
will prove the truth. Count the air losses you get. And compare
them with the ACTUAL airlosses suffered by both sides.

It is like buying a Lamborghini, and getting a Shelby Cobra.
Yes, its a nice car, yes it is loud and fast, but it isnt a
Lamborghini.



Snigbert -> (5/4/2003 8:54:23 AM)

[B]The abundance of mines when none were actually used, at least[/B]

I dont think the player should be limited to only using his assetts exactly how they were used in the war.

[B]The invulnerability of the B-17, or The lack of defence from the B-17. Either way.[/B]

My B-17s arent invulnerable, and they do about as much damage as they are supposed to. Not sure what you mean here, maybe you can give an example of some results you had?


[B]The inability to use historical tactics to obtain historical outcomes.[/B]

I've had results similar to Savo Island. Very rarely, as it should be.


[B]Arbitrary limitations that in no way reflect reality(example AAA dropoff after 10 ships)[/B]

It is 15 ships, not 10. You dont lose AAA effectiveness, you just dont get the full benefit as you add more ships because the distance between a ship being attacked and the number of nearby ships which can assist with their AAA is limited. That is realistic to me, because ships had to maintain a certain distance from one another.



Chiteng -> (5/4/2003 9:05:50 AM)

The day I see Eight Jap destroyers get surprised by

Five Heavy USN Cruisers, and completely trash all five
sinking ONE, and escape with the loss of ONE destroyer.
And NO HITS at all on the other seven.

When I see that, i will say the model works.

Remember the fix they applied to the torpedoe problem only works when the JAPS get surprise.

That isnt what happened at Tassfaronga.



Nikademus -> (5/4/2003 10:07:55 AM)

I love UV because it is the quite simply the long awaited next generation pacific war based title that i have been waiting for since 1992. :D

Does it have faults? yes, so did PacWar. Unlike that game though, this one can and has been improved over time.....maybe not quite as dramatic a transformation as WAW 1.0 - 7.1 was, but still fairly impressive.

Understand your angst Chiteng. Yes, the game does have some flaws, but its still a gem. For what it's worth, i agree about the B-17's......they and other .50cal armed bombers are a bit of the fire and forget type and even small #'s of them can do capricious damage to bases and (along with other twin e's) hit docked ships like smart bombs. Along with shore bombardment i think the degree of consistant hits scored on vital systems needs to have more variability.

The surface combat engine has it's flaws as well. I still think radar creates a blanket effect which combined with ROF issues, puts IJN TF's at a disadvantage unless they can score a torpedo hit to balance things out.

I agree with Sniggy though, i think the 15+ ship diminishing AA returns rule is more realistic than the PacWar "add up all the flak ratings of the uber-TF" and apply it too "all" bombers attacking creating virtually impenetrable flak walls for players. I consider this rule to be one of the "nice touches" of UV.

UV may be mostly done. But WitP remains and it will be no mere "UV clone"



Mr.Frag -> (5/4/2003 10:28:40 AM)

Going to have to take you on as far as your issue with AA reduction.

AA guns during this time period were 20mm & 40mm and some larger airburst DP guns or some pretty much useless machine guns.

Given that most of these guns are positional, covering specific quadrants, I really don't see how you expect more then 5 ships to be able to put lead on target, forget about 10 or 15.

Assuming a line ahead formation of 10 ships, 1,000 yards apart, a plane coming in on the tail ship is minimum of 10,000 yards away from the rear gunner on the front ship.

1/2 a mile spacing between large ships is not very much space at all. Note, we are talking YARDS, not FEET. The Bofors 40mm (probably the best AA weapon in play) has a range of 22,800 FEET, not YARDS.

I really don't see how you expect all AA to be shooting at each plane unless you happen to stack your ships on top of each other. :D



Chiteng -> (5/4/2003 10:41:39 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Going to have to take you on as far as your issue with AA reduction.

AA guns during this time period were 20mm & 40mm and some larger airburst DP guns or some pretty much useless machine guns.

Given that most of these guns are positional, covering specific quadrants, I really don't see how you expect more then 5 ships to be able to put lead on target, forget about 10 or 15.

Assuming a line ahead formation of 10 ships, 1,000 yards apart, a plane coming in on the tail ship is minimum of 10,000 yards away from the rear gunner on the front ship.

1/2 a mile spacing between large ships is not very much space at all. Note, we are talking YARDS, not FEET. The Bofors 40mm (probably the best AA weapon in play) has a range of 22,800 FEET, not YARDS.

I really don't see how you expect all AA to be shooting at each plane unless you happen to stack your ships on top of each other. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I already covered this ground in another thread.
According to Morrison:

In a 4CV or less TF the flak defense was based on
a 120 degree arc radiating out from the core 4 ships.
4 ships in the core 12 ships close to the core and up to
24 ships in a picket line.

The purpose was to maximize the amount of time a torpedo
bomber would be exposed to flak. It worked quite well.

It was less usefull against dive bombers. However it did
fairly well against level bombers.

The upshot is that the core would at all times be protected
by at least 1/3 the taskforce regardless of the approach route.

That is the system the USN actually used.

I am less sure about Japanese useage.



Mike_B20 -> (5/4/2003 10:43:14 AM)

I don't think every gun is modelled into the AA fire but rather a general effect.
Just how effective is the extra AA fire in a taskforce anyway as modelled in UV, does anyone apart from the Matrix team know?
I'd like to see the algorithm used.

More AA capable ships in a taskforce did have effect, even if only minor. Later in the war the US used picket ships with effect to warn of enemy aircraft and to take some of the brunt of the attacks.

Also, I've read accounts of torpedo planes in action. The pilot would sometimes have to climb up and over a screening ship to get at a CV target, taking fire all the way.



herbieh -> Why i like it!!! (5/4/2003 2:25:47 PM)

I like this game because if you play stupid, it hammers you.(AI)
I like this game because if you play stupid , your PBEM opponent really hammers you.
I like this game because you have to think, not just point and click!

I just like this game

Hey, Blacksunshine1941- did ya get me turn!, or have I been stupid again!:D

Ps Beer is good, but dont drink and fight!



Nikademus -> (5/5/2003 2:21:05 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I already covered this ground in another thread.
According to Morrison:

In a 4CV or less TF the flak defense was based on
a 120 degree arc radiating out from the core 4 ships.
4 ships in the core 12 ships close to the core and up to
24 ships in a picket line.

The purpose was to maximize the amount of time a torpedo
bomber would be exposed to flak. It worked quite well.

It was less usefull against dive bombers. However it did
fairly well against level bombers.

The upshot is that the core would at all times be protected
by at least 1/3 the taskforce regardless of the approach route.

That is the system the USN actually used.

I am less sure about Japanese useage. [/B][/QUOTE]

This looks to me like it would support the diminishing AA returns rule. First off, the source states an "idea TF size" of around 15 ships. (with 4 CV at the core), and 2ndly is that the goal was to have the TF be able to present a minimum of 1/3 of the TF's AA firepower against any one quandrant of attack

The extra picket line ships are great, but only if the attackers oblige them by attacking over their vector

The point of the UV rule....as has been repeated ad nauseum is to represent in a necessarily abstract way (since the game does not include attack vectors) the fact that one group of attackers approaching a large TF would not be subject to every AA gun at 100% effectiveness. This rule prevents players from building full sized 25 ship TF's with AA ratings all added up creating a figure that makes it all but, if not impossible for an attacking plane to make an attack.

To me thats unreal.....and i saw it time and time again in PacWar.....made worse by the fact that in that game, if a plane was "hit" it's attack was automatically aborted.

So players are free to build 25 ship TF's, (10 extra ships from the optimal size) and they will get more AA than a 15 ship TF.....they just wont get as much AA as if all the program did was add up all the AA points.



Chiteng -> (5/5/2003 2:31:31 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]This looks to me like it would support the diminishing AA returns rule. First off, the source states an "idea TF size" of around 15 ships. (with 4 CV at the core), and 2ndly is that the goal was to have the TF be able to present a minimum of 1/3 of the TF's AA firepower against any one quandrant of attack

The extra picket line ships are great, but only if the attackers oblige them by attacking over their vector

The point of the UV rule....as has been repeated ad nauseum is to represent in a necessarily abstract way (since the game does not include attack vectors) the fact that one group of attackers approaching a large TF would not be subject to every AA gun at 100% effectiveness. This rule prevents players from building full sized 25 ship TF's with AA ratings all added up creating a figure that makes it all but, if not impossible for an attacking plane to make an attack.

To me thats unreal.....and i saw it time and time again in PacWar.....made worse by the fact that in that game, if a plane was "hit" it's attack was automatically aborted.

So players are free to build 25 ship TF's, (10 extra ships from the optimal size) and they will get more AA than a 15 ship TF.....they just wont get as much AA as if all the program did was add up all the AA points. [/B][/QUOTE]

I said a 120 degree arc. Not a quadrant. That is 1/3 of the TF
NOT 1/4th.

The point being that it takes TIME for a torpedo plane to line up
on its target. He cant just jink around. That means they are dependant SOLEY on approach speed to evade flak.
The primary enemy of Dive Bomber is CAP.

Each arc has 12 ships directly contributing to shooting down
incomming planes. If the TF is flush... make that 16 ships.



Nikademus -> (5/5/2003 2:53:19 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I said a 120 degree arc. Not a quadrant. That is 1/3 of the TF
NOT 1/4th.

The point being that it takes TIME for a torpedo plane to line up
on its target. He cant just jink around. That means they are dependant SOLEY on approach speed to evade flak.
The primary enemy of Dive Bomber is CAP.

Each arc has 12 ships directly contributing to shooting down
incomming planes. If the TF is flush... make that 16 ships. [/B][/QUOTE]

How do you determine how much of a contribution? The point being is that not every ship will be able to contribute 100% of it's firepower depending on the attack vector.

UV by necessity has to abstract the plane to ship attack phase. Again, i see nothing in what you've posted that negates the virtue of the rule you are disputing.

I am aware of the time it takes for a torp plane to line up it's attack. This does not mean every ship will be able to take a potshot with full effectiveness. USN AA in the four primary carrier battles certainly did not preform in the manner you are suggesting and certainly the ships on the opposite side that the torp bombers were attacking were unable to contribute to the defense.



Chiteng -> (5/5/2003 3:06:23 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]How do you determine how much of a contribution? The point being is that not every ship will be able to contribute 100% of it's firepower depending on the attack vector.

UV by necessity has to abstract the plane to ship attack phase. Again, i see nothing in what you've posted that negates the virtue of the rule you are disputing.

I am aware of the time it takes for a torp plane to line up it's attack. This does not mean every ship will be able to take a potshot with full effectiveness. USN AA in the four primary carrier battles certainly did not preform in the manner you are suggesting and certainly the ships on the opposite side that the torp bombers were attacking were unable to contribute to the defense. [/B][/QUOTE]

I didnt say it was disputed. I said it was ARBITRARY.



msaario -> Why UV is the only game running on my P450. (5/5/2003 3:19:50 AM)

I let the other guys worry about the flak and stuff... It's great that we have these dudes working out the details...

I just love to play this game. It is simply absorbing. Once I have finished (i.e. doing mop-up) a game, I will restart on the other side. The setting is great. The map is beautiful. There is a lot of stuff to do.

The game plays smoothly, like all GG games. The UI is mostly intuitive and works very well (except for that annoying "double-click" bug that's been plaguing the game since the start - does no-one else really have the same problem????).

There are some stupid bugs and features (Micro$oft speak) still. I have never understood why ships arrive with 0 sys damage after the long voyage from Pearl or Japan... why do reinforcements arrive at Noumea / Brisbane even though I have jap CVs and planes nearby... and so on.

"Simply the Best".

--Mikko



demonterico -> (5/5/2003 11:20:42 AM)

I've been a wargamer for over 25 years now and have played in all different types of games, ie: computers, miniatures, boardgames, ect, and in just about every time period there is, and I have yet to see one that is a perfect model of reality. After all a rules writer or a code writer is faced with the dilemma of interperting reality, and no two people see it quite the same. These types of arguments are as old as the hobby itself.

I know for a fact that there are well know and much played wargames out there where the writer has made arbitary decisions that go against the historical model because the writer felt it improved the playability of the game. For example I could name a very well known set of Napolionic miniatures rules where the writer cut the historical effect of the artillery in half simply because he felt that the artillery at its historical effect was too dominant in the game. Was the decision right or wrong? Who knows, but I did like playing those rules.

So whats my point befor I babble off into never-never land. There are four factors I consider when evaluating a game;
1) Is it interesting. 2) Is it challenging. 3) Does it provide a reasonably decent model of history. ( No future or fantasy stuff for me. Not that I have anything against it, its just not my cup of tea.) Last and foremost, 4) Is it fun. From me UV gets high marks in all 4 catagories. In fact I like UV so much I like to know when I can perorder my copy of WITP. I'm ready to plunk down my $$$ right now.



HMSWarspite -> (5/5/2003 3:55:58 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I didnt say it was disputed. I said it was ARBITRARY. [/B][/QUOTE]

What's wrong with arbitrary?
Is it about right? Does it produce the correct effect?

I do not think that it would necessarily stand up to a full operational analysis of TF layout, ballistics, or real time simulator assessment, because the answer might be 16 ships...or 12 ships, or 15.3, unless the attack is from up sun, in which case it should be 8, except ships of the Impossible class, which count double because the AA control positions had Raybans! Also, before you quote ideal TF layouts, are all the ships in correct position? Are all ships fully worked up, where are the clouds, and the sun...
The point is: it is about right (IMHO), and prevents a known silly from PACWAR where you could make TF invulnerable to air attack with massive AAA

What is your solution?



Chiteng -> (5/5/2003 11:58:38 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]What's wrong with arbitrary?
Is it about right? Does it produce the correct effect?

I do not think that it would necessarily stand up to a full operational analysis of TF layout, ballistics, or real time simulator assessment, because the answer might be 16 ships...or 12 ships, or 15.3, unless the attack is from up sun, in which case it should be 8, except ships of the Impossible class, which count double because the AA control positions had Raybans! Also, before you quote ideal TF layouts, are all the ships in correct position? Are all ships fully worked up, where are the clouds, and the sun...
The point is: it is about right (IMHO), and prevents a known silly from PACWAR where you could make TF invulnerable to air attack with massive AAA

What is your solution? [/B][/QUOTE]

First the layout of a TF for Surface Combat is different than
one for CV. When you repeatedly get ahistoric results
you have to suspect something is wrong.



Snigbert -> (5/6/2003 12:08:23 AM)

That is why there are multiple types of task forces. You dont put a surface combat task force together and expect them to be in an air combat formation, for example.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
8.796875