Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: I hope Martix reads this

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: I hope Martix reads this Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 13 [14]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 1:36:07 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
This is part of why air combat was improved in WITP and completely overhauled for the upcoming WITP AE. Unfortunately, for UV this is something we'll have to live with as the development cycle effectively ended quite a while ago. If Justin and his team can fix some issue in the process of working on CF, great, but I wouldn't depend on that.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 391
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 3:22:34 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

This is part of why air combat was improved in WITP and completely overhauled for the upcoming WITP AE. Unfortunately, for UV this is something we'll have to live with as the development cycle effectively ended quite a while ago. If Justin and his team can fix some issue in the process of working on CF, great, but I wouldn't depend on that.


This could be a deal breaker for some gamers.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 392
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 4:29:49 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
It's beyond my feeble thought processes how a new game, which is what CF will be, can ignore faults of the old one that it's built on.  It's sort of like saying that the lesson learned from the Titanic that the new bulkheads on that ship were OK even though they didn't rise to the deck level above them.  Do you think it was a fatal design flaw?

Leave known faults of UV in CF and it's a deal breaker for me also.  Promises of fixing it in future patches will result in my waiting to see.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 393
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 4:46:31 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

It's beyond my feeble thought processes how a new game, which is what CF will be, can ignore faults of the old one that it's built on. ... Leave known faults of UV in CF and it's a deal breaker for me also.  Promises of fixing it in future patches will result in my waiting to see.


My limited understanding of CF is that's it's a Carrier game grafted onto the old UV such that you have the option to play it only as UV; many of us see CF as the next -- and last -- patch for UV.

Sometimes I attribute technical issues in UV to fog of war, but it would be disapointing to say the least if they weren't even addressed for CF.

So the UV development cycle "effectively ended quite a while ago." I realize they're different games, but I thought UV and WitP still shared the same engine? If AGEOD can retro-improve it's old games w/each new release, why not import WitP improvements to CF?


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 394
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 5:48:47 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff
It's beyond my feeble thought processes how a new game, which is what CF will be, can ignore faults of the old one that it's built on.  It's sort of like saying that the lesson learned from the Titanic that the new bulkheads on that ship were OK even though they didn't rise to the deck level above them.  Do you think it was a fatal design flaw?
Leave known faults of UV in CF and it's a deal breaker for me also.  Promises of fixing it in future patches will result in my waiting to see.


I think you guys have misunderstood me. I'm not discussing whether things can be fixed in CF, but whether any fixes in CF can be effectively ported back to UV as a patch. UV's development is effectively at an end, CF's is still in progress. UV received a heck of a lot of development attention in its time.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 395
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 8:02:20 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
OK, I understand and agree that UV was supported for many years after it's release.  I even understand that V2.5 was the final patch for UV and can't gripe about that despite disappointment that bugs remain.  What I and others are concerned about are the known bugs that remain in UV and the hope that they're not imported to CF. 



_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 396
RE: I hope Martix reads this - 8/13/2008 8:54:52 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
The goal is not to carry over any outstanding issues into CF, which is a new project, but given that it's headed off in a new direction it's just not clear whether it will be possible to carry any fixes backward to UV by the time it's released.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 397
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 1:39:33 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

just a little side note on "unrealistic things": why it is impossible in UV to deploy B25 Mitchell bombers on YORKTOWN class carriers...?!?! It was indeed done in RL And that it was done is more than sufficient documented...

very excited what this gets up



According to " The Hamlyn Consise Guide to American Aircraft of World War 2" :-

" For this attack 16 modified aircraft, with an autopilot, fuel tankage increased by more than 60% to 1,141 US gallons ( 4,319 litres ) and the ventral gun turret and Norden bombsight removed, took off from the carrier USS Hornet for an 800 mile ( 1,287 km ) flight to their targets at Tokyo, Kobe, Yokohama and Nagoya, flying on to China where most force-landed."

I guess it's to do with modeling those modifications.

On another note, several of the larger Japanese submarines ( approx. 13 ( I-7 to I-11 & I-15 to I-35 ) ) carried float-planes ( Yokosuka E14Y ( Glen ) ).
These are not in the game either, although they did several reconnaissance missions with them over Pearl Harbour, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Madagascar and the Aleutians, albeit only Australia is in our "area".

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 398
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 2:33:42 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl



(Edited for the sake of civility).


Did you know that when each post is listed the original goes to those subscribing rather than the edited version? I'll temper my reply due to that change though.


quote:

I'm just curious about the parameters of your logical system here. Is it a kind of Dadaist logic in which wholly unrelated things are presumed to be causally juxtaposed because of the disharmonious or possibly absurd imagery they evoke? Or is it more like a kind of Postmodernist Logic in which the heretofore complete absence of any specific mention, by myself, of Michelle Foucault is proof of Foucault's universal-pervasiveness?




quote:


Anyone could get lucky I suppose, assuming that they, in fact, did that. According to a number of sources (here I offer "Aircraft of WWII" by Stewart Wilson) "The Gekko was initially employed in the South-west and Central pacific where it was effective agianst the B-24 Liberator but not fast enough to trouble the B-29 Superfortress when employed in the home dfence role. Most ended their days as Kamikaze aircraft."

By which I take it that Wilson (like several other sources) regards the JnN1-Sa as strategically ineffectual against B-29s. In my view the Gekko was a poor design and not terribly good even as a night fighter. In part because its successes were few and far between, and also because pretty much every source regards it as a poor entry for the type. But as I noted before. A B-17 here. A B-24 there. Anyone can get lucky.



Many heavy Bombers including B-17's, B-24's & B-29's were lost to the Japanese during the war.
From :- http://jpgleize.club.fr/aces/ww2hbj.htm :-

Table: Japanese heavy bomber killers in WW2

First Name Name Heavies Total Ww2 Note

Fujitaro ITO 13 13 Ki-45 pilot, 1944.
Nagao SHIRAI 11 13
Akihiko KOBAYASHI 10 14 Ki-61 ace, Tokyo, 44-45.
Chuichi ICHIKAWA 9 10
Sachio ENDO 8 8 Night fighter ace.
Sadamitsu KIMURA 8 8 B-29 killer ace.
Shigetoshi KUDO 8 9 J1N1 night fighter ace.
Isamu KASHIIDE 7 7 Ki-45 ace / 4-engine killer
Makoto OGAWA 7 9 Ki-44 B-29-killer ace 44-45
Yuzo KURAMOTO 6 6 Gekko, B-29 killer, 1945.
Shiro KUROTORI 6 6 Gekko night fighter ace.
Nobuji NEGISHI 6 6 Night fighter Ki-45 ace.
Chuwa N. OZAKI 6 19
Isamu SASAKI 6 38 Burma.
Bunichi YAMAGUCHI 6 19
Yoshio YOSHIDA 6 7 Ki-44 B-29-killer ace.
Hannoshin NISHIO 5 5 B-29 hunter ace.
Satoru ONO 5 5
Tadao SUMI 5 6 B-29 killer ace.
Kaneyoshi MUTO 4 23 A5M ace, China, 1937.
------- --------
142 231
------- --------

Totals added by me. All shown above were Aces. Non Ace kills unlisted / unknown. ( EDIT. Apologies for the way the table turned out folks, all my spaces got lost by the matrix system. )
See also the following which confirms several elements of this table :-

From:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_J1N

"The J1N1-S was used against B-29s in Japan, though the lack of good radar and insufficient high-altitude performance handicapped it, since usually only one pass could be made against the higher speed B-29 bombers. However, some skillful pilots had spectacular successes, such as Lt. Sachio Endo, who was credited with destroying eight B-29s and damaging another eight before he was shot down by a B-29 crew, Shigetoshi Kudo (9 victories), Shiro Kuratori (6 victories), and Juzo Kuramoto (8 victories); the last two claimed five B-29s during the night of 25-26 May, 1945. Another Gekko crew shot down five B-29's in one night, but these successes were rare."





< Message edited by DEB -- 8/16/2008 8:31:38 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 399
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 2:48:03 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The P-70 was a p.o.s. The J1N was another p.o.s. The P-70 was the first of the two with airborne radar. It did not require searchlight assistance from the ground. It carried its own light. Considering that it was bascally an A-20 with some cannons, its failure is no great surprise. The only really good night fighters of the war were purpose built as such, not pathetic conversions (in the P-70s case from a decent ground attack bomber, in the J1N's case from a decent photorecce/trainer).



The Japs used a small plane mounted searchlight too ( sometimes ). See below:-

( From :- http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/nakajima_j1n.php )

"This version, the J1N1-S, entered production in August 1943 and continued until December 1944, during which period a total of 420 J1Ns were produced, the great majority of them J1N1-S night-fighters. These differed from the earlier reconnaissance version in having the crew reduced from three to two, the observer's cockpit being eliminated and faired over; all aircraft retained the upward-firing cannon, but the downward firing guns (found difficult to aim and seldom used) were omitted from later aircraft, while a third upper gun and a forward-firing 20mm cannon was fitted in the J1N1-Sa. Rudimentary centimetric AI radar was installed in the nose and some aircraft also carried a small nose searchlight."

This information ( and specifically the last sentence ) is confirmed by Japanese Aircraft of WW2 by R.J. Francillon ( of which I have a copy ).

From:- http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/night/nightpg5.htm

"Since the British had been converting Douglas Boston attack bombers to night fighters since 1940, it seemed logical to fill the gap left by the “Night Interceptor Pursuit Airplane” project with the night version of the Boston, known as the Havoc. The RAF had also fitted some Havocs with a powerful searchlight to illuminate enemy aircraft and allow accompanying Hurricane day fighters to attack. Renamed the Turbinlite, these aircraft proved ineffective because the searchlight blinded everyone in the area, friend and foe alike."

This says the searchlight was added to RAF "P-70"aircraft.There is no such comment on the US P-70's information ( as shown on a previous post - same source, different page ).


quote:

No one would construe the J1N1-s as remotely comparable to late war radar guided Allied night fighters. They weren't. They stank.



From :- http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/night/nightpg12.htm ( and other pages )

The 16 WW2 US NF squadrons are credited with 158 kills. 70 of these were by the 10 squadrons serving in the Pacific ( 44% of kills with 62.5% of Squadrons ).

This breaks down as follows ( Pacific ) :-

P-70 : 2 , P-38 : 1 ( trial by 6th NFS ), P-61 : 67.

The 10 Pacific squadrons served a total of 148 months during WW2. This equates to 0.473 kills per month each on average. This also equates to 0.047 of a kill per squadron per month.
The P-61's had 2 aces @ 5 each.

From :- http://www.acesofww2.com/japan/Japan.htm

Shows 45 Japanese night fighter kills by Aces alone ( although this should be t/a 39 as two were Pilot & Navigator/Observer in the same aircraft ), these were between approx. 12 squadrons ( source :- Japanese Aircraft of WW2 by R.J. Francillon ) using the Irving ( 6 ) & Nick ( 6 ) night fighters. This equates to 3.55 kills per squadron each on average ( P-61: 6.7 ). A split by type of aircraft is unknown / unavailable, as is the months of service per Japanese Squadron.
Many of these kills were against B-24's & B-29's. Aces listed is 6 ( discounting the know navigator/observer combination).

I guestimate however that the Nick was in service for some 80 months in total, and the Irving 100 months, ( source :- production figures from Japanese Aircraft of WW2 by R.J. Francillon ).
This would equate to 0.22 kills per month on average ( P-61: 0.473 ) and 0.018 kills per month per squadron ( P-61 : 0.047 ).

It is not known however, how many other kills were made by other pilots, as squadron information cannot be traced. ( Such information would decrease the difference between the two aircraft. ) Indeed any information here is very difficult to trace:-

From :- http://usfighter.tripod.com/hiroyoshi_nishizawa2.htm

"The Japanese did not encourage the tallying of individual scores, being more inclined toward honoring a team effort by units. As with the French and Italians, Japanese victories were officially counted for the air group, not for individuals. Generally, attempts to verify personal claims by Japanese airmen can only be conducted from postwar examinations of their letters and diaries, or those of their comrades."

The above shows that the P-61 was a maximum of approx. 2 times more efficient than the Irving / Nick ( proberly due to it's radar advantage ).
It also shows your " They stank" is an exaggeration ( as usual ).
The P-70 was however, approx. a minimum of 5 times worse ( despite it's radar "advantage"). Now that does stink ( to use your phrase ).
Note however, that in UV, P-61's are not available at commencement, or as replacements/reinforcements ( unless you "employ" the game editor ).

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 400
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 3:04:32 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
OK, here is another question. Actually, I must credit IKE with this one, as he brought this up in an email exchange we had about this a while back..... is there a straightforward process to adjust planes in the editor ( which I cannot even find, but I am not that computer literate). He had suggested going in and removing a pair of .50 cals from the F4u's. Maybe adjust some other planes as well.

As for the comment that this cannot be looked at, as the cycle for this game is over, I think it a very poor reflection upon Matrix. We ar4e talking about simple plane value adjustments. I would think that it would be as simple as going in, adding value to early Allied fighters, lowering vaules of later ones, and posting a patch for download. That is unless CF is intended to replace this game.


(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 401
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 3:06:23 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

I would think these kills are confirmed as it list the serial number of the planes claimed along with nickname.


I don't believe any "confirmed kills" if there is a unit record available for the unit whose plane was allegedly shot down. If some history has examined the unit record for the unit whose plane was allegedly shot down and matches a "confirmed kill" to a plane that did not return, that meets a good standard.


Verification of kills has been looked at by lots of people since WW2. Current figures are as good as people can get considering the records available. Whereas your point is reasonable, it also comes across as cynical re Japanese sources.

Note the Americans could be over enthusiastic with their claims, as shown below ( although I suspect all nations were ). From :- http://usfighter.tripod.com/hiroyoshi_nishizawa2.htm :-

"The 251st Ku. returned to Rabaul on May 7, 1943, and resumed operations over New Guinea and the Solomons. Among the Zeros known to have been flown by Nishizawa during that time was an A6M3 Type 22 with the tail code UI-105. On May 14, 32 Zeros of the 251st Ku. escorted 18 G4M bombers of the 751st Ku. on a large raid to Oro Bay, New Guinea. They were met by P-40s and new Lockheed P-38 Lightnings of the 49th Fighter Group. A confused dogfight took place, during which the Japanese claimed 13 Americans (five of them admitted to be probables), while the 49th Group claimed 11 G4M "Bettys" (Allied code term for the bombers) and 10 of their "Zeke" escorts. The actual result was that six G4Ms failed to return to their base at Kavieng, New Ireland, and four returned damaged, while the 251st Ku. lost no pilots at all."

Here the American pilots were only 28.6% accurate. Ok, so the actual American losses are unknown, and a comparison cannot be made in this instance. It is however, unsafe for anyone to suggest the Japanese figures are inaccurate, whilst also considering that the Allies figures are accurate.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 402
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 3:26:14 AM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

OK, here is another question. Actually, I must credit IKE with this one, as he brought this up in an email exchange we had about this a while back..... is there a straightforward process to adjust planes in the editor ( which I cannot even find, but I am not that computer literate). He had suggested going in and removing a pair of .50 cals from the F4u's. Maybe adjust some other planes as well.


There is a "straight-forward" process in the editor, however the system is not good at "reading" the revised saved scenario re aircraft information ( per IKE99 ). Therefore I am uncertain if it is worth trying.

To find editor, path as follows :- Start, Programs, Matrix Games, Uncommon Valour, UV Campaign Editor ; OR , Start, Programs, Uncommon Valour, UV Campaign Editor. ( Which depends on where you put it at set up. )

quote:

As for the comment that this cannot be looked at, as the cycle for this game is over, I think it a very poor reflection upon Matrix. We ar4e talking about simple plane value adjustments. I would think that it would be as simple as going in, adding value to early Allied fighters, lowering vaules of later ones, and posting a patch for download. That is unless CF is intended to replace this game.



You would think so, would you not. HPS Simulations still update their games periodically, including one copyrighted in 2003 ( same as UV ).


< Message edited by DEB -- 8/14/2008 3:27:11 AM >

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 403
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 8:10:50 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
The planes on the Doolittle Raid had their Norden bombsights removed because they were top secret instruments of war and the US was afraid of them falling into enemy hands.  Truly a joke since airmen of the USAAC didn't seem to think to much of this "precision" sight.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 404
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/14/2008 8:11:49 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Thanks for the fast responses Eric.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 405
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/15/2008 2:12:32 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
to me, this is like admitting " yes, we know our product is defective, but we have moved on. P.S., thanks for your money"


Good points on the Norton sight. My grandfather served a tour in the 8th air force as a ball turret gunner and lived to talk about it. I remember him telling my how the commanders over there would always talk about how great it was. The crews did not think it nearly as good in combat as in testing/training.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 406
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/15/2008 3:53:24 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

OK, here is another question. Actually, I must credit IKE with this one, as he brought this up in an email exchange we had about this a while back..... is there a straightforward process to adjust planes in the editor ( which I cannot even find, but I am not that computer literate). He had suggested going in and removing a pair of .50 cals from the F4u's. Maybe adjust some other planes as well.


Yes you can set the number of guns to what you like in the editor. The problem comes in though for units that follow the upgrade path and upgrade to Corsair. Units that upgrade to Corsair would come in with the default six .50CAL. guns I believe. I think that part of it is hardcoded.

Hmmm..I think I may look into this and see if I can´t come up with a ¨Corsair Mod¨





Attachment (1)

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 407
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/15/2008 4:07:47 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I will chip in for the R&D expences, how much does it cost to ship a case of beer internationally? Any issues with customs?

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 408
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/15/2008 1:04:44 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Yes there are customs issues with importing goods, especially to tax crazy Brazil.  Though if you were to ship the beer of my choice I could live with paying customs fees.  

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 409
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/16/2008 1:46:49 PM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I would ask if they had Budwiser down there, but seeing as it got bought by a foreign comapny, it's really no longer a "US" beer

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 410
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/16/2008 6:16:01 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Bud is nothing more than belly wash.  It's not really a beer.  Learn from the Czechs, Germans, etc how to brew a beer.......

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 411
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/17/2008 4:42:40 AM   
ILCK

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2004
Status: offline
Can you not adjust the maneuver, armor and durability values? Those would seem to be the core of the issue. I'd think a general adjustment of all planes towards a middle ground might help a lot since the Zero->All pre-Hellcat allied plane and the F4U->All Japanese planes gaps could be closed down a lot.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 412
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/17/2008 3:43:10 PM   
timetraveller

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
Newby here, hi guys. Been following the forum for a few weeks since I got UV. Good stuff in here. Great game.

Have done a lot of modding of other games, and lately have made some graphics changes to my UV game, since it doesn't look like there is a lot of other opportunity for hardcore modding of this game.

In the editor, it doesn't look like the F4U's armor or ammo can be changed, as the boxes are grayed out, which looks to be true of all aircraft that I've seen so far. No category for changing durability or maneuverability seems to exist.

Someone recently suggested reducing the number of guns from 6 to 4, which would probably help. The only other way I can see to reduce the air group's performance is to lower the group's starting experience or moral. Might also be possible to increase its starting damage factor from 0 to something higher, though this obviously creates other problems.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on the topic at hand. During game design, I wish they had put all these factors in a file somewhere where they could be modified at will by the modding community. I've been through most of the game files with a hex editor, but I don't see any further way of modding parameters.

Bill


(in reply to ILCK)
Post #: 413
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/17/2008 4:09:21 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
The UV editor, unlike the one in WITP, doesn't allow the gamer the opportunity to adjust ratings of platforms.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to timetraveller)
Post #: 414
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/19/2008 4:12:50 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

I would ask if they had Budwiser down there, but seeing as it got bought by a foreign comapny, it's really no longer a "US" beer


Yes we have Budeweiser, plus some I´m thinking you´re not familiar with.

However beer makes one fat, I propose a bottle of wine...with a hundred pushups.




(in reply to borner)
Post #: 415
RE: unrealistic air combat... - 8/19/2008 11:11:13 AM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
I think knocking 2 or 3 maneuver and a point of armour off the F4U would make a big difference, but as has been mentioned you cannot alter these stats with the editor.


(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 416
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 12 13 [14]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: I hope Martix reads this Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 13 [14]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984