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: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting

 
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: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/2/2009 9:08:09 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Nope. No email or file from you.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 31
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/2/2009 7:37:00 PM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline 		Ok, call me a cynic if you wish; but it has occurred to me that this may just be a subtle way to fix those bugs in CF that have been carried forward from UV, with significantly less effort than would otherwise be the case. I'll apologise now if that proves to be wrong.

Either way, lets hope we will get a UV patch in due course.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 32
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/3/2009 4:19:51 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		Hey DEB, I will admit the thought has crossed my mind and other I have exchanged emails with. I do honestly hope the talk of a patch is genunie

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 33
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/3/2009 10:22:55 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		What I would consider a bug: TBD Devastator receive replacement aircraft although they were out of production since 1939. By 1941 the Navy had just about 100 operational TBD out of 130 produced, Midway reduced this to ~40 TBD available.
The P400 should not receive replacements as well, the USAAF got hands on about 200 aircraft in Dec 1941 and all were assigned to the pacific or used in training squadrons in 1941/1942. If you consider them as being replaced in the training squadrons and sent to the pacific then assign them an end date in autumn/late 1942.

I remember sometimes having problems with cargo/transport TF if a disbanded TF was recreated. If recreated in the same port they may still have loading orders or target orders from the previous TF with the same number. If recreated in other ports these TF may go somewhere but not to their target. Or they do funny things like travelling to their target empty or only half-loaded, especially a problem if this TF is on a Constant supply mission. Maybe the status/orders are sometimes not fully cleared if a TF is disbanded.

It looks like there's still a black hole sometimes eating parts of a land unit loaded onto transport ships or aircraft. If a partial unit is lost underway (aircraft shot down, ship damaged or lost) they sometimes fail to come back. They are then neither listed as partial replacement unit nor are they coming back as via standard replacements. I remember seeing units having their standard strength reduced by the amount of troops eaten by the black hole (Unit shows up as full strength, no equipment missing/lost/disabled, although not at full strength. This may or may not appear to air units, too. I have to check my savegames if there are still some saves around with this bug present.

Playing 2.50, human vs computer.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 34
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/4/2009 8:53:26 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline 		Can you clarify yourself Nomad because I´m confused with your method of bug reporting.

quote:

2/22/2009

Nomad-As far as other 'bugs' I haven't really seen any...Note, that I did not play UV for 2 or 3 years and then last year I played 5 or 6 games with no problems that spoiled my game.


quote:

8/18/2008

Nomad-Sorry to say this game has come to an end. Two turns later I had a turn where most of my TFs didn't move, some took off to Truk and some proceded on to Rockhampton. We tried it again and 5 TFs headed for Truk, 4 TFs didn;t move and the rest were strung out from Rockhampton. Needless to say, Todd bombed most of them. I have seen this bug before, but never to this degree.

Tocaff-There is no winner of this game only 2 losers.

My recon showed what Nomad claimed and we went back and tried it again to no avail. A bug that won't let go killed this game, not people.


@Miller, I´ve never rerun turns to change results. Not possible, as far as I know.

Bug reporting, no save needed. Try it. Works everytime.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 35
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 12:02:38 AM   
bushman777

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 3/13/2003
Status: offline 		I have tried in the last couple of months to get back into this game playing against the ai to get my head around how the game works, but there are so many bugs that I come across it is hard to remember them all. I do a lot of saving and replaying a turn to work around the bugs, but I am giving up. The 2 bugs that annoy me the most are the following:

1- The Jap carrier tf cap fly at 155 or more planes during the 7 or more strikes I make in a turn with my carrier tf, where my cap starts out decently and then drops off to zero or only a couple of planes.

2- My land based bombers and fighter/bombers will not attack any Jap carrier tf's no matter how many times I try, where the Jap land based aircraft have no problem attacking my carrier tf's.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 36
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 12:23:04 AM   
Ike99


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

1- The Jap carrier tf cap fly at 155 or more planes during the 7 or more strikes I make in a turn with my carrier tf, where my cap starts out decently and then drops off to zero or only a couple of planes.

2- My land based bombers and fighter/bombers will not attack any Jap carrier tf's no matter how many times I try, where the Jap land based aircraft have
no problem attacking my carrier tf's.


1-Morale, Fatigue, or both.

2-If the target is not the Target set for the air unit, then the expected enemy CAP must not be too great for the expected escorts to handle.

(roughly 1 escort is needed for every 2 CAP, but the ratio is greater for escorts for longer range missions).

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 3/5/2009 12:24:16 AM >

(in reply to bushman777)
Post #: 37
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 11:30:07 AM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		Hi Mike
Thank you for your commitment.
UV has been a long time favorite of mine since I purchased it in 2003. It's certainly a great product that has come a long way.
There are some issues though, that have finally almost put me off.

Here's two that I remember:

Both are:

1) Game version 2.50
2) PBEM

a) Betties from Lunga attack small TF's (AK, AP, TK) docked in Noumea repeatedly, disregarding heavy CAP - WITHOUT any escorts, beyond standard range. They get slaughtered and attack again and again and again...
I think you explained that TF's with CAP will not be attacked by unprotected bombers. But hey, this should work for docked TF's and land based CAP as well...

b) A "Bombardment" TF (best commander, set to "Patrol/Do not retire", good fuel and ammo level) attacks its target at night. Somehow the AI automatically changes the settings afterwards to "Surface Combat" and "Retirement allowed" and the TF charges out of the hex, a carefully set-up CAP and into total destruction by a (known) enemy Air Combat TF six hexes away.

Save files? No way! This happened about 18 months ago in a PBEM. Definitly frustrating.

Thanks for reading.
Chris

< Message edited by Christof -- 3/5/2009 11:34:43 AM >

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 38
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 12:00:00 PM   
Kingfisher

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/16/2008
Status: offline 		A) I can agree with, as I have seen plenty of examples myself, but B) I'm not sure I understand your problem. The TF has performed its mission, so it would seem logical to have it return to its default setting and sail back to base.

BTW, why set a bombardment TF to patrol/do not retire when you know an air combat TF is only 6 hexes away? Why send them in at all?

_____________________________

"splendid was their tactic of diving upon our force from the direction of the sun, taking advantage of intermittent clouds"

-Captain Takahisa Amagai, KAGA, June 4th 1942

(in reply to Christof)
Post #: 39
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 1:58:30 PM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

B) I'm not sure I understand your problem. The TF has performed its mission, so it would seem logical to have it return to its default setting and sail back to base.

BTW, why set a bombardment TF to patrol/do not retire when you know an air combat TF is only 6 hexes away? Why send them in at all?


Hi.

Well, two reasons why it should not revert to any other setting:
- You want another bombardment attack during daylight (there's always enough ammo to attack twice)
- You want to stay in that hex, because you have a strong Air Combat TF with plenty of CAP there.

In my case I bombarded PM at the beginning of an invasion. KB was present with 100+ crack fighter pilots overhead. PM airfield was dead. Enemy AC TF was stationed about 6 hexes away from GG, trying to snatch some transports.
My BB's retired - directly into the mouth of the US CV's. Some great fireworks....

Well, I don't have a problem that a TF changes mission type - after concluding a mission. But an order "Do not retire" should not automatically overwritten.

My 2 cents.
Chris

(in reply to Kingfisher)
Post #: 40
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 2:21:03 PM   
Ike99


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

a) Betties from Lunga attack small TF's (AK, AP, TK) docked in Noumea repeatedly, disregarding heavy CAP - WITHOUT any escorts, beyond standard range. They get slaughtered and attack again and again and again...

I can agree with, as I have seen plenty of examples myself.


I agree too, there is no doubt this happens and happens often. Also it is worth mentioning from Lunga to Noumea is at the Betty extended range so they will not carry their torpedoes. You´re throwing stones.

Impossible for the Japanese to control the sea area around Lunga using this base because the bombers will fly all the way to Noumea unescorted to be destroyed easily.

They should only be able to target ships with no CAP, or those within the range of friendly escorting Zeros based at Lunga with the Bombers.

It is supposed to work this way, as the game book says but it does not.


See this recent post and borner can confirm...

My new Betty squadron fly into a Allied CAP of 247 fighters!!...unescorted.

post no.153
0 to 247




< Message edited by Ike99 -- 3/5/2009 2:29:31 PM >

(in reply to Christof)
Post #: 41
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 10:41:16 PM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		Hi Mike.
Two more... and this time I do have the save files.

Save 1: A lone B-17 on a naval search mission finds CV Junyo, part of KB. It attacks and hits CV Junyo, putting app. 30 sys damage on her, completly disregarding any CAP and AA.

Save 2: Please review target selection routine.
USN player has several AC TF's in one hex. One IJN strike severely hits CV Hornet.
A second strikes comes in and penetrates CAP, but then attacks same TF. No CV is present anymore (sunk). Most planes just report "cannot locate target" and return. There are at least three more CV's in the same hex...

Save files are on the way.
Cheers,
Chris



(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 42
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 10:41:55 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

a) Betties from Lunga attack small TF's (AK, AP, TK) docked in Noumea repeatedly, disregarding heavy CAP - WITHOUT any escorts, beyond standard range. They get slaughtered and attack again and again and again...

I can agree with, as I have seen plenty of examples myself.


I agree too, there is no doubt this happens and happens often. Also it is worth mentioning from Lunga to Noumea is at the Betty extended range so they will not carry their torpedoes. You´re throwing stones.

Impossible for the Japanese to control the sea area around Lunga using this base because the bombers will fly all the way to Noumea unescorted to be destroyed easily.

They should only be able to target ships with no CAP, or those within the range of friendly escorting Zeros based at Lunga with the Bombers.

It is supposed to work this way, as the game book says but it does not.

See this recent post and borner can confirm...

My new Betty squadron fly into a Allied CAP of 247 fighters!!...unescorted.

post no.153
0 to 247



Usually allied 2e bombers run away from high cap. Is this a code issue where the Betties ignore cap in their launch calculations (somewhat like allied 4e bombers) or is it just because of their relatively high experience and morale?

At least this led to the 'set range' mechanism that was introduced in WitP.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 43
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/5/2009 11:42:00 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


At least this led to the 'set range' mechanism that was introduced in WitP.




what I was thinking. We need some alignment to limit the range of a particular squadron to a particular maximum. This would be of HUGE help controlling (and saving) your LBA assets.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 44
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/6/2009 3:11:17 AM   
bushman777

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 3/13/2003
Status: offline
1-Morale, Fatigue, or both.

2-If the target is not the Target set for the air unit, then the expected enemy CAP must not be too great for the expected escorts to handle.

(roughly 1 escort is needed for every 2 CAP, but the ratio is greater for escorts for longer range missions).




1 - I have at least 4 bomber groups with at least 70 morale and next to nothing in fatigue and experience is around 70 or higher.

2 - I am not sure what you mean be target set as I cannot target tf's.

Thanks for the feedback though.

< Message edited by bushman777 -- 3/6/2009 3:12:34 AM >

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 45
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/6/2009 3:25:17 AM   
Ike99


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

2 - I am not sure what you mean be target set as I cannot target tf's.



I am not either, I just quote the game book.

This is not important though as I have said and others, the game book does not follow the ¨roughly 1 escort is needed for every 2 CAP, but the ratio is greater for escorts for longer range missions¨ anyways.

Many unescorted missions.

(in reply to bushman777)
Post #: 46
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/6/2009 11:23:04 AM   
Kingfisher

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/16/2008
Status: offline 		One other thing that should be looked at is how replenishment at sea is handled. Based on what I've seen it appears the bigger ships in a TF do not top off even though the tankers have plenty on hand.

Look here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1943952&mpage=1&key=replenishment�


_____________________________

"splendid was their tactic of diving upon our force from the direction of the sun, taking advantage of intermittent clouds"

-Captain Takahisa Amagai, KAGA, June 4th 1942

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 47
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/10/2009 7:00:43 PM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		Hi Mike.

Did you have a chance to look at the files I send you last week?
Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thank you.
Chris

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 48
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 3/11/2009 9:18:46 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Not yet.

(in reply to Christof)
Post #: 49
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 4/21/2009 9:17:18 AM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		February 09:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood
Hello...

Matrix Games announced that patch 2.50 would be the last for this game. I did the final patch, 2.50 and fixed all the known bugs, but I would be happy to fix any remaining bugs in UV.


March 09:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Not yet.


April 09: ?


(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 50
failure to communicate - 4/21/2009 3:48:47 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline 		failure to communicate

(in reply to Christof)
Post #: 51
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 4/25/2009 10:15:51 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Hello...

In your first save, your assumption that the B-17 attacked, "completly disregarding any CAP and AA" was incorrect. The combat air patrol missed it and although the ships fired at it, none hit. Traced through the code and it worked as programmed. It would have been clearer, if I had printed messages to the screen. For the sake of execution, messages for air search combat are limited.

In your second save, flights were assigned a target that was sinking. That's the way the game works. No bug.

Bye...

Michael Wood


uv001_CombatSave__06_25_42.uvs
Version 2.5
PBEM
Please review routine for naval search:
A lone B-17 on a naval search mission finds CV Junyo, part of KB. It attacks and hits CV Junyo, putting app. 30 sys damage on her, completly disregarding any CAP and AA.

uv001_CombatSave__07_01_42.uvs
Version 2.5
PBEM
Please review naval target selection routine:
USN player has several AC TF's in one hex. One IJN strike severely hits CV Hornet.
A second strikes comes in and penetrates CAP, but then attacks same TF. No CV is present anymore (sunk). Most planes just report "cannot locate target" and return. There are at least three more CV's in the same hex...

Let me know what you think

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christof

Hi Mike.

Did you have a chance to look at the files I send you last week?
Your feedback is much appreciated.

Thank you.
Chris


(in reply to Christof)
Post #: 52
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 4/25/2009 12:59:31 PM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		Hi Mike.

First of all - thank you for taking the time to look into this and then type an answer on this forum. I appreciate that.

Let me post a few thoughts regarding what you explained.

a) I understand you are telling me that none of the highlighted "problems" have been bugs, but are "design features" instead.

b) You have labelled us gamers "control freaks" a few times on this forum.
Personnally I don't want to control everything on the board. What I really want is that the results of the programming to be more or less in line with what has or might have happened in reality. That's why we play "historical simulations" in the first place, right?

c) Both issues I posted seem hilarious to me.
Ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?
- A lone B-17 hitting a - non docked - fast carrier with a bomb from 10.000 feet altitute?
- A full deckload of planes approaching a sinking target, with plenty of other more valuable targets around, turning tail and flying home?

Technically you might be correct: "Design Feature", therefore no reason to act.

All I can say is that now I do have some big question marks concerning any future developments - Carrier Force or other - to contain the same sort of comparable "Features" that will severly limit my ability to enjoy the product.

Thank you once again.
Cheers,
Chris

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 53
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 4/25/2009 6:08:48 PM   
Ike99


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

Hello...

In your first save, your assumption that the B-17 attacked, "completly disregarding any CAP and AA" was incorrect. The combat air patrol missed it and although the ships fired at it, none hit. Traced through the code and it worked as programmed. It would have been clearer, if I had printed messages to the screen. For the sake of execution, messages for air search combat are limited.

In your second save, flights were assigned a target that was sinking. That's the way the game works. No bug.

Bye...

Michael Wood


quote:

All I can say is that now I do have some big question marks concerning any future developments - Carrier Force or other - to contain the same sort of comparable "Features" that will severly limit my ability to enjoy the product.

Save 1: A lone B-17 on a naval search mission finds CV Junyo, part of KB. It attacks and hits CV Junyo, putting app. 30 sys damage on her, completly disregarding any CAP and AA.


I don´t know the details of what Christof is saying but Mike, Naval Search does not work correctly. I can´t see anyway a single B17 on a search mission could penetrate a 6 fleet carrier task force with 150 Zeros flying a CAP over it and score a hit, and at 100 altitude too.

This happens in UV when the Allied bomber crews gain experience after some months. After 4 months of flying the naval search mission they are hitting EVERYTHING out to extended range floating. CAP or no CAP.

See Nomad vs Bigbabba AAR..

quote:

this 4E on naval search hit everything and no CAP or AA fire can hit them. can you do something about them, ken?


What bigbabba says here is almost totally correct.

Now he exagerate some, sometimes they will be hit by flak but this rair and the flak seems much less effective no matter what ships are in the task force. I don´t see CAP effecting these 4E naval search missions at all.

I also tested this from the allied side and the crews flying the naval search missions, do not gain any substantial fatigue. They are flying many hours over open ocean searching, hundreds of miles, they hit all the way out to extended range and then their fatigue is 15?! They do this day after day no problem.

The entire naval search system needs reworked.

You said you are playing a PBEM?, if you are the Allies put all your bombers on Naval Search for 4 months and you will be hitting a huge percentage of every Japanese ship sailing down from Truk.

Do this and you´ll understand the problem.

< Message edited by Ike99 -- 4/25/2009 6:20:05 PM >

_____________________________

¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 54
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 4/26/2009 12:04:04 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline 		Here is a good example, my last turn with Bigred. I go through his Carrier TF CAP, through his Land based fighters CAP and score a hit.

I´m exploiting this ¨design feature¨

This needs changed.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 55
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 4/26/2009 2:43:17 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Hello...

Although you seem displeased, I appreciate your measured response. Not all forum posters are capable of such.

a) I am glad you understand. At this point, game design changes for Uncommon Valor are not possible. Resources are not available for that purpose. However, as I am currently working on a related game, I do consider design concerns.

b) Well, I am a control freak, even if no one else here is. Not sure that Uncommon Valor is so much a simulation as it is a game. The distinction is one of granularity (our flight model, for instance is much more of a game model than a flight simulator). In a one day turn, it is not easy to know where in the hex each ship is. Three carriers might be in the open, while a fourth might be hiding in a squall, when the enemy bombers show up. The carriers might be ready for the attack or might be launching the first flights and have bombs and torpedoes all over the deck. A superior naval force might be spread out all over the hex in a night attack and be defeated piecemeal. Reading of military history has shown me that wild, ridiculous, unbelievable occurrences are more the rule than the exception. If the battle of Leyte Gulf occurred in a game as it did in history, the Japanese player would immediately be online complaining that the game was not realistic!

c) There were several problems with the modeling of search aircraft in Uncommon Valor and War in the Pacific. Due to scale and need of speed of execution, they were very difficult to address. More than a small amount of time and effort went into producing the existing model. But, limitations of the model are known to the developers and there are a number of changes which could not be made in previous games, which will apply in Carrier Force:

- Fewer planes will be searching a given arc.
- The player will be able to launch more CAP and stagger the altitudes more appropriately to attack search aircraft, although that may reduce ability to intercept incoming strike missions.
- CAP will likely be able to attack the search plane more than once during interception process. Although if the search plane pilot can find a cloud or two to duck in and out of, he can be very difficult to eliminate. If he can duck out over the task force he might just plant one from Angels 10 or even Angels 20, depending on naval bombing skill and luck. A low morning fog near the task force might even let him approach unseen at 100 feet, with really good piloting skill.
- Improved weather modeling may reduce attack capacity. Of course, it may also reduce interception abilities.
- Improved pop-out information may allow players a better understanding of exactly what is happening.
- Importantly, air crews will have a different experience factor for searching than for bombing stationary targets or naval targets, so flying a lot of search missions will make crews keen eyed, not crack bombardiers. In fact, unarmed cargo planes can be used for search missions and could eventually get very good at finding enemy shipping, but not so good at bombing them with SPAM.
- Flights in CF will not select a target until a later phase, during execution. But, the message "cannot locate target", really means the ship is sinking and is a way of telling the players the ship sank. If Battle of Midway happened in the game, a number of flights would get that message, even though the ships took a couple hours to sink. In real life, they just dropped the bombs on them, anyway, because they weren't getting the pop-up. I may work on that for CF and let them drop the bombs.

Thanks for Your input...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christof

Hi Mike.

First of all - thank you for taking the time to look into this and then type an answer on this forum. I appreciate that.

Let me post a few thoughts regarding what you explained.

a) I understand you are telling me that none of the highlighted "problems" have been bugs, but are "design features" instead.

b) You have labelled us gamers "control freaks" a few times on this forum.
Personnally I don't want to control everything on the board. What I really want is that the results of the programming to be more or less in line with what has or might have happened in reality. That's why we play "historical simulations" in the first place, right?

c) Both issues I posted seem hilarious to me.
Ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?
- A lone B-17 hitting a - non docked - fast carrier with a bomb from 10.000 feet altitute?
- A full deckload of planes approaching a sinking target, with plenty of other more valuable targets around, turning tail and flying home?

Technically you might be correct: "Design Feature", therefore no reason to act.

All I can say is that now I do have some big question marks concerning any future developments - Carrier Force or other - to contain the same sort of comparable "Features" that will severly limit my ability to enjoy the product.

Thank you once again.
Cheers,
Chris


(in reply to Christof)
Post #: 56
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 4/27/2009 10:06:49 AM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		Hi there,
As a keen amateur naval air-warfare historian & former RAF pilot,  I would like to add my two-penneth.
Individual planes getting through massive CAP and AA fire completely un-detected were rare,  but I can think of three occasions in the Pacific War where this happened.
First was battle of Santa Cruz in October '42, where some Enterprise SBD's, actually on search & report, encountered (I think the IJN carrier Zuiho) and, completely undetected by CAP or spotters, managed to put a couple of 500lb bombs into its flight deck,  rendering it inoperable for the battle that was rapidly unfolding
Then there was the start of the Lete Gulf operations in late summer '44, where a determined sole D4Y Judy on search,  waiting patiently in cloud cover whilst the battle was raging around it,  finally got the opportunity and dive-bombed the Princeton just as it was starting to recover aircraft, put a small AP bomb through the flight-deck and was away before a shot could be fired.  This bomb started a series of cataclysmic fires until the Princeton's torpedo store went up with a might explosion,  completely destroying the ship and badly damaging the light cruiser Birmingham which had come alongside to assist.
Finally, in '45 there was the case of one of the British Armoured Carriers,  Illustrious (or might have been Indomitable), which, despite heavy CAP and multi-AA gunners with itchy trigger fingers,  was totally surprised by a loan Kamikaze - what seems more incredible is that his first dive was from the wrong position, so he pulled up, went around & then came in again, still nobody bothering to fire - according to reports I remember everyone was just so surprised the plane had appeared 'as if from nowhere' hitting the lift with major force but failing to inflict fatal damage (good old armoured flight deck)

Three examples of proof where individual planes could get through saturated CAP and AA kill-zones & cause completel surprise.  If anything,  saturating your defence with CAP seems no guarantee of a cast-iron defence or shield

Re strike planes coming back fully laden after failing to spot their allocated target because it was sinking/had already sunk though strikes me as a bit unrealistic - what about 'Targets of Opportunity'? Particularly if there were plenty of juicy alternative targets within visual range (ie same hex)

< Message edited by xj900uk -- 4/27/2009 10:08:58 AM >

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 57
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 12/9/2010 10:54:57 AM   
Ike99


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

_____________________________

¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 58
RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting - 12/10/2010 12:17:11 AM   
Ike99


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

ORIGINAL: borner

Yes, it is very hopeful. The editor would be great to allow us to adjust some things as well!


Mike, was my file received?


I doubt it. LOL

quote:

Joe Billings Yes, Mike Wood and Justin Prince both had real life interfere with their work on CF, so it's not going to happen.


_____________________________

¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 59
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

1.361