Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Silimarity with War in the South Pacific?

 
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 >> Silimarity with War in the South Pacific? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Silimarity with War in the South Pacific? - 5/28/2002 11:52:43 PM   
Jupo

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/28/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I looked Uncommon Valor screenshots etc. and I have noticed similarity with old 1984 released War In the South Pacific SSI game.

Does anyone know Is this Uncommon Valor based on that old game. At least it looks like same but ofcourse little bit better graphics.

About 10 years ago I sold that old C64 game with my C64 computer.. and about 4 years later i bought War in the south pacific game back and now days i have play it with my friend by using C64 emulator.

So if it's based on that old game, I must by it as soon as possible.

PS. does it have release date in Finland?

Edit: WISP release year was 1986 insted of 1984
Post #: 1
comparison to WITSP - 5/29/2002 12:32:11 AM   
Slaughtermeyer


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		It covers the same subject matter but also has the option to include 1943. It's more detailed, it has mine warfare and actual historical unit designations. The main difference is that WITSP has hourly order entry availability, whereas UV allows order entry only once every 24 hours. This results in a game with much a different feel, you feel much less in control in UV. You also don't get the satisfaction in UV of seeing your TF's gradually move to their destination, movement in UV is very jumpy because of the 24-hour turns. A lot can happen in 24 hours. Because you are forced in UV to continue operations for many hours that a sane commander would cancel or change based on the developing situation, the frustration level in UV is much higher, for me at least. The only reason I'd recommend getting UV is its PBEM capability, if you don't like PBEM then I would stick with WITSP.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 2
Um... - 5/29/2002 12:47:06 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Do you folks who want shorter turns really think Ghormley could pick up a line to Fletcher as a battle was starting, get a sitrep and just tell him what to do or how to change his plans? I'm afraid I don't understand the problem here. In my opinion, UV is not only accurate for its scale in terms of command level, but the need to turn local operations over to your commanders to some degree increases the suspense and immersiveness for me.

Recall also that this engine will scale up to the entire War in the Pacific. Can you imagine Nimitz intervening every hour or so to give commands during a carrier battle? Imagine playing out the entire war at that time scale...

I recognize some folks prefer tactical/micromanagement scales, but I really think the lack of minute control in UV (although it still has perhaps more than it should for this scale) is a positive rather than a problem. I can't count how many times I've been thankful that the designers gave me local commanders rather than making me do every last thing manually.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

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 Jupo)
Post #: 3
- 5/29/2002 12:47:47 AM   
Jupo

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/28/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		So basicaly 1, 4, 8 hour turns are changed to 24h turns and AI Fleet commaders are doing own movements against my will?

Are CV task force battles still biggest part of the game and does it give same kind of excitement to fight those CV task force battles like in WISP.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 4
Hm. - 5/29/2002 12:59:30 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

Check out the AARs sub-forum and read through a few of them. That should give you a pretty good feel for the game. You get to tell your TFs where to go and what to do - every 24 hours. Your local commanders are actually in charge of running combat ops in between your planning phases. However, you have a fair amount of control (i.e. setting mission priorities for squadrons and TFs, etc.)

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

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 Jupo)
Post #: 5
Re: Um... - 5/29/2002 1:01:00 AM   
Jupo

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/28/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]I recognize some folks prefer tactical/micromanagement scales, but I really think the lack of minute control in UV (although it still has perhaps more than it should for this scale) is a positive rather than a problem. I can't count how many times I've been thankful that the designers gave me local commanders rather than making me do every last thing manually.
- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]


Maybe biggest problem is that If AI is not doing what i want, it will loose some of my intrest.

In WISP when there was possible CV task force situation it was great fun to change direction of CV TF to get closer to enemy CV TF or if it seems that Japanes longer distance carrier planes were in attack range, but americans were not, them to make 180 decreese turn and avoid that attack or try to get closer in 1 turn to start carrier plane attack... against human player there was everytime something to change every 1 hour to make optimal attack against enemy CV TF.

But if those who have played WISP are sure that this game is worth of buying, I will buy it and test it. :)

PS. only best is good enought and WISP is one of the best games I ever played (ofcourse there is always M.U.L.E)

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 6
Re: Hm. - 5/29/2002 1:02:49 AM   
Jupo

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/28/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Jupo,

Check out the AARs sub-forum and read through a few of them. That should give you a pretty good feel for the game. You get to tell your TFs where to go and what to do - every 24 hours. Your local commanders are actually in charge of running combat ops in between your planning phases. However, you have a fair amount of control (i.e. setting mission priorities for squadrons and TFs, etc.)

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, I will read those.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 7
- 5/29/2002 1:10:16 AM   
Slaughtermeyer


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		In UV, you cannot for example as Americans order your CV task force commander to stay away from Betty range when hunting Jap CV's. I think if Nimitz ordered his CV TF commanders to stay away from Betty range regardless of how tempting an available target was, his subordinates would listen to him. Or they at least would radio Nimitz asking for permission to enter Betty range. As Nimitz in this game, you don't have that option.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 8
That's incorrect... - 5/29/2002 1:21:07 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

I think this is an issue of getting used to how to play the game rather than what the game can do. With all due respect, I have no problem giving my commanders orders to stay out of Betty range.

There's been discussion of a "React Range" so that the React orders could be used. However, setting that aside, the Do Not React orders in combination with the Patrol and Retire orders allow you to do the following:

- Set a hex, open ocean or otherwise for your TFs to stay in and patrol.
- Tell them not to react more than one or two hexes from their assigned hex.
- Tell them to get to the hex and then retire back towards their base, particularly if confronted by superior enemy forces.

Moreover, mixing and matching your local commander's aggressiveness with these options gives you even more variety as far as the responses you can expect. I've often reacted to enemy carrier TF sightings manually by retiring to extend range and get closer to my own LBA when I have enough warning to issue orders - but I've also had my commanders do it thanks the orders I gave them the previous day.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

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 Jupo)
Post #: 9
Re: Um... - 5/29/2002 1:30:53 AM   
IKerensky

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Do you folks who want shorter turns really think Ghormley could pick up a line to Fletcher as a battle was starting, get a sitrep and just tell him what to do or how to change his plans? I'm afraid I don't understand the problem here. In my opinion, UV is not only accurate for its scale in terms of command level, but the need to turn local operations over to your commanders to some degree increases the suspense and immersiveness for me.
- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

And of you do think it is normal that Mc Arthur send a line every day to all his ship to tell them how what portion of they air component need to be flying ? setting the CAP ? enquiring about the pilot stats and asking them to rest ?
Plotting the route of all and every convoy ? subs ?

Why is the problem of when we ask for a bit more control we are rebuffed as it isn't operationnal scale and when we ask for less control and more automation we are rebuffed too for the very sake of detail ?

Why did you provide us with the tactical command feeling but just keep it away from our grasp , is it a new Tantalus torture ?

Frankly if you want to keep us with those 24h turn , ok, but get away with all the micro management too !! If we cant orer our TF to react to the ennemy we haven't to order them how to use their air component too ! ( at last the rest/CAP part ).

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 10
Re: That's incorrect... - 5/29/2002 1:39:01 AM   
Slaughtermeyer


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Slaughtermeyer,


- Set a hex, open ocean or otherwise for your TFs to stay in and patrol.
- Tell them not to react more than one or two hexes from their assigned hex.
- Tell them to get to the hex and then retire back towards their base, particularly if confronted by superior enemy forces.

[/B][/QUOTE]

This would work and be appropriate if the Amercan carriers are SE of Guadalcanal and a weaker Jap CV force was approaching from the NW, but if the Jap force came from the NE (out of Betty support range), the logical thing to do would be to move more than two hexes to chase after them so the Japs won't be able to use their carrier plane range advantage.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 11
Reactions... - 5/29/2002 1:55:45 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

There are some grey areas where the react command can get you into trouble. I use do not react in those areas (or you can use more cautious commanders with react). The react range suggestion was noted and I can't rule anything like that out. If we decide it makes sense and will help players, it will be in there. Even if we don't see it in UV, we may see it in WitP.

My opinion remains that the existing commands cover (in my experience) the vast majority of situations adequately while keeping things from getting too complex or micro-management oriented. I questioned the general assertion that the game won't allow players to keep their carriers out of Betty range. I still disagree with that, but I agree that there are many ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Kerensky,

See my reply to your identical post on the poll thread.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

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 Jupo)
Post #: 12
- 5/29/2002 2:01:49 AM   
FAdmiral


Posts: 378
Joined: 12/20/2002
From: Atlanta,GA, USA
Status: offline 		I think the 24 hour min. is much more realistic than hour by hour
would be. Remember in this game, we are seeing reports by the computer instantly instead of getting them by radio messages some time??? later. Co-ordination of attacks and logistic undertakings by one single person (player) is many times more
efficient than it was by the many leaders & commanders in history.
In other words, we have it EASY !!!!!

JIM BERG, SR.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 13
- 5/29/2002 3:03:13 AM   
Jupo

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/28/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I'm propably buying this game, but what would be easyest way to buy it from Finland.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 14
- 5/29/2002 3:12:20 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		try:

Duchet Computers (england, france, italy, scandinavia)
Chepstow - NP16 5LA - U.K.
Customers hotline: 0044 (0) 1291 625780

IF not them there area couple others serving Europe on our Dealers page

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 15
- 5/29/2002 3:13:06 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		I can't wait to try out the 24hr turns. i don't want to be deluged with decisions every 4 hours or so. 24 hours seems realistic to me.

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 16
- 5/29/2002 3:20:46 AM   
Jupo

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/28/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]try:

Duchet Computers (england, france, italy, scandinavia)
Chepstow - NP16 5LA - U.K.
Customers hotline: 0044 (0) 1291 625780

IF not them there area couple others serving Europe on our Dealers page [/B][/QUOTE]


Ok, Thanks

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 17
- 5/29/2002 3:23:26 AM   
Zakamoto

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Va
Status: offline 		Jupo,

I played War in the South Pacific quite a bit "back in the day". I had it on the Apple II+ platform.

The same designer did both, and of course its generally the same subject matter. I liked WiSP a lot, but in my opinion UV is a MUCH better game.

There is an immense amount of meaningful detail in UV without the burden of micromanagement on the player. I am truly impressed by this fact. I do not balk at complexity, but to be honest this is better.

I have already seen some limitations in the AI, but in general I am happy with that too. At this point it seems pretty darn good, but of course the real action is vs. a human opponent anyway.

As for sources in Finland - got me there. One of many Euro's here will be of more use to you there.


Kampai!

Zakamoto

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 18
- 5/29/2002 3:32:36 AM   
IKerensky

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline 		For duchet you can order on line at [url]www.duchet.com[/url]

I can insure you they are great service and kind people. I phone them at least once a month and they still dont spit into my package :p

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 19
- 5/29/2002 11:07:32 AM   
Jupo

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 5/28/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Well my first internet shopping is now done, hopefully something good is comming via snailmail. :)

(in reply to Jupo)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Silimarity with War in the South Pacific? Page: [1]
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

3.063