A few comments...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A few comments...

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 >> Tech Support >> A few comments...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A few comments... - 7/5/2002 10:50:51 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Dgaad,

I'm by no means the grand poobah in making these decisions, but I'll answer as best I can.

quote:

Strafing by most any kind of aircraft at most any kind of target, particularly ground targets, results in some errors. There is the notorious "Akagi" error. Strafing of barges by cannon-armed fighter-bombers or Marauders, etc, only rarely gets the kind of damage to sink the barge. I've seen barges with dozens of hits from .50 cals and cannon which are still afloat. For a naval craft with a durability of 1 and ZERO armor, that's a pretty amazing feat.

The strafing bugs are on the list and will be fixed. I've sunk barges with strafing, but we'll look into that as well.

quote:

There is some kind of problem with the range indicator on carrier air groups that are given a mission to hit a specific base regardless of the type of attack (port, airfield, ground). The net effect of this error is that no matter how many carrier air groups are assigned to attack the target, usually only one will actually go. The vast majority of my strikes now involve a mass of fighters on escort, and one lonely bomber airgroup. Can't do much damage with that. This bug negates the utility and effectiveness of the most powerful units in the game. Combined with the strafing error, carrier air groups are almost useless against shore targets.

As you know, I have a save from you that duplicates the range indicator problem and I've been able to duplicate it independently. It's on the list to be fixed.

However, the issue with strike coordination is not something I've seen. I regularly coordinate attacks from carriers with multiple groups on a wide variety of targets. Not sure what you might be doing differently here, but I can't duplicate this.

quote:

There is some kind of bug which prevents all the airgroups that have ground attack missions assigned from participating. I have one base that has something like 12 airgroups with this mission assigned, and only one group actually goes. Again, this means that I cannot rely on airpower to reduce enemy ground troops or help out my own guys. This is an intermittent phenom.

As above, I'll need a save for this. I have had groups coordinate on ground attack missions for as long as I can recall playing UV.

quote:

In this game, however, transports aren't good at moving supply around unless within "normal" range of the destination base. This probably isn't a "bug" per se, but given the kinds of efforts that were mounted in the Pacific theater (the Hump, etc.) its a bit irritating. The reason the game works this way is because beyond normal radius, the supply transport plane uses a bit more "supply" than it actually delivers. Given the following two problems, I was hoping that aggressive use of air transport would compensate. I was wrong.

Not sure about this one either. I've had C-47s in Cooktown supplying Lae with a net positive increase in supplies. Can you give a more specific example?

quote:

I'm probably using these wrong. They don't appear to be much good beyond a 6-8 hex radius. They load the wrong stuff. They decide to load troops on their own initiative. Really bad when a base force gets loaded at a base you are using to support your air efforts against the enemy in a forward area. I tend not to use barges at all. The Barge convoys are supposed to load fuel in every fifth ship, which they do, but it doesn't get used to extend the movement radius of the barge group.

The routine load troops "bug" is actually supposed to be a feature, based on what I've heard from Mike and Gary. Like you, I'd like to see it removed but it's not a high priority.

Barges are not meant for long distances. However, I've seen them more than a few times use the fuel they loaded to extend their range. This does work in my experience.

quote:

I'm really tired of seeing 100 supply transport ships sitting in Pearl with no way to get them committed to my theater. I can't make any serious inroads without the ability to supply the troops. Combined with the Barge problem, I have to rely pretty much on what I started the campaign with to supply my bases. This limits me to two major bases at best. If I mount a large amphib operation, the rest of my bases go into the red because I don't have the transport to supply them while the op is going on. I have literally 40 airgroups sitting back at Brisbane and Noumea simply because I can't supply the base adequately if they get moved to an active forward base (its mid-April, 43).

How many transports have you lost? I have been able to maintain good tempo in full campaigns against the computer through 1943. Also, I've received many transports as reinforcements throughout the campaign. I think it would be great to give players the ability to prioritize, as suggested in other threads. However, it's not a high priority to change this right now and my experience has been that there are enough supply ships if you handle them carefully and also don't expand into every small base.

quote:

When, when o lord gone be our patch? [/B][/QUOTE]

At this point, all I can say is "when it's ready". You guys know that when we have something more concrete, we'll pass it along. Since this one is aimed at bug/crash-fixing, we're going to test it even more than the previous patches.

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 dgaad)

Post #: 61

- 7/6/2002 12:45:01 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]>So please don't act like spoiled children ... because otherwise the result is already known : no more toys for us wargamers

I can't agree with your philosophy. As a Grognard who has probably blown $400 on busted WW2 Strategic board games, I can honestly asy I'd rather hear lots of honest "this game sucks" griping, even about minor details like 6 betties walking through a 20 plane CAP unscathed, than spend money on a game that has not been propeerly tested. As a former coder (whose job in a former incarnation was debugging) it pissed me off eight ways to sunday to have an application (not wargames btw) shipped in a state that I would generously call "mid-Beta testing." As an end-user, I'd rather not spend game hours working up a campaign (these things take some time), only to discover that my 2-CV strike against an IJN TF gets completely bollocked because there are 100 planes on CAP, or because Sakai once said that IJN pilots shot down 50 Allied P40s and Hurricanes without loss or some other bull___, or because some dood read Morison and decided that IJN torpedoes were like atomic bombs only faster and more accurate.

If griping means potential buyers are turned off or, like me, wait a flipping long time before committing to purchase, and the designer goes OOB because of it, IMO it's *no loss.* The demand is there. Someone else will pick up the ball, probably, and eventually do the job right. If not, I'd rather there be *no* product than get suckered into purchasing (again) something that works half-way. Cut me once, shame on you. Cut me twice, shame on me. [/B][/QUOTE]

The game as a whole is great, I've never said differently. I love this game and hope Matrix takes my comments as a concern and not simple whining, though it may appear to be so at times. I want Matrix and 2by3 to know I stand behind them and really do appreciate their efforts. I feel the air to air routine was over tweaked from 1.00 to 1.11 and it does not work as well as it used to. I understand things happen in war, but when they happen on a constant basis which is not accurate, then I have a problem. To someone new to the genre, it would not be a problem, but I guess I'm a grog so therefore I complain. I played GG's Guadalcanal on an Apple //e back in the mid 80's and was completely enthralled. If there were problems with the game I didn't know it because I was a newbie. Perhaps I complain because I am looking for something again that I thought was once so perfect.

Von Frag

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 62

Re: No - 7/6/2002 1:05:36 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Frag
[B]

In point 3, that is not what I am saying at all. I know some planes slip through, that I can except as historical. look what happened when Essex and Co. attacked Rabaul for the first time in 43. What I can't except is that it happens EVERY time. If it were a major raid, I would understand. During one of the small unescorted raids, CAP may bag one and damage one, but eventually odds would be in favor of he who has the numbers. I read on another thread that when numbers of opposing AC are large or more even, the fighting is more realistic. I agree with this. It just amazes me that pilots on either side are not competent enough to roughly handle a 10 plane strike when their numbers are overwhelming. I have seen the "Akagi" bug. Had to double check the sunk ship screen to make sure she was still there. ;)

Von Frag [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL on the Akagi thing. Did the same.

With respect to the CAP-slip issue : this is not my experience. I've had small scale attacks on my carriers wiped out entirely. Perhaps when this is happening to you it may be due to fatigue, etc. I'm very careful to always keep the fighters rested until just before they go into LBA range, and I also have at least one fighter CAG resting so that, in general, the carrier TF has one fresh fighter squadron on 90% CAP every day they are in LBA range.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 63

Re: A few comments... - 7/6/2002 1:22:23 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Dgaad,

I'm by no means the grand poobah in making these decisions, but I'll answer as best I can.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Thanks so much for responding.

[QUOTE][B]

The strafing bugs are on the list and will be fixed. I've sunk barges with strafing, but we'll look into that as well.

[/QUOTE][/B]

The major strafing problems seem to be with the cannon-armed fighter bombers, the P-39 and P-400. I haven't tested the Spit Mark X (or whatever it is). I know the Akagi error is on the fix list. With Barges, there shouldn't be any reason why a few 20 or 30mm cannon hits shouldn't effectively sink a barge, since they have a 1 durability and zero armor.

[QUOTE][B]

As you know, I have a save from you that duplicates the range indicator problem and I've been able to duplicate it independently. It's on the list to be fixed.

[/QUOTE][/B]

TY

[QUOTE][B]

However, the issue with strike coordination is not something I've seen. I regularly coordinate attacks from carriers with multiple groups on a wide variety of targets. Not sure what you might be doing differently here, but I can't duplicate this.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Well, I should have had some replays and saves BEFORE I posted this thread. I didn't and that was stupid. Last night I tried several times to duplicate the bug with carrier TFs against Rabaul, Shortland, and Buin, no luck. Suddenly they are all working as intended. This is embarassing. As I've said, however, I've seen this happen dozens of times, so much that I got to the point of not even bothering with shore attacks anymore in my game. I'll keep working on it and when I have something I'll send a file over to you guys. For some reason I thought this was a well known problem already.

[QUOTE][B]

As above, I'll need a save for this. I have had groups coordinate on ground attack missions for as long as I can recall playing UV.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Again, same deal as with CAGs. I couldn't duplicate the problem immediately myself, though I've seen it many times before. Others have mentioned this in other threads as well.

[QUOTE][B]

Not sure about this one either. I've had C-47s in Cooktown supplying Lae with a net positive increase in supplies. Can you give a more specific example?

[/QUOTE][/B]

I've played around alot with the Dakotas to obviate the lack of sea transport. If I am within "normal" radius, I can see a net positive also. Its quite small, but it is positive. My issue here is that because there is no distinction between aviation fuel and normal supply, the Dakotas are far less effective than they should be when compared to historical operations. Air supply was extremely critical in the Pacific throughout the war. (On a side note, I believe that Richard Nixon was once chief of air supply transport for the SoPac front sometime in late 1943 / 44). IMHO Dakotas should be able to provide a positive supply flow to units even at the MAXIMUM range (which is something like 40+ hexes, and a one way trip, but the Dakota can carry on board in drums more fuel than its fuel tanks can hold).

[QUOTE][B]

The routine load troops "bug" is actually supposed to be a feature, based on what I've heard from Mike and Gary. Like you, I'd like to see it removed but it's not a high priority.

Barges are not meant for long distances. However, I've seen them more than a few times use the fuel they loaded to extend their range. This does work in my experience.

[/QUOTE][/B]

The intended feature here for barges is to relieve the player of some supply convoy headaches. Because of the unpredictability of "routine" convoys, this feature is negated. In addition to what's already been said, the Barges do load fuel in every 5th vessel, but they don't always use that fuel to extend the range of the barge convoy. It might depend on whether there is fuel at the target base, I don't know.

[QUOTE][B]

How many transports have you lost? I have been able to maintain good tempo in full campaigns against the computer through 1943. Also, I've received many transports as reinforcements throughout the campaign. I think it would be great to give players the ability to prioritize, as suggested in other threads. However, it's not a high priority to change this right now and my experience has been that there are enough supply ships if you handle them carefully and also don't expand into every small base.

[/QUOTE][/B]

I've lost a little over half of what I started with. I've habitually sent back transport that was 2 MPH slower than others in its class (due to sysdam). Its now close to June 43 in the game, I recently got a grand total of 2 AKs released from Pearl. There are still a gazillion in Pearl. I did get some LSTs LCI and LSDs. The latter were psychadelic dude.

[QUOTE][B]

At this point, all I can say is "when it's ready". You guys know that when we have something more concrete, we'll pass it along. Since this one is aimed at bug/crash-fixing, we're going to test it even more than the previous patches.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

I'll keep praying. ;)

Idea : publish the current bug list in some consumer-digestible form. This will reduce grognard cross-confusion.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 64

- 7/6/2002 1:34:18 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Let me state one thing UNEQUIVOCALLY, and put to rest some negative thoughts by some of the posters on this thread.

[B] I have stated from the beginning of my involvement in this community that I consider Matrix to be in a class by itself in the wargame community in terms of its QUALITY of product, and RESPONSIVENESS to their dedicated player base. I still consider this to be true. The fact that I have made a thread like this may be interpreted as trashing Matrix, its not. I would not even bother to register on the forums of other companies who clearly have little concern or expertise in the historical conflict simulation genre of games.

Having played UV and been involved in the forum, I am now FAR MORE LIKELY to buy Matrix products than I was before I knew about them, and FAR MORE LIKELY to buy a Matrix product than a product from any other company making games in this genre.

The only company that comes remotely close to Matrix in terms of Quality and Responsiveness is Strategy First.

My regards to all of the UV community.

[/B]

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 65

Re: Re: A few comments... - 7/6/2002 1:36:13 AM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B][/B]

Idea : publish the current bug list in some consumer-digestible form. This will reduce grognard cross-confusion. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree - a good example of such list is given in the Paradox bug reporting forum - maybe we could have something similar for UV ...

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21176

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 66

- 7/6/2002 2:49:06 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Okay I have an example of LBA not flying when they should :

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 4
B-25J Mitchell x 9

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell x 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mogami, Bomb hits 1
CA Furutaka, Bomb hits 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x B-25J Mitchell at 1000 feet
4 x B-25J Mitchell at 1000 feet
1 x B-25J Mitchell at 1000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 9 B-25 Mitchell J groups at Lae, from which the attack was based. The one that attacked was the 13th BS. There are other BS groups that have better leaders and less fatigue, while ALL of them are set to Naval attack. No other attacks were performed by these groups during that turn. No cancellation reports were given for any airgroups from Lae, either.

I will post the save game, combat replay and combat report files here when I get them zipped. The save is from the day AFTER the attack (June 2) since I'm not saving every turn (its the autosave file).

[URL=http://www.legionhq.net/AHCBA/LBA_Nofly.zip]Zip containing save game, combat replay, and combat report files[/URL]

I take special satisfaction in noting that Mogami was a target ;)

For those of you so interested, you can also see the huge number of transports in Pearl while my in theater transport fleet struggles to support the forward bases, along with the "leanness" of the in theater fleet (in attempt to get further committment from Pearl). There are currently 84 AK supply ships available in Pearl.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 67

- 7/6/2002 3:00:59 AM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Erick/Dgaad

However, the issue with strike coordination is not something I've seen. I regularly coordinate attacks from carriers with multiple groups on a wide variety of targets. Not sure what you might be doing differently here, but I can't duplicate this.

again, in my game, I have units at Munda, Vella Lavella, Buin and Buka, been keeping my 3 CV's parked in Munda, just lanched a major strike on AP Fleet in the slot, with planes joining in from Buin, Vella, Munda, Russell and the 3 CV's (if I knew how to save the report and print it up here I would of) it was pure hammer time, had lines from all over the board showing for the strike

the afternoon strike (?) went to the Port of Shortland, and while not as many, was still a few bases joining in (the CV's held back)

so I see bases joining up all the time

for your report on the 25 raids, sort of looks like a weather attack to me ? your fighters and bombers are both small, now I do see raids like that, also see at times, were the bombers take off and the fighters forget about the mission

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 68

- 7/6/2002 3:04:07 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HARD_SARGE
[B]Hi Erick/Dgaad

for your report on the 25 raids, sort of looks like a weather attack to me ? your fighters and bombers are both small, now I do see raids like that, also see at times, were the bombers take off and the fighters forget about the mission

HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean by this :confused:

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 69

- 7/6/2002 3:17:07 AM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Dgaad
?
well not every raid takes off at full strength, most times a raid that attacks the same target in the afternoon is not as strong as a morning raid, plus I believe that weather also effects the number of planes that can take off, join up

what makes it look like it is weather is the fact that the number of fighters is small also, if it had sent 24/48 fighters and 9 25's, then I would agree with your point

for me, in my last game, I was kicking, my Wirraways were hitting the ships in Rabaul, the 70 to 100 fighters flying with them, were haveing have a ball, then one day, somebody forgot to tell the fighters that a mission was on (seen 1 JP pilot score at least 6 kills, blue line showing kills 2 though 7) end of day, they got sent back to NG for a long, long rest, well that one is a little different then what you are seeing, but in this case, just the 2 FB went in and none of the fighters took off (thought that was because of weather too ?)

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 70

Re: Re: No - 7/6/2002 3:20:58 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

LOL on the Akagi thing. Did the same.

With respect to the CAP-slip issue : this is not my experience. I've had small scale attacks on my carriers wiped out entirely. Perhaps when this is happening to you it may be due to fatigue, etc. I'm very careful to always keep the fighters rested until just before they go into LBA range, and I also have at least one fighter CAG resting so that, in general, the carrier TF has one fresh fighter squadron on 90% CAP every day they are in LBA range. [/B][/QUOTE]

I too keep my carrier AG's rested until the carriers are say even with Luganville heading north. Your strategy is interesting, as I leave all fighter groups on 60%CAP most of the time. Also, this just doesn't happen to my carrier AG's, it happens when CAP intercepts base raids as well. Well, I think I have beaten this horse into the ground. When I finish playing the AI, I will look forward to having you as a possible PBEM opponent. :)

Von Frag

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 71

- 7/6/2002 3:22:52 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HARD_SARGE
[B]Hi Dgaad
?
well not every raid takes off at full strength, most times a raid that attacks the same target in the afternoon is not as strong as a morning raid, plus I believe that weather also effects the number of planes that can take off, join up

what makes it look like it is weather is the fact that the number of fighters is small also, if it had sent 24/48 fighters and 9 25's, then I would agree with your point

for me, in my last game, I was kicking, my Wirraways were hitting the ships in Rabaul, the 70 to 100 fighters flying with them, were haveing have a ball, then one day, somebody forgot to tell the fighters that a mission was on (seen 1 JP pilot score at least 6 kills, blue line showing kills 2 though 7) end of day, they got sent back to NG for a long, long rest, well that one is a little different then what you are seeing, but in this case, just the 2 FB went in and none of the fighters took off (thought that was because of weather too ?)

HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]

Let me be more clear here.

There are 3 full strength P-38G squadrons set to Escort from Lae, at I believe 50% CAP. There are 9 full strength B-25J Mitchell squadrons set to Naval Attack (thats 144 Mitchells). No other missions were run from Lae. Lae has twice the required supplies. There are also 3 Beaufighter squadrons set to Naval Attack, along with a host of B-17s and one Wirraway Sqdn. No other missions were executed by that base during that turn, and there were no cancellation messages.

There is no reason that I can think of that only one B-25 squadron took off, escorted by 4 P-38s. There were 144 Mitchells ordered on this mission, and 36 P-38s.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 72

HQ - 7/6/2002 3:32:13 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 4
B-25J Mitchell x 9

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell x 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mogami, Bomb hits 1
CA Furutaka, Bomb hits 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x B-25J Mitchell at 1000 feet
4 x B-25J Mitchell at 1000 feet
1 x B-25J Mitchell at 1000 feet
------------------------------------------

Dumb question, but do you have 5th or 13th AF HQ's on or nearby the base the raids are taking off from? LOL, talk about coordination, my B-24 raids with P-38 escort from Gili sometimes pick up a little help from the Corsairs at Bonins.

Von Frag

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 73

- 7/6/2002 3:42:21 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Frag : Not a dumb question. Lae itself is well supported, but does not have any of the Air Force HQs stationed there. The 5th Airforce HQ is at PM, and I am moving it up to Lae once I can reduce the number of needed support at PM. However, other than providing additional support, I don't recall anything in the manual that I didn't read saying that these units help in the coordination of air operations.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 74

- 7/6/2002 3:43:16 AM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Dgaad

There is no reason that I can think of that only one B-25 squadron took off, escorted by 4 P-38s. There were 144 Mitchells ordered on this mission, and 36 P-38s

and that is why I am saying it looks like it was affected by weather, not only did only a few bombers take off, only a few fighters did too

you do not have to have bases shut down completely for weather to be affecting the outcome

I had one Carrier raid, the counter attack by the IJN fleet I had just sunk, come in, about 30 Kates and 10 Zeros, my 150+ Cap did nothing (I was a swearing and a screaming) then watched the planes come in, break into there little attack groups and , nothing, I thought that was a raid had made it to the target, but the target was covered, so bad that the Cap couldn't attack and the raid couldn't drop

(lol, must of been a heck of a cloud bank, for Kates to not be able to see the target)

only seen this on a major target once, but see it with AG attacks all the time (no bomb drops or flak going off, just shows the planes over the ships and switches to the next group planes over and over till done) (have seen lots of raids where the buggers just plain miss)

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 75

- 7/6/2002 3:45:41 AM

daniel123

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline

I wish to bring up a land warfare problem? maybe? I have Austrialina troops at Hopei marching for Finshhafen. The Ausse's are about 20 marches on the way and a Japanese unit comes out of Finshhafen. The Ausse's throw them back and their marching resets to 0 movement toward Finshhafen. This should be like a meeting engagement and the Aussie's should not be marching from the start again. Next, I have troops at Nadzag and Marilinan. I have tried to sent troops to the hex west of Nadzag and Nor/West of Marilinan. The program tells me this is no permited, yet the Japanese are marching through the hex. I hope there is an answer for this. Nice game.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 76

- 7/6/2002 3:57:45 AM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Daniel
have not seen that, but have seen where you check on the status of your marching troops, and see them return to base after being 12-20 miles into the march

(also, while trying to get two different groups to get to the target at the same time, stopped a unit that had marched 28 miles, waited a day for the other unit to reach it (different paths) and then went to click for it to start marching again and it was back to the base, so had to remarch 30 miles again)

for your other question, are you clicking on the dot/center of the hex or the JP troops, when you try to give the marching orders, I have had some troubles with not getting the hex lined up right and being told no (sometimes it is HARD to get the right spot in the hex)

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 77

- 7/6/2002 4:17:25 AM

daniel123

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline

Thanks Sarge for the advice on the hex plot. I will try slighly different spots on the hex. I had not tried to stop a unit before. That was interesting that the unit went back to 0 movement. I see a there is a problem with the movement routine. I hope Matrix sees this post. I having another problem. I have Norton system works and everytime I start the program it wants to monitor the install. I reply no, but when I try to shutdown my w98 system I get the blue screen of death. I have to use the power off swith to shut the computer off. I thought the current version was a window's program, but I still have to alt/tab to get to the window main screen.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 78

- 7/6/2002 4:37:55 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

Ok I'm jumping in on this. I've noticed that the computer often selects the size of the strike to fit the target. Would the commanding office sent 9 bomber groups 144 plans to attack a few ships. I don't think so. What was the makeup of the fleet that was attacked? Did it have enoug HVUs to warrent 144 bombers?

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 79

Small strikes... - 7/6/2002 4:38:10 AM

Erik Rutins

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

Dgaad,

There are a number of factors that can create small strikes like what you reported. To the best of my knowledge and experience, these are not bugs, as long as you are also seeing large coordinated strikes from the same base at other times.

Poor weather can result in smaller strikes while not completely closing a base. A failure in the leadership checks, morale checks and fatigue checks can result in a failure of all squadrons to properly organize and launch on a target. The lack of an Air HQ can result in problems planning and coordinating large numbers of squadrons. Air base size and support can influence this.

There is also the issue of spotting / planning. A target can be spotted with only enough time to send off a small strike before the information is too old to act on. Forming up 144 B-25s with escort takes a while. Based on the historical accounts I've read, such fragmentary strikes were not at all uncommon, particularly against moving naval targets.

Playing UV, I see more such small strikes against naval TFs than I see against stationary targets like Ports, Airfields and Ground Units. Those generally get a consistent, fully formed strike whenever the weather is decent. I find this to be realistic rather than a major problem. If I've misunderstood you, please elaborate and I'll give it another look.

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 dgaad)

Post #: 80

- 7/6/2002 5:24:18 AM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]Frag : Not a dumb question. Lae itself is well supported, but does not have any of the Air Force HQs stationed there. The 5th Airforce HQ is at PM, and I am moving it up to Lae once I can reduce the number of needed support at PM. However, other than providing additional support, I don't recall anything in the manual that I didn't read saying that these units help in the coordination of air operations. [/B][/QUOTE]

I seem to recall reading in the manual that AF HQ's within a certain radius, 6 or 8 for allied, less for Japanese help with percentages of AC flying on strikes. I will double check.

Von Frag

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 81

Re: Small strikes... - 7/6/2002 11:33:15 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Dgaad,

There are a number of factors that can create small strikes like what you reported. To the best of my knowledge and experience, these are not bugs, as long as you are also seeing large coordinated strikes from the same base at other times.

Poor weather can result in smaller strikes while not completely closing a base. A failure in the leadership checks, morale checks and fatigue checks can result in a failure of all squadrons to properly organize and launch on a target. The lack of an Air HQ can result in problems planning and coordinating large numbers of squadrons. Air base size and support can influence this.

There is also the issue of spotting / planning. A target can be spotted with only enough time to send off a small strike before the information is too old to act on. Forming up 144 B-25s with escort takes a while. Based on the historical accounts I've read, such fragmentary strikes were not at all uncommon, particularly against moving naval targets.

Playing UV, I see more such small strikes against naval TFs than I see against stationary targets like Ports, Airfields and Ground Units. Those generally get a consistent, fully formed strike whenever the weather is decent. I find this to be realistic rather than a major problem. If I've misunderstood you, please elaborate and I'll give it another look.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

Erik : I fully agree that this is a logical and historical system if it in fact works this way. Would this explain the same phenomenon with CAGs as well, where you have one bomber group hitting a shore target and no other CAG bombers taking off? I can understand with carrier groups that strikes would get dispersed, or even lost, but I can't understand only one bomber group taking off at all.

Perhaps a solution here would be to implement some additional messaging with respect to air operations. Additional messaging would clear up confusion, and may have the extree added bonus of revealing some coding issues.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 82

- 7/6/2002 11:37:11 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]Ok I'm jumping in on this. I've noticed that the computer often selects the size of the strike to fit the target. Would the commanding office sent 9 bomber groups 144 plans to attack a few ships. I don't think so. What was the makeup of the fleet that was attacked? Did it have enoug HVUs to warrent 144 bombers? [/B][/QUOTE]

Kid, a perfectly reasonable analysis. I might load up the save, which is available on this thread, and "cheat" to look at the group containing the Mogami, but that isn't any guarantee that the TF composition wasn't altered by the AI after the strike. However, we do know that the TF contained at least two cruisers -- these are big juicy targets and one would imagine bomber group commanders salivating over that. Also, there were a number of other TF targets in the same hex, yet no other bomber groups launched.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 83

- 7/6/2002 5:07:10 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B] Also, there were a number of other TF targets in the same hex, yet no other bomber groups launched. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then this would be a problem. I will admit I am not totally happy with the way the AI selects the air strikes but I still find it a very enjoyable game.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 84

- 7/6/2002 8:08:51 PM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

It took two days for an Allied Cruiser force to leave Noumea and hit Lunga.

A Japanese force of over 120 Nells and Betty's, with over 50 Zeroes in escort, all well rested, morale in the 90s, experience in the 70s to 80s, notified by countless sighting reports as the ACF left port, crossed the ocean, and hit Lunga; and not one plane attacked the force!

Operatons were not cancelled, the AB was level 4, the Air SPs were in the green.

And still my planes failed to attack.

In the last phase of that turn, 6 Bettys with 27 Zeroes in escort did decide to attack the MSW in Noumea, and got slaughtered by the 50+ Wildcat CAP.

===========================

I was saved by the Luganville bug, the ACF went to L'ville and died.

On the way, my lone MSW docked and disbanded in port, must of got an eviction notie in the mail, for it decided to form up its own little surface combat force, and charged Noumea all alone.

Dozens of Hudsons, B-25s and B-17s fell upon the little ship, and it was smothered in a fusilade of bomb hits.

============================

I am not ready to shelve it yet, but I can assure you that if the 1.20 patch is not right and if it is too long coming, I will have to.

My long time PBEM wargame opponent just sent a note telling me he has shelved it until further notice.

The last straw for him was the vanishing task force.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 85

- 7/7/2002 11:58:05 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

Ok OK it has happened to me now. The entire Jap navy came down to pay me a visit on a clear day and not one bomber out of 100+ took off the runway. 100% supply, excelent moral, same hex as HQ, well within range. I now understand your pain. I lost a carrier without even a rock thrown by the LR bombers. Now it is thounderstorming and my chance of a strike has gone out the window.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 86

- 7/7/2002 12:13:14 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]Ok OK it has happened to me now. The entire Jap navy came down to pay me a visit on a clear day and not one bomber out of 100+ took off the runway. 100% supply, excelent moral, same hex as HQ, well within range. I now understand your pain. I lost a carrier without even a rock thrown by the LR bombers. Now it is thounderstorming and my chance of a strike has gone out the window. [/B][/QUOTE]

Finally. SAVE THAT AUTOSAVE file!!!!!

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 87

- 7/7/2002 12:14:53 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

Its saved.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 88

- 7/8/2002 1:47:40 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Good for you Dgaad! You can come off the medication now.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 89

- 7/8/2002 2:06:21 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

I would like to add that there was a Jap transport TF with about 8 ships in the area without a CAP. If the bombers would not attack the carriers because of the strong CAP they should have went for the transports. They were able to get in and unload on a base full of airctaft without much damage at all.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to dgaad)

Post #: 90

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

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