Frustrations

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Frustrations

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 >> Frustrations

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Frustrations - 7/17/2002 1:47:48 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

I like the game. I recommend it to others. But parts of it are unnecessarily frustrating and opaque. Even after playing for hours per day (ask my wife how many hours) the orders are still bizarre and non-intuitve. I spend most of those hours not planning strategy but trying to figure out some gimmick to get my TFs to do the simplest things: go to a spot and lay vs sweep mines for example.

1) The way one uses the two orders: React and Retirement to do so many things needs some work. Yes with those two commands will allow a total of 4 different effects (A, B, AB, neither) and those 4 things can be (and sometimes are) completely different for Supply, minelaying and Air Combat TFs. The current system is non-intuitve and extremely confusing. Why the heck do I have to remember whether "Withdraw" means "lay mines or "sweep mines" and whether "react" if used here will make the ship slow up at the last to arrive at its destination at night or will make it instead put on a burst of speed. I am just trying to move a Base Support unit darn it.

There should be a simple clear order or switches: "Go here at this speed" or "react within 4 hexes" rather than figuring out how to make the ship do a supply run or sweep mines under some odd combination of "don't react but withdraw" or similar.

2) Ships cannot be kept together. That should be a fairly simple thing to tell them to do. Getting an Air Combat group to stay with a supply group for example. Instead the AC groups tend to scatter all over. I can't even get 2 AC groups to stay together (even when on "don't react"). They will not stay in the same hex and pool CAP but will each react differently. What is so hard about "you two guys stay together"?

This becomes particularly destructive when one of the ships is damaged. Will 2 undamaged CVs stay near one moderately damaged CV to provide it with CAP so it can make it back to port? Nah. They immediately run away from it, as do most of the escorting AAW ships.

Is it too late to make such a change in UV? Is it too late to make the orders simple obvious switches in War in the Pacific? Boy I hope not. I want to fight Mogami, not the game interface!

On reflection the interface is suffering from trying to get by with WAY to few switches. There should be separate switches for "intercept stuff that gets close" and "get to destination after dark". You are trying to get too much use from too few buttons.

And remember my first statement. I do like the game.

Post #: 1

- 7/17/2002 2:06:52 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

A lot of the game is exactly what you say - fighting the game to get it to do what you want it to do. Now things like keeping ships together, well that kind of thing was not as easy to do IRL as you might think and except for the damaged stragglers dynamically separating from the main TF I think it is o.k. the way it is.

:)

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 2

- 7/17/2002 2:17:29 AM

jhdeerslayer

Posts: 1194
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

I also agree that I like the game and in fact I think it is awesome.

On your # 1, I strongly agree. This has a klugey feel to it and not intuitive. Some distinct and specific buttons are being cried out for I think. I am always referring to page 44 (I have the page memorized anyway) of the manual for the tables of what button set up does what for bombardment, mines, etc...

# 2 - The "Follow TF" command may be of some help to you but maybe not in all cases. Have you tried this? From your comments it didn't seem like it. I use it often to keep my TF's together and usually have the slow one be the lead one. I do the opposite for replenishment though... I have the tankers follow the carriers for obvious reasons.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 3

- 7/17/2002 2:28:16 AM

tjfox1

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Ohio
Status: offline

I don't have any touble keeping TFs together, try the following:

To keep two (or more) TF together use the "FOLLOW TF" button. Be sure to have the faster TF follow the slower one or they will separate. If the faster TF is the lead with the slower TF to follow, the slower TF will lag behind but follow the faster TF trying catch-up till the faster TF stops.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 4

- 7/17/2002 2:49:42 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

Re "follow TF" order

That doesn't keep them together.

1) If the TF you are following is set to go to hex x,y then you will stay with it. But once the TF you are following gets to its destination and starts to return (i.e. once it sets its destination as its Home Port) then the escorting TFs also set the homeport at their destination and go there at best speed (leaving the transports behind).

Try this: Send a supply TF with "may retire" from Noumea (home) to Lunga and set an AC TF (also with Noumea as home) to follow it. Things will work fine until the Supply TF heads for home, then the AC TF rushes back to Noumea.

2) If ships are damaged (which if the ship is high value is when I MOST want to keep CAP over it) it gets split out and abandoned. Even the "one DD" mentioned in the docs doesn't seem to want to stay with it

3) I like to make several small TFs and keep them together. I.e. I will, with 3 CVs, make 3 TFs of 10-12 ships, set one as the "lead" and set the other 2 to follow the lead TF. I set all 3 on don't react and don't return (anything else is suicide in this game) but even so the 3 TFs will not stay together.

I think the problem here probably has to do with refueling destroyers (it seems to happen then). One of the TFs burns up time refuleing some of its DDs, the other two TFs move slightly different distances, and then all 3 react separately (even on "don't react" and even with Spruance left in the brig in Brisbane).

They don't move far apart, just one hex, but that messes up protection by a surface warfare TF and prevents them from pooling their CAP.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 5

Yes But - 7/17/2002 2:58:46 AM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

a lot of what you want is there, it took me, as a new player as well, many hours to get comfortable with the interface and I`m still learning things. Compared to Pac War, this interface is excellent.

Not being patroninzing here but the Game is much more complex then a first playing or Manual reading or Matrix advertising would indicate and learning _when_ to do something is as important as learning how, and only much play will reveal that.

The Tip up thread on the follow command is a great one on how to protect a high value damage TF.

On a supply TF set with " retirement" sometimes that`s good, others it`s not.

I have seen supply/troop TF`s retire from a CV threat that has not be spotted by Recon ( Hint ) and after the threat is gone resume their course, othertimes they just head back to home base....why ? who knows....perhaps the Admiral really has a personality here ;) ... this incredibly complex and truly wonderful game does stuff that I suspect suprises the developers...that is to me the fascination of it and why I can do a 12 hour, and longer session.

In closing, I would agree that the interface, gameplay interaction , and AI functions really need more explanation and I would hope that an experienced player/ staff member that is supportive of the Game and is a brilliant and entertaing writer :D would do a FAQ for UV much like the one done for PW, it really deserves it. Anyone fit that Bill ?:cool:

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 6

- 7/17/2002 3:10:02 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

(To Black Cat)

Actually I found the PacWar interface enormously easier to use.

Send someone someplace and he goes there. Set someone on "react" and you can set a radius to make him aggressive but keep him out of too much trouble.

I am not sayin gyou can't do things in this game. I am saying you shouldn't have to go through so many odd combinations of pushing buttons to do them and that those buttons should have names better describing what functions they are performing.

And this leads to agonizing micromanagement. I suspect minimzing micromanagement to allow us to play a 5 year campaign game was the point, but it's not turning out that way.

E.g. I can't tell a TF to go someplace and return when its mission is over and tell another to just stay with it. I should (IMO) be able to give those orders and forget about them until they return but I find (particularly on the return trip) I have to have to count in hexes how far the slower TF will move each turn, and then set that as the destination of the escorting TF to the same spot (set both to the same destination and set both on "don't retire).

So both make it back to Noumea or wherever and both do stay together but why should I have to go through all that?

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 7

- 7/17/2002 3:32:55 AM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diealtekoenig
[B](To Black Cat)

"Actually I found the PacWar interface enormously easier to use. "

Perhaps that`s just comes from many years of Play. :)

I always thought the PW Refuel At Sea and creating new, and exchanging ships, between TF`s interface a nightmare.

I would agree that some of the functions you could " Fine Tune" that were available in PW, like the Reaction Radius were excellent tools, however we are playing on such a smaller scale i.e. The South Pacific, as well as a much larger Map, that I`m not sure how usefull that would be. Trying to get a useful " reaction " without sending the " reactor " to it`s Doom from LBA in PW was always a problem, IMHO of course.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 8

- 7/17/2002 4:01:08 AM

dgaad

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diealtekoenig
[B]Re "follow TF" order

That doesn't keep them together.

3) I like to make several small TFs and keep them together. I.e. I will, with 3 CVs, make 3 TFs of 10-12 ships, set one as the "lead" and set the other 2 to follow the lead TF. I set all 3 on don't react and don't return (anything else is suicide in this game) but even so the 3 TFs will not stay together.

[/B][/QUOTE]

When using the follow TF order with TFs of greatly different speed, I recommend setting all TFs to "do not retire" and to follow the SLOWEST TF.

I've never had a problem keeping groups of TFs together this way.

When you set almost any TF to "Retirement Allowed" what you are saying to the TF commander is :

"Hey, do your best to try to accomplish your mission, but if we detect enemy surface or air combat task forces that may pose a threat to your ships, high tail it home at sprint speed regardless of all other considerations."

Retirement allowed is for little girls.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 9

- 7/17/2002 4:30:08 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

To Dgaad:

re the slowest TF:

They won't follow the "slowest" in my experience a) when returning to their home port b) (I think) if one of them transiently becomes slower due to refueling. I am not sure of "b" but will keep an eye on that.

re "retirement allowed is for little girls"

No, you have to use it sometimes Minelaying for one. And sometimes to get ships to do other thing for reasons completely unrelated to retirement but just to get their speed or manuevering around dawn/dusk to sort out.

And you should be able to send a ship some place, bombard or unload supplies and then come back and not have to micromanage the movement all along the way. Particularly when we get to War in the Pacific.

If in War in the Pacific (if in the Scenario 19 here) we have to eschew retirement allowed for the whole 5 year campaign and watch every supply TF to tell it when it is done loading and should go home . . .

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 10

- 7/17/2002 4:43:52 AM

Spooky

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diealtekoenig
[B]
And you should be able to send a ship some place, bombard or unload supplies and then come back and not have to micromanage the movement all along the way. Particularly when we get to War in the Pacific.

If in War in the Pacific (if in the Scenario 19 here) we have to eschew retirement allowed for the whole 5 year campaign and watch every supply TF to tell it when it is done loading and should go home . . . [/B][/QUOTE]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

You can already decide the load of your transport and the destination ... and no micromanagement after ! The transport TF will load troops and supplies - go to the port of destination - unload troops & supplies - go back to the home port. All this without any further player input !

The only thing I have to do is to look if the transport TF is back in order to give them new orders ...

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 11

- 7/17/2002 4:46:26 AM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

Ahh! After one scenario I can already see how a "TF 201 has returned to port" message would be greatly appreciated!

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 12

- 7/17/2002 4:53:08 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

To make more positive suggestions (not that anyone is asking ):

a) The "retirement allowed" switch should affect retirement from enemy threats. It should not affect anything else (not affect speed for example). You might call it "run away!" to distinguish it from "b" below.

b) There should be a "go home when mission done" switch (for bombardment and supply missions at the least) and it should be different from the "retirement allowed" switch. Avoiding enemies and returning when mission complete are not really the same thing.

c) There should be a "arrive only at night" switch. With no other function.

d) There should be a "Lay Mines" switch.

e) There should be a "Sweep mines" switch.

f) c and d should not be the same switch.

Then I could load mines at Noumea, move around and refuel at Lunga maybe, sweep mines at Noumea and lay mines at Shortlands. And I wouldn't have to remember the kludge and remember not to refuel in a port, only from a replenishment TF)

g) there should be a "react towards enemy TF" switch and it should probably have a range limiter like the old Pacwar one did

h) In addition to the "react to enemy TF" switch there should be a completely separate "never go within X hexes of know enemy airfield" switch (and that should have a settable range.

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 13

- 7/17/2002 4:59:08 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

Re Spooky

"You can already decide the load of your transport and the destination ... and no micromanagement after ! The transport TF will load troops and supplies - go to the port of destination - unload troops & supplies - go back to the home port. All this without any further player input !"

In my experience you can do that but what you can't do is protect it with another AC or Surface Warfare TF. The second TF won' t follow the first once it starts to return. It will follow it _to_ the destination but then abandon it on the way home (when the enemy are really cross I just landed a division in their back yard and would actually like to have CAP over it on the way home).

(in reply to Diealtekoenig)

Post #: 14