I am now to 11/10/42 in my new 1.2 #17

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I am now to 11/10/42 in my new 1.2 #17

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 >> I am now to 11/10/42 in my new 1.2 #17

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I am now to 11/10/42 in my new 1.2 #17 - 8/1/2002 10:34:42 AM

doomonyou

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline

let me say.....REPAIR TIMES NEED TO BE LOWERED...wow...I have pm up to a 9 and its taking MONTHS to get my b-17 squadrons up to combat levels after missions where damage occurs (test is rabaul missions at 12K feet) toooo long.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 31

Mid-turn interceptions possibility . . . - 8/1/2002 5:02:06 PM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

I read something similar to this a month or more ago, someplace.

Since a minefield has to be checked for when a TF enters a hex, it therefore might be possible to tag a surface TF which remains in the same hex for the entire movement phase as if it were a "minefield" for interception purposes. This could also possibly work for subs.

Once the interception is triggered (during the check for a minefield by the moving TF), the code would stop the execution of the turn, branch to the surface (or sub) combat routine, and then return to continue execution of the turn.

This would allow players to picket TFs in bottlenecks or common transit corriders to try to intercept enemy TFs. The TF would have to remain in the same hex for the entire movement phase for this to take effect. Couple this with the Reaction and you would be able to picket a hex but still possibly react to a friendly port under attack.

This would allow subs to intercept TFs without having to guess at exactly where the TFs will end a movement phase. It would especially be good for the transit hexes that are commonly used for TFs running to/from the various ports. It would put less emphasis on running subs to a port to find targets.

Just a thought . . .

_____________________________

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 32

- 8/2/2002 1:51:18 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

here's an easy non controversial one ;)

Change the TF ordering structure so that CV's get listed first in one as opposed to after BB's, CA's, CL's and CLAA's.

After years of playing carrier strike, carrier force and PacWar i've gotten used to the most important ships being listed first :p

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 33

- 8/2/2002 1:57:05 AM

Wilhammer

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

I want a Form TF button on the In Port dialog, and i want one on the Base Info screen at the bottom of the screen.

Also, if possible, on the In Port screen, I would like to be able to Ctrl+Click ships and then push the Form TF button, and then the TF is created that way.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 34

- 8/2/2002 2:36:02 AM

Sonny

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]here's an easy non controversial one ;)

Change the TF ordering structure so that CV's get listed first in one as opposed to after BB's, CA's, CL's and CLAA's.

After years of playing carrier strike, carrier force and PacWar i've gotten used to the most important ships being listed first :p [/B][/QUOTE]

That is a good idea. I am just now getting used to not looking at the first ship in a TF to check my CVs.:)

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 35

- 8/2/2002 2:37:33 AM

Sonny

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]I want a Form TF button on the In Port dialog, and i want one on the Base Info screen at the bottom of the screen.

Also, if possible, on the In Port screen, I would like to be able to Ctrl+Click ships and then push the Form TF button, and then the TF is created that way. [/B][/QUOTE]

And when you do form a TF now don't make us click the done screen once we have selected the type of TF - just go to the ship selection screen when we click the icon.:)

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 36

- 8/2/2002 2:55:16 AM

XPav

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

I, like many people, would like very much a slightly more usable interface.

I don't have too many problems with air units.
I don't have too many problems with ground forces.

But two things cause me irritation and constant scratching.

The first is the organization of task forces. When putting together a task force, I can't examine a ship. This is annoying when trying to figure out if a ship with ~10 system damage is actually useful or if something is actually broken. After my task force has been put together, I can go look at the broken ships, attempt to remember which ships are broken, and then have to form a *new* task force with the broken ships, and then disband that task force.

I find the entire "creating of a task force" to be rather more involved than it has to be. What would be ideal? How about something like this:

Click -> Form new task force
Mission type and auto selection are alright, but the magic "retire/patrol-react/no-react" could really use some task-force specific explanation *IN* there. Heck, take away those options and give me four choices that vary depending on mission type. It'd make more sense, especially for new players.

So, after I select my mission type, I go to the "pick ships" screen.

I only want a list box of the ships available in the harbor, which a checkbox that will show the ships in other task forces.

On the other side I want a list box with the current ships in the TF.

When I move the mouse over a ship name, I want the "ship screen" to show up, and I want it to go away when I move the mouse off the ship. Popup, fill in another pane on the window, whatever.

I want a <- and -> button to move ships between the task forces, and I want the ability to Ctrl-Click multiple ships and have them all move at once from/to the TF.

The second is the loading of troops. I cannot comprehend the arcane way in which troops are loaded the way they are, how pieces of units get left behind, and how operation points affect all this. All I know is that if I make a mistake on one screen, I end up with a bunch of typewriter repairmen attempting to storm the beaches.

When I do get it right, sometimes my nicely crafted force of 1500cap units seems to have acquired a few 3000cap ships, probably loaded with ice cream and cookies. The fact that these ships take much longer to unload doesn't seem to faze them.

Redoing the loading screen is left as an exercise to the reader.

These are the two main interface things that annoy me.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 37

AG and LCU arrival - 8/2/2002 2:58:02 AM

Long Lance

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline

It would be a good thing not only to randomize, but to speed up or slow down arrival of new AGs and LCUs. And to edit ship classes in the editor.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 38

Suggestions for V1.3 - 8/2/2002 5:37:39 AM

IndyShark

Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline

1. I would like to be able to select which air units are upgraded !ather than let the computer do it.

2. Planes that need to be repaired move with an air unit when I transfer bases. I have a few bombers that never get repaired and never move when 95% of the unit has moved bases.

3. Give us the ability to edit the date when planes become available and the replacement rate.

4. Turn on or off air support rules. I don't want to manage all of the C-47's and base units to make sure my planes can operate. Let the computer do it.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 39

Re: Suggestions for V1.3 - 8/2/2002 6:00:56 AM

Spooky

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IndyShark
[B]1. I would like to be able to select which air units are upgraded !ather than let the computer do it.

2. Planes that need to be repaired move with an air unit when I transfer bases. I have a few bombers that never get repaired and never move when 95% of the unit has moved bases.

3. Give us the ability to edit the date when planes become available and the replacement rate.

4. Turn on or off air support rules. I don't want to manage all of the C-47's and base units to make sure my planes can operate. Let the computer do it. [/B][/QUOTE]

1� I Agree

2. And how do you move these damaged planes since they cannot fly ? The actual rules seem quite good for me

3. I Agree - but the Editor is not really supported right now (maybe after the 1.3 patch ?)

4� What do you mean exactly ? Do you want the computer to move the base units ... or do you want to eliminate the need for Aviation support ? IMO, logistics was an headache for both sides so it needs to be present in the game

Spooky

_____________________________

Visit Spooky's UV & WITP Fansite !

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 40

Re: Re: Suggestions for V1.3 - 8/2/2002 7:03:01 AM

DSandberg

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]2. And how do you move these damaged planes since they cannot fly ? The actual rules seem quite good for me[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree. When I first started with UV I came to the very cusp of reporting a bug where whenever I transferred the last planes of a given type away from a base, there was nearly always an "empty" unit (0 planes) left behind. It took several scenarios before I thought to take a closer look at just what was in that leftover unit ... DOH! Damaged planes!

David :D

_____________________________

"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 41

- 8/2/2002 7:06:07 AM

DSandberg

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]And when you do form a TF now don't make us click the done screen once we have selected the type of TF - just go to the ship selection screen when we click the icon.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

I [B]totally[/B] agree with this. That particular UI bugaboo is the single most annoying one in the game for me. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on something like "Sub Patrol", sat there waiting for the screen to change for several seconds, and then remembered that I have to click another button.

David

_____________________________

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 42

- 8/2/2002 7:18:02 AM

Sonny

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]

I [B]totally[/B] agree with this. That particular UI bugaboo is the single most annoying one in the game for me. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on something like "Sub Patrol", sat there waiting for the screen to change for several seconds, and then remembered that I have to click another button.

David [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you feel as stupid as I do when you realize that the screen is not gonna change by itself?:o

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 43

Re: Re: Suggestions for V1.3 - 8/2/2002 7:54:24 AM

IndyShark

Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]

1� I Agree

2. And how do you move these damaged planes since they cannot fly ? The actual rules seem quite good for me

3. I Agree - but the Editor is not really supported right now (maybe after the 1.3 patch ?)

4� What do you mean exactly ? Do you want the computer to move the base units ... or do you want to eliminate the need for Aviation support ? IMO, logistics was an headache for both sides so it needs to be present in the game

Spooky [/B][/QUOTE]

I have no problem with logistics, but the air support, support and supplies rules are not clear to me. Some units seem to have air support capability when they do not show any. Perhaps I am just reading the unit screens poorly, but I don't like moving base units all around.

I would also suggest that bombers attack more than one target when the first target has been sunk. I have seen too many targets hit with 8+ bomb hits with other targets available. With a large airstrike, the planes should attack several targets.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 44

- 8/2/2002 9:32:41 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Given that you know the outcome of the engagement, it is easier to decide on what the targeting scheme should have been.

I think it is very realistic, given certain visibility conditions and an empahasis on hitting "High Value Targets", that a ship may get "overkilled".

The bomb or torpedo that causes the damage that will result in the ship sinking may not be obvious at the the time of the attack. Especially for larger ships(CVS, BBs, etc..). Larger ships more than likely will not just "dissapear under the waves" immediately when the fatal hit is struck. And although they are now on the way to the bottom, the attacking pilots only see a high value target still floating.

Distribution of aircraft to targets with limited information and visibility will induce situations like that. Such is the chaotic state of warfare.

Combat leadership is management of chaos at the highest levels. Perfection is not the normal outcome.

If attacks went off to perfectly, it would definitely be "ahistorical" and unrealistic.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 45

my wishes - 8/2/2002 10:40:05 AM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

Let Matrix release the promised fixes. Basically we are not going to see a redesign of the interface or major changes, this game is done. Time to move on to WITP! And if you like UV's look and feel you will like WITP, if not you are probably not going to be happy with that one. This game is very much at its heart a Gary Grigsby offspring, with all the good and bad that entails to each wargamer's desires. :D

edit: WITP will be renamed Life In The Pacific and labled a menace after it causes the break-up of marriages, love affairs and careers.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 46

- 8/2/2002 10:48:11 AM

Mad Daddy

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: Eastlake, Ohio
Status: offline

I'd like to see the editor supported so that plane types can be added and weapons added.

Also ship classes to be added such as the V & W class destroyers of the Australian Navy that were available at the time.

I agree that the bomb penitration routines are not realistic although near misses that detonate close by the ship's hull can certainly cause flotation damage.

_____________________________

War is HELL, and then you get married!!!

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 47

Submarines? - 8/3/2002 8:40:36 AM

Wasp

Posts: 62
Joined: 4/27/2002
Status: offline

For 1.3, would it be possible to tell the submarines to attempt to follow certain task forces, giving an order not to attack on surface, (after the 1.2 patch it's impossible to attack on the surface and I thought it would be nice if you could tell your sub commanders not to attack on surface, because you know it's not going to work) and perhaps, to give the commanders attack priorities, so that subs will attempt to attack a certain target (Ex. 1. AP 2. TK/AO 3.CV etc)

2. The effect of Depth Charges/Depth Charges hitting sub might be too strong. I find it hard to believe that one SC with 3 - 5 depth charges can hit a sub 2-4 times consistently. Depth charges were more like mortars, not sniper rifles. Even though US hunter killer forces were able to destroy huge amount of subs, I just don't see where you could drop only a few depth charges and get a hit rate of 60-70%. If a escort drops a significant # of depth charges as it did in real life, I can understand the results, but I cannot see how a depth charge can get a high hit rate against subs.

3. I have said this before, but a stronger Editor please, please, please. A strong editor can make this game so much better.

Well, just my few ideas

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 48

Air Lift of Troops - 8/3/2002 12:47:49 PM

Long Lance

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline

When having lot's of different units on a certain base and you want your Dakotas to transport them elsewhere, there can be quite a lot of clicking to do to select the desired LCU.
It would be easier to have a list to choose from which unit to airlift.

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 49

INFLUENCE SHIP AVAILABILITY - 8/3/2002 11:56:36 PM

seeker124

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/22/2002
From: Poulsbo, WA, USA
Status: offline

I wish that there was some way of getting the type of ships you need from HQ back in the mainland. I'm playing a game where every single AV, AO and TK has been sent to me, along with endless MSWs, but I have only 5 CA's in the theater and no BBs.

I'm tempted to start escorting my transports with AO's and TK's to see what will happen:)

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 50

Good Thing Getting AOs - 8/4/2002 2:07:31 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

When you are trying to operate a lot of ships in the forward areas, they suck down lots of fuel, especially those BBs. Since you get a decent amount of AOs up front, can stockpile fuel in forward bases and start shuttling fuel forward using multiple replenishment TFs.

You may not need them immediately, but when you push your ops forward, you'll need them!

And per a discussion on another thread, surface attacks may not happen because of low leader/crew experience. I have had them take place in version 1.2, but only for a couple of subs.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 51

- 8/4/2002 5:46:27 AM

Frankie

Posts: 5
Joined: 8/4/2002
Status: offline

Well, I hope that they would fix crash problem in scenario 17, since it chashes always in same spot (US side, date 15.1.43)

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 52

- 8/4/2002 12:08:16 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

I would love to see the % finished such as we have for land bases also for ships that are rebuilding in port.

Worr, out

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 53

Re: Re: An extended campaign without Midway forces. - 8/5/2002 9:57:28 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Long Lance
[B]

It's not that difficult to create such a campaign by using the Scenario Editor. You'll need not more than 10 minutes to do the job. [/B][/QUOTE]

-The big trouble here is that the historical campaign would
-become a-historical, because results in CS could have
-changed those from Midway and you don�t have control
-over CS results. If USN had lost both carriers at CS, for
-instance, it would be possible that the USN wouldn�t
-risk to fight 4CV�s in Midway with only two. So the
-Japanese would have occupied Midway and then gone
-after Hawaii? And what would happened if the Zuikaku
-and Shokaku were able to fight at Midway? All those
-outcomes are possible depending on the first scenario
-shots...

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 54

Re: My Wish List - 8/5/2002 9:58:29 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]Dear Santa, eerr um Matrix

:D This is what I would like to see in the next patch (not the big bug patch your working on).

Game:

1) Load troops only for transports. Needed to be able to rotate troops without striping much needed supplies from forward bases.

2) Ability to have C-47/Topsy pickup troops. Would be nice to be able to rotate inland troops, i.e. Kanga force at Wau without having to move a base force and transports there.

3) Submarine Patrol zones. A group of hexs that a sub will patrol.

Editor:

1) Ability to create Pilot Leaders.

2) Ability to edit aircraft replacement rates.

:D I know, I know, but like my granny says, if wishes were horses we would be up to our noses in horse sh!t. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

-Agree 100%

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 55

Re: Re: Re: An extended campaign without Midway forces. - 8/6/2002 12:05:30 AM

Long Lance

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon
[B]

-The big trouble here is that the historical campaign would
-become a-historical, because results in CS could have
-changed those from Midway and you don�t have control
-over CS results. ... [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Afenelon, this was an proposal made to tangent to tell him how easy the May 42- Dec 43 campaign including historical Midway losses could be created and that he wouldn't have to wait for someone at MG to do this. I agree to you, that this wouldn't be historic. But in the end, every scenario stops being historic in the moment when the player gives his first order...

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 56

Re: Re: Re: Re: An extended campaign without Midway for... - 8/6/2002 8:22:32 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Long Lance
[B]

Hi Afenelon, this was an proposal made to tangent to tell him how easy the May 42- Dec 43 campaign including historical Midway losses could be created and that he wouldn't have to wait for someone at MG to do this. I agree to you, that this wouldn't be historic. But in the end, every scenario stops being historic in the moment when the player gives his first order... [/B][/QUOTE]

-But I�m not disagreeing from you, just pointing to the fact it
-wouldn�t be logical to build a shistorical scenario staring in May
-1942 (by historical I would call including Midway results).
-Btw: I�ve downloaded your scenario but still didn�t have time
-to paly it
-Btw2: Do you think the Akagi could have saved in Midway?

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 57

- 8/6/2002 9:29:50 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

I would like the ability to disband a task force in harbor when ships in that task force contain supplies. Currently a ship with supplies can't be disbanded until it finishes unloading. Since ships in harbor repair better than ships in a task force it could have made a difference with a couple of very badly damaged ships I had one game. Naturally, the ships in harbor would continue unloading at their normal rate -- behind the scenes as it were.

Another thing that I think needs to be modified is pilot training. Currently if you take more losses than pilot training rates ( which we can't see anywhere in the game ) your replacement pilots start out hideously low in experience ( teens to 20's for the Japanese ). The problem comes in trynig to train them. They are so bad that most of them will die in training.
I would propose that pilots in training be immune from taking operational losses until their training level reached the default level that a pilot would have entering the game if you weren't taking heavy pilot losses. For example, I think the 'default' experience level for a new Japanese pilot is something like 55-- assuming that the Japanese pilot loss rate is below replacement rate. So, my suggestion would be for all new pilots whose experience was below this number to be immune to operational losses until they reached 55.

Yamamoto

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 58

NAMES!!!! - 8/6/2002 11:03:10 AM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

The most obvious (and yet unrealistic probably) thing I need to be able to do is name and task force I create individually and KEEP THAT NAME TO MYSELF (ie. I don't see TF 3 reacting to carriers when I'm the US) becaues if I see a message that says "SUPER KILLER JAP CARRIER TASK FORCE 1 REACTING TO US CV's" and I'm the US, I'd be very fast to either find that group, or run like a girl. But it would be heaps easier to keep track of unit movement by seeing the "Gili gili supply task force" returning to Brisbane message, instead of a bunch of TF 20 somethings etc.

As for routine convoys . . . Yes, a good idea, but just like routine bombers, you would always end up having it turned off because your direct intervention would doa better job (like auto sub ops for example. There to make things faster - but who actually relies on it to sink any ships??)

As for mid point interception - yes, we need that, but whoever said sending subs to patrol harbours was unrealistic is wrong. Most subs went straight to the enemy harbour (just outside, sneaking inside for the more daring captains) to sink enemy ships.

just my 2c

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 59

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An extended campaign without Midway... - 8/7/2002 3:49:07 AM

Long Lance

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afenelon
[B]

-But I�m not disagreeing from you, just pointing to the fact it
-wouldn�t be logical to build a shistorical scenario staring in May
-1942 (by historical I would call including Midway results).
-Btw: I�ve downloaded your scenario but still didn�t have time
-to paly it
-Btw2: Do you think the Akagi could have saved in Midway? [/B][/QUOTE]

To be honest: Towing a burning Carrier thousands of miles back to homeland?? No. I just wanted to build up well balanced Carrier Forces on both sides, so I chose Akagi to be saved, because she was scuttled by Long Lance:) Torpedoes.
Akagi was doomed, the LL just accelerated her starving.
I called this scenario semihistoric, because the difference between what really was to that what I assumed to be in my scenario is not too big. So I told this story to build the well balanced Carrier Forces. Btw, in this scenario the Mogami-Class CA (Mikuma?) isn't sunk, too. I didn't care about smaller ships.

You didn't have time? Me too.:(

Who has the time UV deserves to spend????

(in reply to rdcotton)

Post #: 60

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

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> I am now to 11/10/42 in my new 1.2 #17