Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Re: Re: Thanks for list Joel!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: Re: Thanks for list Joel! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Re: Re: Thanks for list Joel! - 9/12/2002 4:04:05 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]

That would be me. [/B][/QUOTE]

It was excellent suggestion!


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 31
Happy Camper - 9/12/2002 9:42:42 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		Joel,
I really like seeing points 4 & 6 on the list for 1.50 fixes. There's also some other good things being fixed as well.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 32
Great Work Guys - 9/13/2002 6:12:25 AM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		I especially like # 18, the "Stand Down" button for the Sq`s Secondary Missions List orders, saves mucho clicking..

Thanks !

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 33
I Respectfully Disagree - 9/13/2002 7:08:43 AM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]

LR-CAP over carriers too good is on the 'maybe' list?!?!.

That is a game killer, I would expect it to be a critical must-do item. [/B][/QUOTE]

First this is a general response, not directed to, or at, Wilhammer.

I disagree, as one of the 2 guys ( Oleg was the other ) who took the time (( several hours BTW )) to set up and post a test of the LR Fighter CAP over CV TF`s I think the results are still out on exactally how _ consistently_ key word there, deadly it is.

But beyond that it is certainly a non issue for those that play the AI. . I agree, that as long as both agree, people can play anyway they want in a PBEM Game......BUT

What I really don`t understand here is WHY anyone would want to move and attack with your CV`s toward a opponents CV TF that is obviously parked 60 miles from a major size 9 Airbase,
has 3 Sq`s of Army AF Fighter CAP over it AND here`s the *key point* unless the other Guy is an idiot has 3 Sq`s of Medium Bombers set on Naval Strike with a Sq of Fighters as escort.... a veeeerrrry Gamey Ploy.

You attack that combo and your Dead Meat, and deserve to be.
Why should they " fix it" so your TF will always be Sunk in a slighty more balanced fashion ????

Ya know in other PBEM/MP type Games that`s called " Camping" a guy finds a strong defensive postion, and just stays put, won`t come out to fight, or engage....you lose because he did nothing, he wins by doing nothing.

Very quickly, that guy losses all _respect _ and no one plays him anymore...

Now, the only reason I take the time to post this ( probably my last post on this Forum ) is that I do not think Matrix, with their limited time & recources, and need to make & sell other Games should have to " make work" any tactic or strategy , however gamey, silly, unreasonable or ahistorical that people can come up with in a historical simulation.

Give Them A Break People.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 34
- 9/13/2002 7:12:00 AM   
Point Luck

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: East Coast-US
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]26) IJN ASW effectiveness has been reduced by 50%.

This seems a little heavy to me. It's not like it's exactly easy to kill a sub right now. Perhaps people are seeing some of the S class subs sunk and they are thinking it ahistorical because the better Gato class subs were harder to sink.

Currently the Type 95 Depth charge has an accuracy of 5. Does this mean it will go down to a 2.5 ?

Everything else looks good though.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

I whole wholeheartedly agree. I’m a little concerned about the reduction level for IJN ASW. I’ve being playing scenario 19 with some very serious sub operations on both sides. To date sub losses are pretty much equal. Sinkings by both sides have been hard earned, We have seen some very interesting sub action, including some attack aircraft being shot down by the attacked sub (no kidding IJN lost 2 so far US lost 3, (1-b17). I don’t believe that the IJN ASW is equal or better than U S. I really have to work the area with A/C and DD’s to bag any U S subs.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 35
- 9/13/2002 7:13:40 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]The LR-cap item would be a redo if it happened every time and we knew what was happening. Gary is trying to tone it down, but the one save he was sent does not consistently show killer LR-CAP. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by this?

I guess the one save file you mention is mine. If so, it must consistently show killer CAP effect, at least that's how it is on my machine. No matter how many times I open it - it always show same things happenning, always 45 x Val strike, 45 Vals downed etc.

?

O.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 36
naval bombardment - 9/13/2002 8:46:39 AM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		"Casualties to ground units caused by air and naval bombardments have been reduced. "
Have people really been experiencing excessive casualities from naval bombardment? In my games, it has seemed that naval bombardment was pretty anemic (against ground troops, that is) in comparison to air bombardment. What has the experience of other players been?

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 37
- 9/13/2002 8:46:41 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Point Luck
[B]

I whole wholeheartedly agree. I’m a little concerned about the reduction level for IJN ASW. I’ve being playing scenario 19 with some very serious sub operations on both sides. To date sub losses are pretty much equal. Sinkings by both sides have been hard earned, We have seen some very interesting sub action, including some attack aircraft being shot down by the attacked sub (no kidding IJN lost 2 so far US lost 3, (1-b17). I don’t believe that the IJN ASW is equal or better than U S. I really have to work the area with A/C and DD’s to bag any U S subs. [/B][/QUOTE]

I believe the reason they are reducing IJN ASW effectiveness is because historically, the IJN were comparitively poor at ASW. As it stands currently, a single "experience" rating is used for all tasks, and the high experience japanese ships are, compared to historical loss rates, far too good at ASW.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 38
- 9/13/2002 10:31:41 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Sorry, what exactly do you mean by this? I guess the one save file you mention is mine. If so, it must consistently show killer CAP effect, at least that's how it is on my machine. No matter how many times I open it - it always show same things happenning, always 45 x Val strike, 45 Vals downed etc.
[/QUOTE]

When you replay a save file you will always get the same result - that prevents pople from replaying turns to get better results.

You have to set up a similar situation and have the same sort of result occur everytime or else you are just watching a replay over and over of a series of bad die rolls.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 39
- 9/13/2002 10:36:52 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]

When you replay a save file you will always get the same result - that prevents pople from replaying turns to get better results.

You have to set up a similar situation and have the same sort of result occur everytime or else you are just watching a replay over and over of a series of bad die rolls. [/B][/QUOTE]

But I did set up several similar situations and got very similar results!

Killer CAP effect DOES happen VERY consistently on my system, I guess I explained it all in my mails to Ross, and posts in Killer CAP thread on bug forums etc... It happens whenever I set up a LR CAP (more squadrons doing LR CAP - the effect is stronger) over CVs.

Do I have to smother your mailservers with attachments of my savefiles with glaring evidence of this bug? :)

O.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 40
Response... - 9/13/2002 11:28:54 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

Well, Paul is right as far as the problems with replaying from saves to find out if something is repeatable, but that's not the crux of the issue here.

As far as I know, we have the saves and the descriptions and the developers are looking into the situation as we speak. However, based on Joel's responses it doesn't happen as consistently for us as it does for you, so it may be that you've either hit upon the exact combination of variables required for it or you just have very bad luck with bugs. In any case, it's certainly being investigated.

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 WW2'er)
Post #: 41
- 9/14/2002 12:48:58 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]38) Damaged planes in an air group that is transferred will always cause a new sub group to be formed (they will not automatically merge with another air unit). This may alleviate some of the problems with too many pilots in an air unit.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Side effect alert!

This idea will prevent over/undermanned air groups, but there are several people having problems with remnant squadrons not upgrading aircraft at the same time as the parent squadron, preventing a recombine.

I would highly suggest tweaking the aircraft upgrade code to
1) Upgrade all remnants at the same time (problematic, since I believe sqns have to be in range of Noumea or Brisbane to upgrade).
or
2) Not upgrade squadrons with remnants (annoying if you can't get the remnants back together)
or
3) Ensure remnants upgrade aircraft properly (only after the parent squadron does) so the player will be able to eventually recombine the units.

I believe #3 is the best option.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 42
- 9/14/2002 2:50:35 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Point Luck
[B]

I whole wholeheartedly agree. I’m a little concerned about the reduction level for IJN ASW. I’ve being playing scenario 19 with some very serious sub operations on both sides. To date sub losses are pretty much equal. Sinkings by both sides have been hard earned, We have seen some very interesting sub action, including some attack aircraft being shot down by the attacked sub (no kidding IJN lost 2 so far US lost 3, (1-b17). I don’t believe that the IJN ASW is equal or better than U S. I really have to work the area with A/C and DD’s to bag any U S subs. [/B][/QUOTE]


This is definately a grey area, much like the air combat issue. Grey because so much depends on player tactics and strategy. Of the historical issue there is little doubt that Japanese ASW was a neglected branch of the IJN. While there were always exceptions to the rule, in general IJN ASW tended to suffer primarily from lack of follow-through, as even on occasions when a sub was detected or revealed itself by firing a torpedo, the escorts would tend to agressively drop a few dozen depth charges and then go back to it's business allowing the US sub to creep away.

In terms of UV though, the 'biggest' factor for lack of results was simply that all too often the subs missed their rondevous with major surface elements that the code-breakers would become privy too resulting in lack of contact.

This factor is *extremely* important as demonstrated in my current campaign as well as other player's AAR's. In my first few games, i was frankly, quite lazy about my submarine strategy, hence there often was not alot of contact between major IJN surface TF's and my subs.....hence very few if any losses which squares very solidly with the historical record

However in my current campaign......i did a 180 and became *very agressive* putting my subs in harm's way.

The results were both "ahistorical" in a sense

1) i sank and/or damaged a slew of MCS's and AP's (at this point in time historically, the Silent service suffered from the same "warship happy" doctorine that the IJN is often critisized for.....early intercept missions via the codebreakers also created more problems than successes as well as subs shifted around like checkers burning fuel but sinking little)

2) I ran into several heavily escorted surface combat TF's resulting in pitched battles between my old S boats and IJN DD's.

This time around i missed scoring on several IJN carriers but suffered heavy losses in the form of 3-4 S class boats.

One could easily frown at this but as i mentioned, i quickly realized the dominating factor here was my own battle orders, not the ASW model. (+ 95% of the losses were old S boats)

Still.......i cant say the move to reduce IJN ASW is not without warrent as again, this lack of technique (with some exceptions, there 'were' some very skilled IJN ASW'ers out there but they were well outnumbered by the less well drilled) coupled with a lack of followthrough produced very few US losses by direct depth charge attack.

Lets give it a try and see what happens

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 43
- 9/14/2002 3:28:57 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B]

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by this?

I guess the one save file you mention is mine. If so, it must consistently show killer CAP effect, at least that's how it is on my machine. No matter how many times I open it - it always show same things happenning, always 45 x Val strike, 45 Vals downed etc.

?

O. [/B][/QUOTE]

When Gary ran your save through his debugger, it did not resolve the same way as it did on your system. Perhaps because he is onto 1.41+ or perhaps for some other reason. He did not find a smoking gun, although he did see how some fighter groups might rack up especially large kill numbers. He has made some changes. Hopefully this will minimize the problem without throwing other things out of whack.

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 44
- 9/14/2002 4:19:49 AM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline 		I have to agree with reducing IJN ASW effectiveness. So far I've played only against the AI, usually as the US. I tend to be agressive with my subs, but no matter the strategy they seem to get butchered. I usually run out of subs 3 or 4 months into the campaign. I'm currently in Scenario 17, July 43, AI set to "hard". As a game, the scenario is long over (I have over 2:1 advantage in points) , but I want to see how an invasion of Rabaul plays out. I have had only one sub available since November 42, and that is one repaired and recently returned to me from Pearl. I lost a lot of them after they would attempt attacks on destroyers, miss, and then get sunk for their trouble. Maybe in PBEM games (I'll be trying them next) the results are different, but my experience is IJN ASW is deadly.

On the other side, I have only managed to sink three IJN subs and damage a few more using massive ASW patrols both air and sea. I spot them easily enough, just can't seem to hurt them, even after they attack. This part seem reasonable since subs were tough to corner and kill. I would be just be nice if IJN had similar problems!

Bill

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 45
Regarding PT boats fuel expenditure ... - 9/14/2002 5:38:30 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apollo11
[B]What about if they are parked in the middle of ocean?

This was the case before I reported it and before it was fixed
in v1.40 patch (the PT TF could stay in sea HEX for
days/weeks/months)...[/B][/QUOTE]

Wouldn't the best solution then be to determine what sort of hex a TF of PT boats is in when determining fuel expenditure? If they are sitting idle but at sea (either a shallow or deep water hex), presumably they'll need to use some fuel to maintain position rather than drift out of the desired location, which (along with other factors) limits the time they can stay at such a station, so the 1.40 behavior seems correct. But if they are in a coastal hex, they can dock/beach/anchor the boats and hang out ashore waiting for an opportunity to attack, hence not wasting fuel. Seems to me like this behavior needs to take the location into account determining fuel expenditures.

- David

_____________________________

"... 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 WW2'er)
Post #: 46
- 9/19/2002 5:50:14 AM   
angus

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline 		Apollo 11 says :-

"Beaufighter VIc's are OK as they are now...

In book that I own (British Aircraft of WWII) the Beaufighter VIc's
are exactly what they are - torpedo bombers (and thus level
bombers in UV).

In this book it is also written that Australian Beaufighter VIc's were
torpedo bombers as well and that this aircraft-torpedo match
was one of the best ship killing machines of the war ("Whispering
Death") and that they wrecked havoc on Japanese shipping. "

I think Possum was righter than you are. Aussie Beaufighter VIs in UV should NOT be torpedo-bombers in 1942. There were three models of Beaufighter VI. The Mk.VI F was a night-fighter used only in the ETO and MTO and built only in the UK. The Mk.VI C was a long-range fighter and as originally built DID NOT CARRY A TORPEDO. Experiments with a Mk.I C carrying a British 18in torpedo were carried out in 1941. The first service Beaufighter Mk.VI C torpedo-bomber unit was the RAF's 254 Squadron, which started receiving it's new aircraft from November 1942. This in the UK, not in the far-off Antipodes. I would be amazed had there been any Torbeaus in Australia before the Spring of 1943. All the Beaufighters before then would be normal Mk.VI C fighter-bombers.

UV should ideally distinguish *two* sorts of Beaufighters. The early version, a fighter-bomber, which would be the Mk.VI. From sometime in the first half of 1943, the later version would appear, a bomber (*), which could be a Mk.VI ITF (or Mk.X or the Aussie Mk.VIII) which could carry bombs, rockets or an American 22.4in torpedo.

(*) A fighter-bomber too really but can UV have torpedo-fighter-bombers ? If WitP is going to allow the war to go on past August 1945, it'll need to be able to handle torpedo-carrying fighter-bombers like the wonderful Able Dog, it's less wonderful competitor the Martin Mauler, or the even less wonderful Blackburn Firebrand.

Info from Mason's _The British Fighter since 1912_.

HTH,

Angus

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 47
- 9/20/2002 1:13:35 PM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]26) IJN ASW effectiveness has been reduced by 50%.

This seems a little heavy to me. It's not like it's exactly easy to kill a sub right now. Perhaps people are seeing some of the S class subs sunk and they are thinking it ahistorical because the better Gato class subs were harder to sink.

Currently the Type 95 Depth charge has an accuracy of 5. Does this mean it will go down to a 2.5 ?

Everything else looks good though.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree, US subs are the bane of my life, and despite having hunter killer groups of DD's and PC's, and planes at 1000 ft on ASW I rarely hit any of them, yet they seem to be able to strike without imunity.

Subs are meant to be very vulnerable in shallow water, but I can't see that this makes any difference.

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 48
- 9/20/2002 3:56:28 PM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		9) A nationality column has been added to the ship sunk display


Very happy about this, thanks Matrix. Its always nice to see your ideas taken up.

Doomed

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to WW2'er)
Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: Re: Thanks for list Joel! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.266