Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Suggestions For Next Patch

 
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 >> Suggestions For Next Patch Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Suggestions For Next Patch - 10/1/2002 9:59:25 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
I just finished the Coral Sea scenario on "historic" as the Japanese.

Since it was a short scenario (15 turns), I decided to gamble everything on the throw of the dice: I formed several task forces: 2x carrier; 1x bombard; 2x replenishment; 2x troop.

I swung all task forces south east of Shortland and, using my subs as screens, started the long journey to take Brisbane. I figured if I took Brisbane I would win decisively, and hopefully avoid the American carriers.

Well, the American spotter planes must have seen me, because the Americans threw everything they had at me. It was a wild do-or-die carrier battle. At the end of it I sank both American carriers, while leaving me with two damaged, but still useable, carriers.

The end result was a decisive win, since I took out the only two carriers the Americans had. And this left the way open to take Brisbane.

Suggestions for next patch:

1) activate keyboard "arrow" keys to move around the map. This would be very helpful leaving the player to use the mouse to select bases and task forces.

2) possibily implement some way to show what units have already been given orders on the strategic map. With a lot ships showing, I find I wind up checking the same ship icon twice.

3) editor add-on: add more options to the editor to allow for more tweaking of scenarios and/or the ability to build stand-alone scenarios.

4) add an actual short clip of WWII bombardment footage whenever ships bombard an island base. This would be much more dramatic than the still picture currently being used.

That's about it for now. Great game. . . :)

_____________________________

Post #: 1
I posted this on WITP forum but - 10/1/2002 11:09:15 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline
I'll post it again here.

Maybe a few bits (probably too complicated - I don't know) of code that auto-zip and unzip savegame files in a PBEM game for you automatically (save me some alt-tab ing etc.).

Possibly even mails said zipped game file to your opponent etc.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 2
- 10/1/2002 9:41:42 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
I think the most important, non-trivial improvement that could be added to UV would be the ability to intercept enemy task forces. This could be implemented with the ability to follow enemy task forces and let the interceptions happen at the end of day and night moves.

Currently one can intercept one’s own task forces with the “follow” command. If you could use the follow command to intercept the enemy it would work out well. Perhaps the task force commander would make a competency check and if he failed, his movement would end in the hex where the enemy was last sighted.

If we can’t have interception of enemy task forces, I would like to see surface task forces react to enemy task forces in another hex. I have never seen this happen so I assume it doesn’t. Carriers will react, but no other type of task force.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 3
- 10/1/2002 9:49:36 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B.....................

If we can’t have interception of enemy task forces, I would like to see surface task forces react to enemy task forces in another hex. I have never seen this happen so I assume it doesn’t. Carriers will react, but no other type of task force.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

My AP TFs sometimes react to enemy surface TFs by not entering the port if the enemy moves there.:)

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 4
- 10/1/2002 10:20:15 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]

My AP TFs sometimes react to enemy surface TFs by not entering the port if the enemy moves there.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

:) OK, I meant “offensively” react. I want to see my surface groups try to intercept other task forces. As it stands now, my surface forces really aren’t that important to me. I’ll use them once in awhile for a bombardment but that’s about it. I don’t even use them for that in PBEM games because the enemy ports are so heavily mined.

I know there was some talk at one time of having non-moving task groups treated like mines for the purposes of interception; mines can intercept task forces in mid-move. I think subs may be able to also, but that’s about it unfortunately.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 5
Surface Reaction - 10/1/2002 11:11:26 PM   
foliveti


Posts: 371
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Buffalo, NY
Status: offline
I have had surface task forces react to enemy transport TF. This has occurred with a PT boat TF from Vila going after barges in Shortland. I have also seen a surface TF going after an invasion force heading for Gili Gili. I will admit that it doesn't always happen, sometimes I have parked the TF near GG and it does not go after the invasion force. I chalked that up to lack of sigting or whatever.

_____________________________

Frank

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 6
- 10/1/2002 11:30:21 PM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline
I have seen a suface TF react to and ememy surface group. The reacting force was at Irau with an agressive commander (Callaghan) and Retirement allowed/react to enemy orders. The IJN raided Lunga, the Irau force showed up in time for the second round of combat. I had previously spotted the IJN forming up off Shortlands.

I've also seen PT TFs react to ememy transport groups, again only if the leader is agressive.

Neither happenes often, but the game does model interceptions. Maybe whetver triggers interceptions should orrur more often?

Bill

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 7
Brisbane - 10/1/2002 11:35:42 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Did you actually capture Brisbane? The allies have plenty of LBA to oppose such a move. Also they have the full 7th Aus div there (It can not be moved in the Coral Sea scenario) It would not be a good idea in PBEM game.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 8
- 10/1/2002 11:59:47 PM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline
I would also like to see the ability to build stand alone scenarios. I also know this has been covered before, but the ability to "build" warship classes would be nice. Kinda like the way you can just create land units.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 9
Only at friendly bases - 10/2/2002 1:27:41 AM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
Yamamoto,

It's happened to me several times that I see a reaction move succeding in intercepting another TF. Both for me and the AI.
I think the key can be found in the manual, chapter 9.6. In case reaction status is set to React to Enemy surface TFs will react to defend a friendly base. I don't think you will see any interceptions in midocean.

Another interesting thing that happened the last time I saw a reaction was this:

As US I sent 5 DDs to Lunga to attack Transport TFs.
The AI responded with a surface TF of 3 CAs (probably from the Shortlands).
3 out of my 5 DDs opened the fight by firing torpedoes and only torpedoes!!
Unfortunately they all missed and in the end I lost 3 DDs and I think that the only real damage I caused was that I shot a torpedo tube to pieces on one CA.

Regards
BPRE

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 10
- 10/2/2002 2:56:27 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
Well, it’s good to know that surface combat forces can actually react and engage another force, if only at a base. Here’s hoping I see it in my games sometime soon.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 11
I would love to see... - 10/2/2002 8:25:21 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline
A course and speed indication (doesn't even have to be that accurate) on enemy TF's spotted by air. You could even throw in a random klutz factor which shows the thing headed in a random direction entirely. But you usually knew at least in what general direction he was headed when the Cat phoned in.

The Normal and extend range (in game terms, ie., hexes) for AC in the AC information display brought up by the top row button

A MEANS TO FIRE LESS THAN COMPETENT COMMANDERS AT ALL LEVELS. My wife is getting tired of hearing me scream at TF's and Squadrons and Subs - NO, YOU DUMMY!!!! (previous sentence cleaned up for appearances sake, at least!) Really, guys and girls, if a commander is ruining a decent fighter squadron, sack him!

And a big INT WTF with the PT boats. 500 endurance, run five hexes -(150) spend the night, wind up the next morning with 200 endurance left. What were they doing, water skiing or drag racing submarines? Makes them about as useful as another udder on a boar unless the enemy is next door!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 12
Some Negative - 10/2/2002 10:45:43 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline
Just a quick point - I would HATE HATE HATE HATE :mad: :mad:
to see production options for warships or ships of any sort in WITP. Maybe production options for planes if they are included with a huge disadvantage (ie. massive production penalties). You're supposed to be a theatre commander, not the president/ warlord/ despot/ dictator.


I don't want to see Matrix give in to mainstream trash-game mass-manufacturer trend in strategy computer games and start to ship out a million generic RTS strategies that are essentially command and conquer, or Dune2 with better graphics. I counted 9 (!) games on the shelf at my local EBGames that were all the same RTS "Build your own fleet, send them to war, research better technologies and create your own super bases blah blah blah".

If you want production options, go and by a trashy RTS game (I have beta tested several, all without a distinguishing feature). Don't ask to have them implemented in my WITP!!!!


Stay right where you are! . . . I just need a second to reload.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 13
- 10/2/2002 11:15:44 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Luskan, you are an Ozzie after my own heart.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 14
For Luskan - 10/2/2002 12:14:38 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
I'm with ya too, mister. I like the option to randomize arrival times etc to maintain fog of war for both sides somewhat.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 15
Re: Brisbane - 10/2/2002 1:11:11 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Did you actually capture Brisbane? The allies have plenty of LBA to oppose such a move. Also they have the full 7th Aus div there (It can not be moved in the Coral Sea scenario) It would not be a good idea in PBEM game. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi :)

No I didn't take Brisbane. Once I sank both American carriers the scenario ended automatically giving me a decisive win.

I didn't need to take Brisbane after all. Although, I found that avoiding Gili Gili and Buna saved me from facing ALL the American LBA coming out of Port Morseby.

When I shifted all my task forces to the south-east of Shortland, I also transferred all my LBA there as well. This move by several Japanese task forces put pressure on the Americans to move against me. They may not have known that I was moving full steam ahead with ALL my naval and air forces. When the American carriers ran into me, they faced the full brunt of the Imperial Whirlwind - Banzai!

heh. . .

When I played the Americans in this same scenario, I transferred most of the infantry and aircraft I had to Port Morseby and to other nearby ports.

So the AI doesn't transfer them, eh?

In PBEM games do all players leave their LBA and Australian infantry at Brisbane? Most of the ports along the Australian coast are VERY valuable targets. Any one of them could give the Japanese player a decisive win by threatening them. Perhaps at the very least, it would divide the Allied forces trying to guard everything. . . heh. . .

Also, I found by feigning a move towards Gili Gili and Buna with only light naval forces, and then moving ALL other naval forces south-east of Shortland, it drew out the American carriers and left them NO coverage by LBA. It also divided their naval forces since the AI was still expecting me to hit Gili Gili and/or Buna. . .

When playing the Japanese side, what do all you other players do for strategy in the Coral Sea scenario?

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 16
Re: Some Negative - 10/2/2002 2:17:15 PM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]If you want production options, go and by a trashy RTS game (I have beta tested several, all without a distinguishing feature). Don't ask to have them implemented in my WITP!!!!
[/B][/QUOTE]

Alright, I'm looking across this deep logical chasm and not seeing how you went from "production options for WiTP" to "Matrix will sell RTS clones."

Production would be cool... if done right. For a long game of WiTP, it would greatly increase the potential to play like normal, especially for the US player.

Major fleet units (CVs especially) wouldn't show up in any larger numbers (basically, everyone that COULD make CVs basically was...), but I can see that lighter units could benefit from some flexibility in construction rates.

For example. if many tranports were sunk in 1942, transport construction would have been accelerated. Same with DDs and SSs.

Historical reinforcement schedules get goofy as you diverge from history. Case in point: HMS Victorious in UV. If there had been one more US CV available to pair with Saratoga, Victorious would not had entered the South Pacific!

Production options (if any) and commitment levels for WiTP must be designed to create the most "realistic" war -- in the sense that it's got to past a common sense test. If all the US CVs in the Pacific get sunk in 1942, well, hell, then USS Ranger should be sent to the Pacific. (Historically, USS Ranger stayed in the Atlantic, supported Operation Torch, and eventually served as a training carrier in the Pacific).

Its got to make sense. Production options or a smarter commitment algorithm could help that. Either way, historical reinforcement rates won't be enough.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 17
- 10/2/2002 2:49:59 PM   
HannoMeier


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/5/2001
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline
The original Pacwar concept was clever. A home base in Japan and USA had repair/construction points. If you need more points than historical, than historical reinforcements will be delayed. If you do well and do not have many repairs more work could be done on reinforcements and they will be accelerated.

Hanno

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 18
Luskan.. - 10/2/2002 6:38:43 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline
"Just a quick point - I would HATE HATE HATE HATE to see production options for warships or ships of any sort in WITP. Maybe production options for planes if they are included with a huge advantage (ie. massive production penalties). You're supposed to be a theatre commander, not the president/ warlord/ despot/ dictator."

Ignoring the historical fact that theater commanders had a LOT to say about what was built from the design stage on up to actual operational needs of the individual command - from what I have seen of the games you have so fervently decried - none of these games has the level of operational control over the assets produced that WitP promises. And, production was modified during the days of WWII to react to the attrition of individual types of ships, which leads to the idea that the player of this game, without having to rely on the caprice of an AI ought to be able to respond to the results of the game by altering what is coming on line - at least as far as how many and when. If the IJN had started ravaging convoys to the SOPAC/SWPAC area, don't you think Nimitz would have been screaming for more escorts long before the DE's arrived in the PTO. If the old BB's had not been salvaged, there would have been a need for more gun ships for invasions, which would have also altered the rate of production of CV escorts ships.

What we don't need is an OOB which is Soviet styled and centralized and never reacts to the changing fortunes of war - "Here, Comrade. Go fight the Germans at Kursk, but you will have to do so without tanks. The tanks you wanted were not scheduled to be built yet, and the commissar decided we needed these wonderful trucks. If you can wait three months, the T-34's will begin to come off the production line, and by next April, I can assure you, we will have lots of good tanks for you.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 19
- 10/2/2002 7:52:05 PM   
Pawlock

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline
I for one wholeheartily agree with Luskan on this one, production options and the like are considered minor tweaks by some, but I really think even though insignificant looking now could and probablty will alter the type of game it will develop into.

I can just see it now, instead of focusing on how to use and manage your assets available , people will come up with formuleas and ideas on whats the best type of ship to produce ,size guns , etc . The game will develop into who knows the best formula's.

Luskans right , there are soooo many of these types of games out there, and while some of them are great in thier own right, they are not UV.

It all boils down to what type of game you want,,, UV is rather unique it its own right and proved to be a huge success to those that know it. Why fix something thats not broke. WITP will hopefully be a larger version of UV. If it is it will be a success, if it strays from its roots too far it goes into unkown territory again. If you were Matrix and 2b3 what would you do? I certainly know what direction the sensible buiseness would take.

Be careful what you wish for !!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 20
- 10/2/2002 11:08:01 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
I hope we get the option to decide which ships are produced (i.e. build another Akagi class), but I don’t want to see the ability to make up our own classes of ships (i.e. add some more 8” guns on that cruiser there). I think this would be a good compromise between the people who want no modification and those who want lots of modifications.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 21
- 10/3/2002 7:46:26 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I think the time frame of most scenarios in UV is too short for production options to have much effect, but in WITP I would like to see some production options, e.g. being able to decide whether to finish certain ships as CV or BB / CVL or CL, or to convert liners into CVL or DDs into DMS/APD/AVP etc. (perhaps linked to the course of events - if you lose many CVs you'll get the option to convert other hulls into CVs).

My suggestions for the next patch - probably asking too much for a patch, sounds more like an add-on:

One thing I would like to see in UV is PTs using supplies instead of fuel (if I'm not mistaken PTs used (av)gas, not fuel oil). This would make forward-deployment at undevelopped bases (where you don't want to risk sending a TK) much easier. Somehow I never manage to forward enough fuel to the front via barges or AKs to sustain PT operations, presumably because the very barges and AKs use up most of the fuel they carried to refuel themselves for the return trip.

Furthermore, I would recommend that 'refueling from port' of ships larger than barges and PT/PC types should be allowed only at bases with proper fuel storage facilities, say a size 5 or 6 port. Or more precisely, TKs and AOs shouldn't be allowed to discharge fuel at small bases, for lack of proper storage facilities. It is hard to imagine that a size 1 port is equipped with storage tanks and handling facilities for fuel oil, and it is even less likely that capital ships are refueled via oil drums. Therefore refueling of larger ships at small ports should only be possible if TKs or AOs are around as replenishment TFs.
Same goes for ammunition, I don't think there were 16-inch shells readily available at small bases like Lunga to replenish a bombardment or surface TF. A (moveable) 'heavy ordnance' depot like the mine depots at Truk and Noumea might be a solution for larger ammo types (above 5-inch?).

There should also be some kind of upper limit on the amount of supplies and fuel that can be stockpiled at bases (due to limited storage facilities - where do you put 250k tons of fuel on Tulagi??). Although it takes a long time to unload, it is too easy to stockpile fuel and supplies at crude advance ports. At least there should be a 'decay rate' for stockpiled supplies - it's a nasty climate out there.

In regard to land combat, the Japanese land units retreat/succumb way to easy for my taste. Even if capturing a base migght be achieved rather fast, hunting down stragglers should take more than just a couple of days.

Don't forget other dream features like mid-course interception and target priorities for airstrikes and subs.

So much for today's episode of 'LST and the quest for the perfect game' :D

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 22
React to Enemy - 10/3/2002 9:02:07 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
How does the game engine decide what friendly surface task force will be sent to intercept an enemy bombardment task force?

I ask this because I had a 23-ship surface combat task force set on "do not retire" and "react to enemy" within 11 hexes of Lunga.

At the same time I was in the process of transferring a single destroyer TF to join up with that 23-ship task force. This destroyer was also set on "do not retire" and "react to enemy".

The single destroyer was closer to Lunga than the 23-ship TF, when the Japanese launched a bombardment mission against Lunga.

Now guess which friendly "TF" intercepted that enemy bombardment TF?

Yup - that single destroyer - and it got creamed by 2 BB and 3 CA. . .

So it would seem that if two friendly TF are nearby, the TF that is the closest is the one that intercepts the enemy.

Does this seem right?

In the next patch it might be useful for the game engine to send an intercepting TF based on its size, providing it is within the 11 hex interception range.

So the game should do two checks for interception:

1) The size of the task force (the largest one goes)

2) The distance from the target (the largest task force must be within the 11 hex interception range)

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 23
Luskan you legend - 10/3/2002 10:22:17 AM   
herbieh

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 8/30/2002
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
I agree with everything you have said. I window shopgames every day, but rarely buy. Give me History, and a chance to show that i can do better:D
on the topic, I too really wish I could some how order a surface task group to intercept a well sighted, Im spotting you with my float planes , enemy task group, and get a mid ocean battle, Ive had several where I guessed the enemies location for next turn, but lets face it - Your commander has had a battle group reported 100 miles to the North. You sight it with your own air. You have plenty of air. The baddie wants a battle too (why else do we have BATTLEships and BATTLELINES). what is going to happen? a battle of course! Unfortunately in UV a lot of times in mid ocean it doesnt.
At the moment too many BBs "pass in the night", in the middle of the day.
Hope Matrix can give this, Im a computer brick, so maybe the code is mission impossible.
Still , I LOVE THIS GAME, and my wife HATES it, Matrix, keep up the great work, compared to the games Luskan talks about this game is a HOLDEN, and the others Fords (Aussie joke):p


PS Beer is good

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 24
- 10/3/2002 10:34:58 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
As a "strategic level game", LST is exactly correct. A port/AF's abilities should be based on its size. The "refueling thingee" alone would have a ripple effect throughout game tactics. There should be realistic fuel and supply limits based on both terrain and port/AF size. This alone would serve to slow down the current unhistorical and unrealistic tempo of operations.

Possibly, you could add a feature where each side could designate a single base as a "Forward Staging Area", where the supply/fuel storage levels could be exceeded based on the port/AF size...BUT, this ID should be able to be seen by the enemy with careful recon.

There should also be a limit to "over the beach" supply levels. Ideally, past a certain level of supply, you'd have to leave the transports at anchor to keep the supplies rolling in as they were used up.

Why call it a "strategic level game" when it's currently mostly all about tactics? Forcing the realistic use of "prime real estate" will put an accurate and historical premium on those bits which were "high rent" in reality, and for exactly the same strategic reasons.

PT's...Jap barges should also use supplies instead of fuel as well.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 25
- 10/3/2002 5:50:17 PM   
Admiral_Arctic

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 8/15/2002
From: Nonamia
Status: offline
I would hate to see production in the hands of the player. You would only see all the best equipment- poor old Oscar I and friends would be gone. P39 wouldn't be made. In PACWAR and RUSSIAN FRONT the production was soooo screwed up.


The patch improvement I would like to see is a CAP only button. When you are launching attacks against undefended targets while defending your own base from air attack- your fighters are burnt out in only one day. No pilots stay behind to rest for the next day. You have to set the CAP to 80-90% and hope you do enough damage so you can go on training next day (to rest) without getting attacked again. A CAP only button would allow you to defend for longer or your bombers have to go night ops.


There should also be a switch to set the maximum fatigue level. So a pilot with say 50 fatigue would not fly while his buddies would if they were lower. You could change the switch simuliar to the CAP switch. This way you can set your CAP (or any mission) to sat 80-90% but only the pilots with the fatigue less than your switch setting. I think this would be a BIG help and reduce time checking every base and CV every turn for pilot fatigue. Because you will know that any really tired pilots wouldn't be flying.

_____________________________

I'm a hazard to myself.

Want. Take. Have.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 26
Ideas - 10/3/2002 7:45:16 PM   
marc420

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline
Hi,

I've just gotten UV in the last week, so the following is the impressions of someone who is still learning the game. But the following are some things that I'd like to see based on this limited experience. It would be nice to see these in a UV patch, but I also write this in the hope these might be seen in WITP.

1) Currently a message screen appears during the turn. This shows messages about what's occuring, including contact info. It would be nice to have access to this screen during the orders phase. For example, it would be nice to a summary of the contact/search info from the previous turn.

Currently I find myself sitting with a piece of paper trying to take notes on what contact/search/coastwatcher info flashes on the screen during the turn. During the turn, there is this message scroll at the bottom, but it doesn't seem possible to return to this.
That would help. Also, adding the hex info to these reports would help (currently it says something like Mavis spots SS, but not the hex).

On a more general note, an ability to put icons on the map that show contact or search results graphically on the map. Then the player could click on an icon and see the search or battle results for that location. Try to picture what HQ would have as a tracking/status board and give the player something similar.

2) Some sort of summary screen where a summary of search results over several turns would help. Something that ties together the fact that you've spotted a carrier tf in three locations over the last three turns.

I realize that with fog of war, it might be difficult to connect a sighting of a CA on day with the sighting of a CA and a CV the next. So a player interaction where its the player that connects the dots across the sigthings might be a part of this.

The previous request that some indication of course and speed at time of sighting would help.

3) Is there any ability to shadow an enemy TF? Particularly with the PBY's and the Mavis' I thought this was common when a sighting was made. Its a different war in a different region, but CA's did the same with the Bismark during its attempted breakout. Again, this could be added to a screen showing contact information over several days. If a TF is being shadowed, then a player should get good, continuous speed and course info for the time when the TF is being shadowed.

In general, the game currently plays as if at the commanding HQ, the boards showing the enemy location are erased every morning before the commander arrives at HQ, and the messages showing contacts/search results are destroyed immediately and not available for review.

4) On the same sort of search display, could there also be information on which areas were searched and nothing was found? This could be detailed showing swaths of where search planes and ships were located in the last turn, or it could be a more general indication of shading which shows the level of search on the map. Sometimes the information that nothing was found in a location is as important as the information that something was found.

5)Could there be something showing the current estimate of what the DL and the MDL are for a player's forces. This could be a specific number, or a more general listing of recent events that effect this. This of course would be effected by Fog of War. However, there should be some way of looking at a sub for instance and getting information that this sub has been spotted by a Mavis in the last day, as well as it launched an attack in its currently location, therefore it is very likely the enemy knows its location.

6) It was previously mentioned that there needs to be someway to order a TF to follow, close and engage with an enemy TF. This got sidetracked into a discussion of who had seen TF's react to enemy surface forces, but I think the original point was important. Already, in the games I've played, I've had cases where I wanted to give exactly this order. I've had a contact with an enemy TF. I've had some sort of surface units in the area. What I want is for my TF to attempt to close and engage the enemy. But there seems to be no way to order this. This is added to the previous discussion that the reaction of a surface group seems to only occur when a friendly base is threaten.

In my case, I had just fought the battle of Coral Sea in its own fashion. Both the Lex and the Yorktown were sunk. However one IJN CV was severely damaged and the other heavy CV had sustained at least some bomb hits. The threat of naval air was greatly reduced, and I wanted my CA's to try to close and engage the enemey CV TF. There was no way to do this in the game that I could find.

6) The request for some sort of indication of which units have been given orders in this turn, or have orders from a previous turn would be useful. Particularly as the game expands into the full Pacific Theater.

7) On endurance and fuel usage for a ship or TF, some sort of indication of a ships available radius on this endurance level, or the time when the ship must return to base would be very useful. Perhaps a button on the ship display screen where a player could go to a screen that shows both available endurance for the ship as well as the required endurance to get to friendly bases would be helpful. Currently I find it rather difficult to know exactly what cruising distance a ship or TF has left and when they need to either refuel at sea or return to base.

8) Being able to print or save to a txt file the data on various reports and screens would be useful. I always find it amusing when I'm playing a computer game and I find myself writing information by hand on pieces of paper on my desk.

9) Particularly in WITP, some sort of system of Intelligence information would be useful. For instance, the UV game begins with the Allied player knowing the IJN is staging an operation that leads to the Coral Sea battles. But after the beginning of the game, this information is not available. General reports from Intelligence indicating what major forces might be in the area and general enemy intentions might be interesting.

As an addition to this, a "planning phase" in the game might be interesting. In the game, the player decides to launch an operation at the time they order the TF formed and give it sailing orders. In the real world, there is considerable planning that precedes this. Perhaps an operation might get some benefits if a HQ has been ordered to "plan" an operation in advance of an operation. For example, prior to an invasion of Lunga, the appropriate HQ could be given the order to plan an invasion of Lunga. The results of this in the game could be ....

1) more effective coordination of the units (air, CV, surface ships, transports, marines)
2) more efficient use of supply and logistics for the operation.
3) perhaps a staff report to the player as for suggested needs for logistics (staff recommends x number of APs loaded with y amount of supplies)
4) The chance that enemy intelligence would gain word of this operation and warn the opposing commander, usually in some general terms that something is coming.

This would seem to have several advantages in the game.
1) It might serve to help slow the pace of operations down to a more realistic pace.
2) Give the player some advantages in the game for well planned operations
3) Allow a mechanism that intelligence could work in the game.


10) For WITP, I think the player should have some sort of say in the production process. For UV this is not realistic, but a Theater commander should have some input in this. It should NOT be a direct control, because at higher levels beyond the scope of the game there would be allocations of resources between theaters. So there should be some way where Nimitz can request more escort vessels, but then he might not get them because some higher level might decide they are more needed in the Battle of the Atlantic. But at some point, I can easily see someone in Washington telling Nimitz that he can get more escorts, but that Transport production would have to be cut to accomodate this.

So there should be some way for the player to influence production, but not control it. And there should be substantial penalties for both interfering with the natural production and for a player that continuously changes these requests.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 27
Free Quote - 10/3/2002 9:21:02 PM   
Admiral_Arctic

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 8/15/2002
From: Nonamia
Status: offline
Maybe when ships are going to be sent by the Pearl or Jappa a message letting us know how long before the ship will be available again. If a ship has only Sys damage you can judge reasonably well. But if your missing a target or need a refit/ weapon addition, you don't know if its best yo keep in theatre or to return anyway.

All you can do now is save the game, send back the ship, check intelligent screen, if OK play on. If too long, reload to point before send back. Or is this cheeting? I don't like to save/reload turns at any time, but sometimes you need to know.

_____________________________

I'm a hazard to myself.

Want. Take. Have.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 28
- 10/3/2002 10:31:47 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Great game. I think the support Matrix/2by3 have shown is top notch.

All that needs to be done now is to tweak various aspects of the game :)


Bombardment Missions

Suggestion:

When TFs are given the bombardment mission, they should remain on station and continue bombarding their target each turn, unless one of the following is true:

1) They are engaged by enemy surface TFs

2) They are engaged by enemy air forces

3) They run low on fuel, ammo

4) They have "retirement allowed"

5) The player re-assigns them to another mission

As it stands now, all bombardment missions end after each turn, which means the player must re-assign the bombardment mission to the TFs and re-direct them back to the target. These actions can become tedious, especially if you have a number of bombardment TFs. They are also a waste of fuel and energy, since these TFs automatically return to their home base after each bombardment mission.

Bombardment TFs should remain Bombardment TFs, and should remain on station, continuuing their mission, until one of the above conditions occurs.

Cheers!

:D

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 29
PBEM - 10/5/2002 5:24:51 AM   
jshaniii

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/13/2001
From: Albany, New York, USA
Status: offline
I really object tothe concept of having one screen provide both players their intelligence. The game loses alot compared to the one player game. Please.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Suggestions For Next Patch Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.980