Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 1/10/2003 11:15:37 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		J7B 5by5.

_____________________________

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 iceboy)
Post #: 181
YES - 1/10/2003 11:17:59 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		I resonate very highly with both of these last three. (but I still say it is a strategy level game ;) )

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 182
- 1/10/2003 2:13:12 PM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline 		Great post Ron.

Paul did write: No, the issue and has always been (for us anyway) "what should Matrix do to improve its customers enjoyment of Uncommon Valor". We have answered that question with "we think there are things we can do, but they are being done to WitP and will be backfit as appropriate

hey thats fine by me, i know there is a better way, its just a matter of time before there is a fix. this has been a very interesting topic and i know it's not falling on deaf ears. Paul & all at Matrix keep up doin what you do making great games.;)

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton


(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 183
- 1/10/2003 3:18:28 PM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		_____________________________________________________
Yup, But Coral Sea and Midway were CV on CV battles.

CV on CV is pretty immaterial to the argument because so far the argument has revolved pretty much around the allocation of land based air. I don't think many people have much heartburn with your ability to go spoiling for a carrier a battle or refuse one? Or the results when they occur?
____________________________________________________Sorry, Mr. Vebber, but I just reviewed most of the 13 pages in this thread and many of the posts do complain about the handling of air strikes in CV on CV battles. In fact, the post that started this thread complains about it.

Not an important point -- but I would like to make it clear that my comments were intended to address both land-based and CV-based aircraft. I'm gaining some optimism that you guys at Matrix may be looking into improvements in this area. At one point the tone was a rather rigid "We will not be making any changes in TF selection," which elicited a regrettably rude comment from me (which I've since retracted). Appreciate it if you guys actually are responding tangibly to our comments.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 184
Re: Re: Re: Re: GG softening? - 1/10/2003 3:20:21 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428
[B]You created the poll that's true but not the debate. Look at the quote in your first post in that thread. It was to the affect of: 50% of the people are unhappy TO SOME DEGREE and 50% are happy the way it is. The third option in your poll clearly requires a change, so realistically those that chose that option should be considered part of those that are "unhappy".

Unfortunately the argument has been presented in the extreme and then ridiculed (not by you). Nowhere has anyone made the statement that 50% want direct control of TF targetting.

edit -

It's interesting that I voted for option 3 and considered myself part of the "50%" while you voted the same and considered yourself opposed to the fictional "50%".

[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The third option in your poll clearly requires a change, so realistically those that chose that option should be considered part of those that are "unhappy".[/QUOTE]

Once again, I cannot fully agree. I do not dispute that wanting to add prioritization is wanting a change, but characterizing everyone who selected option #3 calling for some prioritization "unhappy" is a stretch.

I am not unhappy. I think it is good and can get better.

That is an important distinction, particularly since the statment associated with the 50% referenced frustration to the point if it wasn't fixed, they would not be buying future Matrix products.

[QUOTE]But if half of the purchassers are totally frustraited
by the "naval strike" results (or lack thereof), then the designers
need to address those concerns (whether they agree with them or not) or face the very real possibility that they have reduced
the market for any future titles by HALF. [/QUOTE]

That is the reason I had put that quote in the initial post was to try and clarify what the "upset over lack of control" referenced.

If you are one of the 50% ready to shelve UV and put off buying another product , such as WitP, because of this problem, your one of the 50%.

I can only apologze for lack of clarity if it wasn't interpreted as such.

As a note: It seems that I have not experienced the problems of misguided airstrikes to the extent some others apparently have(almost none in the 7 PBEM games I have going currently, other than 1 "gone to Rabaul" mission that decimated some highly trained Hudsons Sqns). I generally find my LBA quite effective in hitting the correct targets, barring weather.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 185
Important thread, thanks for the participants - 1/10/2003 4:05:30 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I think Ron with his post about “Commander’s Intent” hit the nail on the head.

This was exactly what I was trying to say. In spite of UV being an incredibly well done war game, in time it has started to increasingly bother me that I’m not able to communicate to subordinates “my vision”, or my “commander’s intent”.

Possibility to set up and alter your operational guidelines for your subordinates would truly lift UV, or WITP, one step closer to perfection.

Thanks for GG for being stubborn, thanks for Ron posting the succinct “Commander’s Intent” post and thanks for Paul & Co, for listening to us –it’s amazing how good support you guys give us.

I acknowledge that if there will be changes made to system, it will happen with WITP and that’s cool. Count me in.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 186
Unhappy - 1/10/2003 4:38:35 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]Once again, I cannot fully agree. I do not dispute that wanting to add prioritization is wanting a change, but characterizing everyone who selected option #3 calling for some prioritization "unhappy" is a stretch.

I am not unhappy. I think it is good and can get better.

That is an important distinction, particularly since the statment associated with the 50% referenced frustration to the point if it wasn't fixed, they would not be buying future Matrix products.

That is the reason I had put that quote in the initial post was to try and clarify what the "upset over lack of control" referenced.

If you are one of the 50% ready to shelve UV and put off buying another product , such as WitP, because of this problem, your one of the 50%.

I can only apologze for lack of clarity if it wasn't interpreted as such.
[/B][/QUOTE]

It appears that we are in near complete agreement as far as our satisfaction with UV goes. I'm not unhappy but I do believe that the game would be significantly improved by many of the suggestions in this thread. The only aspect of the problem that I've experienced to the point of annoyance is land based air attacking bases when I intend for them to attack ships at sea. I'd love it if this was addressed in either UV or WITP. BTW - I'd buy WITP today if it was available.

As far as the "50%" goes, it is open to interpretation what the intent was when it was first mentioned. One thing that's apparent from the polls is that much less than 50% (33%) are fully content with the current way naval attacks are handled. According to Cap&Gown, a few months ago it was 50%. It could be that as new players come along &/or players experience this issue more, satisfaction has declined. If I was at Matrix I would make note of that. I believe they have. David Heath said as much many pages back.

Finally, it seems that overall satisfaction of UV is high even from most of those that are "unhappy" with this particular issue. We all have that in common and hopefully we will keep that in mind.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 187
- 1/10/2003 10:21:54 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		A setup screen for each base and TF...

reaction moves: yes/no (both carrier reactions and response to carriers)

port attacks: yes/no

target priorities: (arrange numerically)
(1) CV TF
(2) Bomb/SC TF
(3) AP TF
(4) AK TF
(5) Light units (PT/MSW/barge)

AC naval attack (ground attacks unchanged) radius:

air units auto rest at _ level of fatigue:

Settings overridden by FOW, sh!t happens, or the commanders discretion based on skill (or lack of) and personality. Default settings as they are now, only change them if you want to. Perhaps could have the commanders occassionally ask permission to attack priority targets outside their boundaries

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 188
13 PAGES, AND STILL GOING. - 1/10/2003 10:39:14 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		As no one else seems to have noticed it, I'd like to take a note
here to applaude 2x3 for a breakthrough in war gaming. As all
of us probably know, designing a decent AI for a strategy game
is extremely difficult. And for a War Game, almost unachievable.
Sid Meier found an answer, and still get lauded for it. Puting a
decent, but not exceptional AI in the hands of multiple game
opponants meant that while the player struggled with one or two
of his enemies, the rest were off somewhere building up and getting ahead of you. Simple, clever, and got Sid "game-designerof the decade" kudos from all sides.

Now 2x3 may have hit on something almost as elegant with the
UNCOMMON VALOR engine. As it seems almost impossible to
make an AI "smart", make BOTH sides use it in the most critical
tactical area of the game. "Level the field" in the air/sea battle.
It's simple, and it's brilliant. Well done, guys! You ALMOST pulled
it off.

The problem is that the more "bonehead" logic choices made by
the AI are now visable to the player. And the "targeting loop"
of the naval attack chioce makes some glaringly BAD ones. Now
we all know there were plenty of "wrong targets" hit during the
Second World War. (Thank God you didn't include the very real
possibility of attacking your own side) But your AI makes some
really silly and ahistorical ones. It seems to have two major
biases when choosing a target. 1) Is there a carrier present?
And 2), has anything been sent to attack it yet?

The second is a real problem, as it has the AI scattering "penny-
packet" attacks all over Hell and gone instead of concentraiting
on real threats. A target that can only be reached by a B-17 at
extended range is NOT a current threat---it can be put off until
tomorrow. Closer enemy TF's that can be hit with multiple and
coordinated strikes are much more valuable because they are
A) CLOSER, and therefor more of a threat to do something to
YOU! And B) they are CLOSER, which means you have a much
better opportunity to gang-up and DO SOMETHING to them.

Players don't object to hitting the WRONG target---they get
furious when they watch their assets hitting STUPID targets.
And actually the computer playing the other side would no
doubt be just as frustraited if it were able. Please guys---
clean up and re-define the logic loop for naval targeting. You've
almost got it..., don't fumble on the 5-yard line.

And do it now.., PLEASE! Asking us to plunk down another $50
or so for WitP just to see if you've corrected it yet just isn't
right. I for one, want to know that I will be getting a working
game before I spend any more. Fix UV, and it will be a lot easier
selling WitP to everyone. I know I and 4 friends have been
waiting for it for years.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 189
- 1/10/2003 11:24:27 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline 		I have no problem with changes to the game being made to allow me to prioritise targets, or to specify areas or exclude certain things (either "don't attack CVs" or "don't attck base" orders) or indeed any combination of such changes.

However I think all are in fact quite large changes and would take quite a lot of work to enable the AI to use. Any changes which only the human player can use are going to tip the scales even further in favour of us at least in the longer campaigns. Unless you simply want to make the game much easier the AI will need to be aware and able to exploit these to.

For example it has been explained in the thread that the AI uses some kind of random selection to see what is attacked of the targets available. We know it is weighted in favour of attacking CV taskforces. Now there are many times that I would prefer certain squadrens not to attack CVs. Perhaps I have a squadren of Kates (12) and one Rufes (9) based at Woodlark to interfere with allied supply and minesweeping missions around Gili Gili. Usually the last thing I want is for my few planes to pile in on an allied 4 CV strong TF. They would be massacred. Yet there are times when I would want them to attack CVs such as if i have my own in the area and I want them to help attrite or tire the CAP or even follow up after my main forces have decimated it. It's an easy decision for me but hard for the AI and would require a good deal of extra coding.

And each extra option - prioritisation, or excluding targets, or mission areas etc., will require seperate AI enhancements. So bare in mind that the programmers are not out of shere bloody mindedness not giving us these options but that they are quite serious changes to the game and the AI. I am sure we would all like a better AI. I think the UV one is good but many of you are asking for quite a lot.

Also apart from the 'dont attack ports' option all the others should have a significant chance of strikes going astray. Sometimes convoys are misidentified and planes lose their way. I believe we all want this FoW left in, especially with some extra messages to explain whats going on. So I am not sure just how big a change this will really make, especially as it may result in a lot more missions deciding not to attack anything. I envy you if your ACs have so may firm targets they can pick and choose targets so often. I am usually just relieved when my ACs make a strike at all :)

I think that Grotius (?) made a good point that this level of control is far more important in a short campaign than in a long one. You can come back far more easily in the long campaign from bad luck and bad target selection in those. Each engagement is far less critical and you have the time to

I would far rather see the programmers focus on WitP without this but with an AI that is going to be able to cope with conquering or reconquering the Pacific and SE Asia. But if it can be added easily and the AI gets to benefit from it too then the extra control would be welcomed by me.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 190
Geez, what a tough crowd - 1/10/2003 11:39:23 PM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline 		I don't think 2x3 games fumbled on the 5yd line. I think of it rather like they just won the NFC division title with UV, and now they're going to try to win the Super Bowl with WiTP.

(For all my Australian friends out there: think American football, the one not played with a round spheroid!)

If I think of the value for the money that I got out the $50 I paid for UV, it is an amazing bargain. Heck, I spend $50 all the time taking my wife out to dinner and a movie, and that lasts, what...4 hours?

For what I paid for UV, I've already gotten my money's worth many times over. I would galdly pay $100 for WiTP if it lives up to the potential.

For my money, UV is an unqualified success. Are there little nits I could pick? Sure, every game has a few faults. But overall, I love UV and have become addicted to the gameplay.

Call me a cheerleader if you'd like, I don't mind. In fact, I never even knew of Matrix games or 2x3 games before UV. But in very short order, they have gained another very happy, satisfied customer. Not many game companies out there can do that in so short a period of time.

I agree with the development team that any major changes need to go into WiTP, and then retro-fit them to UV. The full focus of the team should be on WiTP.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 191
- 1/11/2003 2:42:40 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		It occurs to me that if anything this whole issue will be even less significant in WitP. Where as I can see both point of views regarding an argueabley operational/tactical game like UV. The scale and scope of WitP would seem to me rule out any specific targeting or even prioritizaion of TFs. If anything I think there is a need to take some of the micromanagement in Uv out of WitP. For example; things like selecting specific altitude for a/c should be replaced with simple low altitude/high atitude orders.

Besides the whole naval attack at sea or naval attack at port issue, which could and should be rectified for WitP. I would much rather the progamming team dedicate the time in makeing the AI betterand smarter for WitP than adding additional features.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 192
Re: Re: Re: Understanding GG (don't bother) - 1/11/2003 5:31:19 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]Clever.

Tell that to the Japanese at Midway and Coral Sea...oops that one is in this game. ;)

One day/night sequence can turn the tide of this game easy. [/B][/QUOTE]

Midway did not lose the war for the Japanese, it just decided the timescales (they were always going to lose, but might have got a little further). Midway allowed Watchtower, which started the Solomons campaign. IMHO, the Solomons campaign ultimately had a more significant effect on the progression of the war, and that was the result of sustained mis-management and poor JPN 'operational play'.
However Midway IS the classic example of the IJN 'doing it wrong' . Sure, the USN ambushed then using code breaks the IJN didn't anticipate, but in reality they gambled with forces they couldn't afford to lose with a (over complicated) plan with no fall back, took little account of the USN capabilities (and an objective that probably wasn't worth it).
As for Coral Sea - they got slightly mauled, and called off the invasion of PM. How is this relevant? Sounds like a fall back plan/playing the odds to me - not exactly decisive.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 193
Re: Re: Re: Re: Understanding GG (don't bother) - 1/11/2003 6:04:26 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]Midway did not lose the war for the Japanese, it just decided the timescales (they were always going to lose, but might have got a little further). Midway allowed Watchtower, which started the Solomons campaign. IMHO, the Solomons campaign ultimately had a more significant effect on the progression of the war, and that was the result of sustained mis-management and poor JPN 'operational play'.
However Midway IS the classic example of the IJN 'doing it wrong' . Sure, the USN ambushed then using code breaks the IJN didn't anticipate, but in reality they gambled with forces they couldn't afford to lose with a (over complicated) plan with no fall back, took little account of the USN capabilities (and an objective that probably wasn't worth it).
As for Coral Sea - they got slightly mauled, and called off the invasion of PM. How is this relevant? Sounds like a fall back plan/playing the odds to me - not exactly decisive. [/B][/QUOTE]
The game UV is limited in scope (i.e. time). ONE day in a campaign such as those portrayed in UV can very well decide your fate.

IF you think that the Battle of the Coral Sea was not a huge defining moment in the conflict in the SWPAC in WW2... Well, that is fine I guess. But I think many would disagree. :rolleyes:

My point was ONE turn means a LOT in this game when you can lose a huge portion of your ability to carry on the fight in a single series of airstrikes.

While your previous post was simply a lame attempt to ridicule my abilities (of which you have no clue) by saying that one day is not that important in UV and if it is then I am doing something wrong. You are quite simply incorrect as history shows that in the very conflict this game portrays one day can make a huge difference.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 194
Re: Re: Re: Re: Understanding GG (don't bother) - 1/11/2003 6:08:21 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]However Midway IS the classic example of the IJN 'doing it wrong' . Sure, the USN ambushed then using code breaks the IJN didn't anticipate, but in reality they gambled with forces they couldn't afford to lose with a (over complicated) plan with no fall back, took little account of the USN capabilities (and an objective that probably wasn't worth it).[/B][/QUOTE]

The main objective was to lure the US carriers out and destroy them. Midway was the bait not just an objective. Had they sunk the remaining US CV's their vain hope of the US suing for peace might just have come about. It was a big gamble but Yamamoto believed it was their only chance.

I agree with you that Japan would have ultimately lost the war and the battles just determined the timescale. Unfortunately they underestimated the US resolve and overestimated their own ablilities. However, kudos to the US codebreakers and aviators for shortening that timescale decisively at Midway.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 195
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Understanding GG (don't bother) - 1/11/2003 9:23:00 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428
[B]The main objective was to lure the US carriers out and destroy them. Midway was the bait not just an objective. Had they sunk the remaining US CV's their vain hope of the US suing for peace might just have come about. It was a big gamble but Yamamoto believed it was their only chance.

I agree with you that Japan would have ultimately lost the war and the battles just determined the timescale. Unfortunately they underestimated the US resolve and overestimated their own ablilities. However, kudos to the US codebreakers and aviators for shortening that timescale decisively at Midway. [/B][/QUOTE]

And let us occidentals all give thanks once again for the lack of effective maintenance on the Tone's float planes...

_____________________________

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 iceboy)
Post #: 196
Bye Bye - 1/12/2003 12:05:34 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Since most of the replies indicate that the "repliers" are almost as stupid as the AI ... I think the best thing for the realists amongst us .. is to move on to something else ... I've been trying to play this game for 6 months ( against humans not the AI ) ... not once or twice or trice as some of the respondants ... also I've been in the military ( 4 years ) ... also I've been playing wargames for 40 years ... so all I can say is the game is not a correct representation of reality, not even close ... when rpeatedly ( i.e. the norm ) is that unescorted bombers fly into massive land airbases ... at extended range ... when escorts are available and doing nothing ... to attack cruisers in port ... when the commanders intention was to screen against ships at sea ... etc. etc. and BTW I do perfer games where the commander's plans are mucqued up by the computer ... that's one reason I like computer games ... but as some have pointed out ... we are beyond the random muque up ...
I'm moving on ... see ya later ... there are other games ... and other idiots available elsewhere ... and since the designers have declared they will not fix ... then bye bye ...

Real Name = Joseph Chandra Wilkerson ...

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 197
Re: Bye Bye - 1/12/2003 12:34:01 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by jwilkerson
[B]I'm moving on ... see ya later ... there are other games ... and other idiots available elsewhere[/B][/QUOTE]

And I hope the two of you will be very happy together. You seem to have a lot in common, you and the other idiots.

Matrix is considering seriously the serious suggestions that have been made on this thread. Their announced pledge to improve the AI and make other changes during the design process for WITP and retro-fitting the improvements to UV is completely satisfactory to me. Meanwhile, I am continuing to play this thoroughly excellent game (despite its minor shortcomings) both by myself and with my friends. I am glad that you have found a source of superior games - care to share it with us so that we idiots can bask in the benevolent glow of your holiness's wisdom?

"Trice?"

_____________________________

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 iceboy)
Post #: 198
Re: Re: Bye Bye - 1/12/2003 12:39:18 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]
[snip]
Matrix is considering seriously the serious suggestions that have been made on this thread. Their announced pledge to improve the AI and make other changes during the design process for WITP and retro-fitting the improvements to UV is completely satisfactory to me. Meanwhile, I am continuing to play this thoroughly excellent game (despite its minor shortcomings) both by myself and with my friends.

[snip][/B][/QUOTE]

Ditto

_____________________________


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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 199
Re: Re: Bye Bye - 1/12/2003 1:23:21 PM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]And I hope the two of you will be very happy together. You seem to have a lot in common, you and the other idiots.

Matrix is considering seriously the serious suggestions that have been made on this thread. Their announced pledge to improve the AI and make other changes during the design process for WITP and retro-fitting the improvements to UV is completely satisfactory to me. Meanwhile, I am continuing to play this thoroughly excellent game (despite its minor shortcomings) both by myself and with my friends. I am glad that you have found a source of superior games - care to share it with us so that we idiots can bask in the benevolent glow of your holiness's wisdom?

"Trice?" [/B][/QUOTE]

Amen, brother P.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 200
- 1/12/2003 2:02:00 PM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline 		this has been a very interesting thread , just look at all views.
Matrix is what gaming should be about. regardless of how many idiots post (i might just be one of them........)at least these forums are read and responded to by the Matrix team. That alone says volumes of how they support and try to get the most out of there games. The game is after all , just a game. Realistic , of course not . Fun and entertaining, yes. Informative and history related , of course. Is the game all things to all people , no. with that all said , if you like the game , play it !! otherwise , move on....................;)

_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton


(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 201
- 1/12/2003 2:28:49 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Hi, sorry I'm late.

I think that something needs to be done about UV's target selection routines to stop air strikes selecting really dumb targets. Um, any opinions? Or has this been brought up before?

Also, how many posts does it require to become a Matrix Idiot? Or do I have enough already?

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 202
- 1/12/2003 3:02:27 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Hi, sorry I'm late.

I think that something needs to be done about UV's target selection routines to stop air strikes selecting really dumb targets. Um, any opinions? Or has this been brought up before?

Also, how many posts does it require to become a Matrix Idiot? Or do I have enough already? [/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe if get enough, you could be "prize idiot".:D

Just make sure you ask them what the prize is first before accepting that title.:D

_____________________________


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

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 203
JWILKERSON - 1/12/2003 8:08:13 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		I'm more curious as to just how many "jwilkersons" there are
out there who haven't even bothered to send a post when
they gave up on UNCOMMON VALOR? Who looked for help
with a serious game problem and found the Matrix attitude
of "we might get it right in the next one---spend more money
to find out" too much to take? And now they're GONE and
won't even look at WitP.

UNCOMMON VALOR is so close to a great game it makes your
mouth water..., but if Matrix can't field a patch NOW that fixes
the more lunatic efforts of the AI in chosing targets for naval
strikes, it shows a total disregard for an awful lot of it's current
customers. Maybe it's 1/3rd, but it could just as easily be
2/3rd's---most people who buy a game don't bother to get
involved in online discussions. Whatever the number is, it's
TOO MANY to ignore (as Matrix seems to want to do) and still
expect them to blindly buy the next game using this engine.

Unlike "jwilkerson", I don't want to give up on a POTENTIALLY
great game with so many clever innovations just because ONE
KEY PORTION is hopelessly broken. Like the guy whose glass
is eternally "half-full", I keep hoping they will "see the light" and
fix UNCOMMON VALOR. But just like him, I'm damned if I'll spend
more money buying WitP if Matrix can't show me that they CAN
and HAVE fixed this problem!

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 204
- 1/13/2003 1:04:21 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I think this thread has gotten way out of hand and has long passed from the point of productivity into the realm of sillyness.

Are the naval attack routines perfect? no.

Do they need refinement? Yes.

Should players be given more control over naval airgroups in naval attack? Conditionally yes. See below

That means, no i dont believe target prioritization is necessary or desireable. Futz-ups did happen in real life in terms of target selection. All of the examples i've seen to the contrary were unique circumstances set up mainly by codebreaking (Midway the best example)

However for every Midway, you have a Coral Sea.....I'm sure Jack Fletcher would rather have attacked Shokaku and Zuikaku vs little Shoho, and I'm very sure that Hara would rather have attacked the Yorktown and Lexington vs the tanker Neosho and the Simms

I'm also sure he'd have loved it if his B5N's which became seperated from their escort that same day in a followup attack, hadn't met that bunch of F4F's which happily scythed them to the point that the next decisive day, they didn't have enough left to properly set up one or both US carriers for a kill shot.

The only problem i see with the naval attack routines is that there is no range function. Put in a range function to limit the attack range of LBA aircraft and you eliminate 90% of the complaints. No more unescorted bombers attacking heavily defended ports or TF's at those locations instead of more juicier targets closer to home.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 205
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Understanding GG (don't bother) - 1/13/2003 2:29:34 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]The game UV is limited in scope (i.e. time). ONE day in a campaign such as those portrayed in UV can very well decide your fate.

IF you think that the Battle of the Coral Sea was not a huge defining moment in the conflict in the SWPAC in WW2... Well, that is fine I guess. But I think many would disagree. :rolleyes:

My point was ONE turn means a LOT in this game when you can lose a huge portion of your ability to carry on the fight in a single series of airstrikes.

While your previous post was simply a lame attempt to ridicule my abilities (of which you have no clue) by saying that one day is not that important in UV and if it is then I am doing something wrong. You are quite simply incorrect as history shows that in the very conflict this game portrays one day can make a huge difference. [/B][/QUOTE]


I am interested in what you count as a single day's action deciding your fate (seriously)? Say playing allied. Loss of all CV's in theatre? (which isn't really in the scope of this land based air debate). Loss of PM 'against the odds', taking say a full division with it? JPN getting ashore at Noumea? (I am concentrating on events where your land based air plays the main role, so pretty much eliminates Allied landings)

I would not count any of these as deciding the game. I cannot think of a single base that loses the game in one go, that I have ever seen happen, or likely to happen. Now, if the IJN could sortie a landing from Truk in August 1942 (or anytime for that matter), and land on Noumea due to an adequate air defence just completely fouling up, I would agree with you that the game was very broken. However (whilst I have never tried it, even against the AI), I suspect that such a landing would struggle to get ashore, and would be impossible to keep supplied. The same goes for a US landing on Truk anytime before the IJN are seriously defeated.

Please do tell me, I am seriously interested - it is possible that my failure to have an issue with the problems you think are critical is because I am not trying hard enough.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 206
re. Mike Scholl's Post - 1/13/2003 4:03:47 AM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		I agree strongly with the opinions expressed by Mike Scholl in his recent post. Well said, Mike.

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 207
re. Nikademus' Post - 1/13/2003 4:19:19 AM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		Sorry, Nikademus, but I think dialogue is still useful. And I don't think range limitations will solve 90% of the major problems. If we position our CV TF's the way Spruance did at Midway, they will almost certainly hit the transport TF rather than the enemy CV TF, because we would not have the input to our "Spruance" that the theatre commander (our role in this simulation -- i.e. Nimitz historically in this case) had in real life. I've had this happen to me even when both types of TF's were identified -- whether correctly or incorrectly doesn't bother me, but the lack of command input in response to spotting reports does bother me.
We cannot even tell the CV's to await further reports before responding, if that's our preference (as it was Nimitz' at Midway, as I understand it).

(in reply to iceboy)
Post #: 208
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
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

1.281