Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ok, lets talk about surface ships.

 
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 >> Ok, lets talk about surface ships. Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ok, lets talk about surface ships. - 1/17/2003 1:52:28 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I am well into three solid campaigns of UV and would like to offer up the following comments for discussion. I am interested to hear other opinions on this subject.

It seems to me that surface ships are overmodeled and have too great an impact on the game. In scenarios 17 and 19, Japanese surface ships can dominate Allied land based air with careful and systematic use of the "shuttle bombardment". The use of shuttle bombardment by the Japanese surface forces will in effect shut down any major port and airbase with sustained damage. In the face of superior Japanese carrier assets, it is very difficult for the allies to counter this and Allied land based air asset have little chance to respond to these bombardments as the Japanese fleets hit at night and are out of range by morning. By pairing BBs and sending them in in sucession, an American base is efffectively pounded out of action in about three turns. Forcing the Americans to commit either weaker surface units or carrier units to the fight or accepting the loss of the base. Anyone who has played the "Four weeks in Hell" scenario as the Allies knows the frustration involved here.

I have no argument with these tactics, as well placed naval bombardments make sense and are needed to soften up a base for invasion. However, I contend that the repeated use of surface forces for this purpose by either side was an imposibility and this should be modeled in the game. The first issue of course was the severe limitations of fuel stocks that the Japanese were faced with. However, more important and not reflected in the game is the severe strain on a capital surface ship that even one sustained action would have.

My point is that capital ships were in fact very fragile and could only be used in limited amounts. Two factors come into play. The first is that heavy caliber guns had a very limited useful life.

Here is a coment on the USS Houston which give us a rare and useful study of a major surface ship that experienced prolonged action without service or refit.

"The life of an 8-inch gun of that time was about 300 rounds. By the end of the afternoons battle (Java Sea), the guns of turret 1 had fired 261 salvos since thier installation, including 97 salvos that afternoon alone......Before long, our main battery would be practically useless....Because the main battery fire had been very rapid over a sustained period, the liners of the gun barrels had crept out of the guns an inch or more".

So in effect, a capital ship that had been in say, two bombardments and one surface action in game terms should in effect, be about useless as far as guns are concerned.

My second point is that the wear and tear from action was not just to the guns. Big gun ships of the era, no matter how well built, underwent incredible stress to systems and structure when firing main gun armament. The japanese heavy cruisers and American treaty cruisers were actually too light for their main armament. A prolonged gun duel, even without taking enemy damage would, just about wreck a ship. Again I quote from the Houston's experience.

"The Houston was a wreck. During the battle turrets 1 and 2 had fired 199 salvos of ammunition for a total of 597 8-inch shells. Concussions fromt the main batteries had played havoc with the ships interior......The glass windows on the bridge were shattered. Steel plates along the ship's sides, already weakened by near hits in previous bombing attacks, were now badly sprung and shipping water....."

After an major action, above deck equipment such as radar, AA mounts, foat planes, boats could be completely smashed up just from the concussion of the main arament.

In her surface action with the Bismark. The HMS Rodney's 16-inch guns so damaged her superstructure and frame, that she had to be put in an American shipyard for a major overhaul.

Now in our game, there is no real penalty other than the normal system wear for overusing surface assets. You can base your BBs at Shortland, gas them up, and sent them down the slot night after night to pound Lunga.

Historically, this was just not a reality and it should be reflected in this fine game. How do we do this? The answer I think is simple. Place fairly substantial system damage on capital surface ships after each major action. A good Japanese player can still use his overwhelming suface forces to knock out a major base, however, at a cost. The intense use of surface ships will force either player to eventually have to send his ships back to Pearl or Tokyo for refit. This I think will bring the use of surface assets back into the real of historical reality.

Bear in mind that historically, land based air held the advantage over surface units in the South Pacific. This should be reflected in our game. Because of fuel and wear limitations, both sides had to measure when to use surface units. With the exception of certain critical times, superior Japanes surface forces were held in check by Allied ground air. As it is now, I think that equation is a little out of balance in the game.

I welcome your comments.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Post #: 1
- 1/17/2003 2:55:43 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Your comments are quite true, but remember you are not playing the historical battle by playing scenario 17 or 19, since both presume that Midway, the turning point in the war, did not happen. Without all the CV's puttering around that are in 17/19 things certainly will play out exactly as your post would indicate as the concept of having multiple battleships shoot down the slot night after night can only happen under the heavy protection of a substancial CV fleet playing guard.

I suggest you take a look at scenario 16, where Japan has only 1 real CV available and feel just how different one treats those lumps of steel without 100+ aircraft flying overhead. Japan, without airpower is forced to completely play the night game, creaping around in barge size ships, fearing the allied fleet catching any ships out at sea and sending them to the bottom. There is no way that Japan will send it's BB's out without knowing for sure that (a) it must be done and (b) the Allied CV's are well out of reach.

It is nice that SYS damage does increase at very high rates when running fast transport or bombardment style missions, and will burn out ships in no time.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2
- 1/17/2003 3:21:29 AM   
zed

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline
when I am playing IJN "shuttle bombardment " s accurate. when playing the allies it is incorrect and historically inaccurate. I make a subtle distinction depending on the context.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3
- 1/17/2003 3:33:29 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
Didn't Henderson Field undergo nightly bombardments? I think the attempt to simulate "combat wear & tear" is already in the game. Your problem is how to prevent bombardment TFs from destroying your airbases and methods for doing that have been offerred in other threads. Maybe the solution is to reduce the bombardment effect if others have that concern. For myself bombardment fleets are not always successful.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 4
Re: Ok, lets talk about surface ships. - 1/17/2003 3:51:24 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crsutton
[B] As it is now, I think that equation is a little out of balance in the game.

I welcome your comments. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, it is not out of balance. Unless you seriously reduce the accuracy of allied level bombers, or force them to fly at historical altitudes, then this is a game leveler.

Also, Kirishima and many of the cruisers Japan used in its Tokyo express made repeated runs. Not allowing the Tokyo express to take place would be even more ahistorical.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 5
- 1/17/2003 3:59:34 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
I think the man's main point was that currently the game does not simulate this type of wear and tear at all.

Now, I have no idea how much wear and tear a DD/CA/BB would undergo using its main guns. But, a short round trip from Shortland to Lunga will incur the same system damage as a bombardment mission to/from the same hexes. Even a naval novice like me can see that this is not a good simulation of the wear and tear he is talking about assuming that this wear and tear was really as bad in reality as his post indicates (and I have no idea if it was or not).

What I do take exception to is the entire idea that by making this area of the game "unrealistic/unhistorical" in this regard is somehow a "balance" to another area of the game (one btw which is completely possible historically).

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
- 1/17/2003 4:03:49 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, GG. Of course the original poster is right in saying that the Japanese can do a lot more in the game as opposed to RL because of factors such as wear and tear on ship, lack of fuel and supplies, and no Midway happening. But it's always been my understanding Matrix made these changes to try to give the Japanese a better chance at operations in this theratre then they did historicaly, and make it a more 'balanced' and enjoyable game. Japan had a snowballs chance in hell of winning in the Solomons in RL, at least in this game they have a chance, and they were given those chances by making changes such as increased supply and fuel stocks, less wear and tear on the ships, etc.

Did I totally misread you here? :)

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 7
Re: Re: Ok, lets talk about surface ships. - 1/17/2003 4:40:59 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]No, it is not out of balance. Unless you seriously reduce the accuracy of allied level bombers, or force them to fly at historical altitudes, then this is a game leveler.

Also, Kirishima and many of the cruisers Japan used in its Tokyo express made repeated runs. Not allowing the Tokyo express to take place would be even more ahistorical. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with the original poster that the bombardment TF's are somewhat overpowered. I certainly hope this is not for "game balancing", as I thought this was an historical simulation not Risk. Game balancing should be done through victory points.

The Kirishima never successfully bombarded Henderson Field. The first attempt was driven back (at great cost to the USN). The second attempt resulted in her loss.

The IJN succesfully bombarded Henderson with BB's only one time (10/13/42 - Haruna & Kongo) and that bombardment group was covered by 5 CV's as part of a blockade. This was a major push by the Japanese to keep the US forces from being resupplied during their ground offensive.

From what I've read, the most common form of bombardment of Henderson field was Tanaka's fast transport missions that took the opportunity to lob a few shells at the field after delivering supplies and troops.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
- 1/17/2003 4:43:31 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]I But, a short round trip from Shortland to Lunga will incur the same system damage as a bombardment mission to/from the same hexes. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not true. Bombardment missions run at max speed and incur significantly MORE system damage on their ships than normal movement. If you use bombardment task forces every night you will quickly run those ships into the high teens of system damage. If the enemy ever does show up to stop you, your ships are already fighting at a disadvantage and are 1/6 to 1/5 of the way to being sunk before the combat even starts.

Yamamoto

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 9
Very much true - 1/17/2003 4:58:19 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]Not true. Bombardment missions run at max speed and incur significantly MORE system damage on their ships than normal movement. If you use bombardment task forces every night you will quickly run those ships into the high teens of system damage. If the enemy ever does show up to stop you, your ships are already fighting at a disadvantage and are 1/6 to 1/5 of the way to being sunk before the combat even starts.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

No, what I posted is very much true.

You do not have to plot a bombardment mission to get your surface combat TFs to move at full speed... :rolleyes:

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 10
- 1/17/2003 5:00:44 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, GG. Of course the original poster is right in saying that the Japanese can do a lot more in the game as opposed to RL because of factors such as wear and tear on ship, lack of fuel and supplies, and no Midway happening. But it's always been my understanding Matrix made these changes to try to give the Japanese a better chance at operations in this theratre then they did historicaly, and make it a more 'balanced' and enjoyable game. Japan had a snowballs chance in hell of winning in the Solomons in RL, at least in this game they have a chance, and they were given those chances by making changes such as increased supply and fuel stocks, less wear and tear on the ships, etc.

Did I totally misread you here? :) [/B][/QUOTE]

I hope and I seriously doubt what you say. :o

If I thought that the game was handicapped to assist one side or the other I would never have bought it (just as I passed on BoB). Like another poster said: "That is what victory points are for". :)

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 11
Re: Very much true - 1/17/2003 5:10:24 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]
You do not have to plot a bombardment mission to get your surface combat TFs to move at full speed... :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

You are right if the surface group has "retirement allowed" checked and is within 25 hexes of its destination. Since I rarely use "retirement allowed" for my surface groups, my groups usually go cruising speed.

For bombardment groups you almost always use "retirement allowed" because you want to get away from the air power of the base you are bombarding. Therefore, bombardment groups are more likely to suffer operational damage than groups doing regular surface missions. The same goes for fast transport vs regular transport missions.

Yamamoto

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 12
- 1/17/2003 5:12:18 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline
But the game IS 'fixed' to remove some of the handicaps that Japan had in RL, GG -- the biggest being limited fuel and supply to run as many bombardment missions as they want, reduced wear and tear on ships, and no huge losses at Midway. Would you want to play Japan under the EXACT conditions that they had in the war? I would'nt, and I doubt many people would. It's not fun. I don't mind these changes because they just make for a more balanced game while still keeping all of the historical value and accuracy, it just makes it a little more of a 'what if' simulation. Surly you knew this before you bought the game? If so, then why are you still playing it? :) Don't you think Japan had to be adjusted SOME in order to make it a good simulation? I'm not sure if it was possible to make a PERFECT simulation, and I doubt many would find it enjoyable. Instead, Matrix made SMALL changes in order to balance it out a little.

Am I making sence in what I'm trying to say? Does anyone agree or disgaree with me? :)

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
Re: Re: Re: Ok, lets talk about surface ships. - 1/17/2003 5:13:41 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428
[B]The Kirishima never successfully bombarded Henderson Field. The first attempt was driven back (at great cost to the USN). The second attempt resulted in her loss.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The point is that the Kirishima was involved in two surface actions right in a row. The Japs had no problem recommiting the ship right after she had been involved in a heavy battle. Yet the original poster is saying we should not be able to do this.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 14
- 1/17/2003 5:16:48 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
[B]What I do take exception to is the entire idea that by making this area of the game "unrealistic/unhistorical" in this regard is somehow a "balance" to another area of the game (one btw which is completely possible historically). [/B][/QUOTE]

Bombing at 1000 feet was NOT possible historically because of prevailing doctrine. Unless you model in US airforce doctrine, then the game is not historical. Nor do I believe the the accuracy at 1000 feet is realistic even if the US had tried it.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
Re: Re: Very much true - 1/17/2003 5:30:26 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]You are right if the surface group has "retirement allowed" checked and is within 25 hexes of its destination. Since I rarely use "retirement allowed" for my surface groups, my groups usually go cruising speed.

For bombardment groups you almost always use "retirement allowed" because you want to get away from the air power of the base you are bombarding. Therefore, bombardment groups are more likely to suffer operational damage than groups doing regular surface missions. The same goes for fast transport vs regular transport missions.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

This entire exchange is pointless. It has zero bearing on the man's point.

The system damage incurred by doing what you say has NOTHING to do with the ships using their main guns and is solely based upon movement...WHICH IS MY POINT.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 16
Repeated runs - 1/17/2003 5:31:51 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]The point is that the Kirishima was involved in two surface actions right in a row. The Japs had no problem recommiting the ship right after she had been involved in a heavy battle. Yet the original poster is saying we should not be able to do this. [/B][/QUOTE]

You had made the statement that Kirishima made "repeated runs". I attempted to put that in context. Repeated runs was actually 2 unsucessful runs and when it was all over she was dead.

My impression of the original posters concern was regarding continuous runs that would be several more than 2.

Finally, IF as you say, allied level bombers are too effective than they should be once again adjusted as Matrix deems necessary. However, I would hope that the incredible effectiveness of the Betty "Backfire" bomber would be looked into as well.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 17
- 1/17/2003 5:39:39 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]But the game IS 'fixed' to remove some of the handicaps that Japan had in RL, GG -- the biggest being limited fuel and supply to run as many bombardment missions as they want, reduced wear and tear on ships, and no huge losses at Midway. Would you want to play Japan under the EXACT conditions that they had in the war? I would'nt, and I doubt many people would. It's not fun. I don't mind these changes because they just make for a more balanced game while still keeping all of the historical value and accuracy, it just makes it a little more of a 'what if' simulation. Surly you knew this before you bought the game? If so, then why are you still playing it? :) Don't you think Japan had to be adjusted SOME in order to make it a good simulation? I'm not sure if it was possible to make a PERFECT simulation, and I doubt many would find it enjoyable. Instead, Matrix made SMALL changes in order to balance it out a little.

Am I making sence in what I'm trying to say? Does anyone agree or disgaree with me? :) [/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree with you; without malice of course. :D

It's my hope and belief that Gary Grigsby wants his games to be as accurate as he can make them. Balancing is done through victory points. The "fun to play the Japanese" scenarios would be "what if" type scenarios such as #19. Although it can also be fun to play as the Japanes in an historically accurate scenario with the goal being to do better than they did historically.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 18
- 1/17/2003 5:44:35 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
What Japan did historically is really only valid when playing scenario #16, which has the historical losses taken into account. Being in a fairly hopeless situation having missed the US CV fleet at Pearl Harbour then taking horrible losses at Midway forced them into committing ships in a manner that probably would not have happened had these two events not had the outcome they did.

Japan *should* have caught the carriers at Pearl, and even failing this, Midway *should* have been a success for Japan. Luck played a very strange role in both of these battles. Had either of these two events happened differently, the fight could have taken place at PH instead of Guad and we would not be playing UV...

I'd like to see a CV's caught at Pearl scenario to make for a real turnabout of play. While it is fun to play the "what if" Midway hadn't happened versions that offer Japan a chance, it would be just as interesting to see a "what if" Pearl had accomplished the real goal and the CV's had not been out playing catch that day. Perhaps a Scenario #20 could be done up presuming the loss of the US CV's that should have been in Pearl :D

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 19
- 1/17/2003 5:56:49 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline
Bombardment missions cause large amounts of system damage. That doesn't bother me.

The most major unrealistic point of UV that affects everything is the unlimited fuel supply at Truk.

Now, one would of course point out that without that, the Japanese player wouldn't really have a fun game, and that's a very very important point. However, I do think that for the ultra-grognards sake, there really should be a switch to reduce Truk (and Noumea and Brisbane, of course) to realistic supply/fuel replenishment levels.

But its not going to happen. :D

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 20
- 1/17/2003 5:59:39 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
[QUOTE]The system damage incurred by doing what you say has NOTHING to do with the ships using their main guns and is solely based upon movement...WHICH IS MY POINT.[/QUOTE]

You want an additional SYS damage rate added to any combat actions as well right? Sounds reasonable and fairly easy to implement. It will become a balance issue though, with the US damage control probably repairing things too fast ;)

I doubt it can be done at a detailed enough level to have anything beyond a generic addition as the game doesn't track enough technical details to be about to detail the damage model properly, coupled with damage control not being user controllable.

Might be interesting to have port size/2-3 (in other words port of 4 or more) worth of repair points that could be spent on fixing ships instead of the generic routine in the game now where it is completely abstracted out of your control when really this *IS* a strategic control option, where priority of what gets repaired should be player commanded.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 21
- 1/17/2003 6:18:56 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]Bombardment missions cause large amounts of system damage. That doesn't bother me.

The most major unrealistic point of UV that affects everything is the unlimited fuel supply at Truk.

Now, one would of course point out that without that, the Japanese player wouldn't really have a fun game, and that's a very very important point. However, I do think that for the ultra-grognards sake, there really should be a switch to reduce Truk (and Noumea and Brisbane, of course) to realistic supply/fuel replenishment levels.

But its not going to happen. :D [/B][/QUOTE]


Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 22
- 1/17/2003 7:01:07 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
in addition to what Soulblazer has mentioned towards balance,isn't Truk/Noumea a cornucopia of supply, never to run out. The Japanese had supply requirements all over the Pacific but Truk never runs out: all to provide a better balance.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 23
- 1/17/2003 7:14:31 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline
I find BB, CA, and CL ships to be mostly useless in this game if you have CV superiority. The only thing they are good for is bombardment. Any now someone wants to take that away from them? Hell, let's just skip the war and turn them into museums now.

As long as I have 4 or more CVs I make like 1 or 2 bombardment missions a month at most. Sure, in the “Four Weeks of Hell” scenario I do bombardment missions constantly, but my ships see a lot of wear and tear. If they took any more I’d probably just let them sit in port in one really huge task force set on reaction. Eventually they’d react into one big battle and then they’d go back to sitting there for a few more months until they reacted again. Boring.

Yamamoto

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 24
- 1/17/2003 7:15:53 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
On the fuel and supply stocks at Truk/Brisbane/Noumea, a long time ago, well before UV came out, Matrix asked, on this board, how people felt it should be handled. I have to believe that the consensus at that time was to make them unlimited for those bases.

I guess the early posters had their say at that time.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 25
- 1/17/2003 8:23:32 AM   
Buchon

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Castellón, Spain
Status: offline
There're so many factors in real life that I think it would be impossible to recreate it, even using computers. I mean: what about the real wheather conditons during the war years; and sea conditions; what about sun blinding during air combats; and other thousands of small details affecting human decisions and material usage.

I don't want an absolutely historic game, we have history books for that.
I want to enjoy my playing time, and I do this better if I've an opportunity to win. Yes, I know, sometimes it's also fantastic to afford the same historic problems: fuel and amunition shortage, few CV, unskilled pilots, tropical diseases... But I prefer this concentrated on an scenario, leaving the rest as equilibrated games in which both sides have a chance to win.

On this thread the question is where's the limit. When a game will recreated the sufficient historic facts to be considered realistic? Will be enough if we take into account the gun tubes usage? Sure tomorrow we'll ask for a new topic needed to be balanced.

I like UV. If I play as japanese, my oportunity is 1942. If I play as Allied, I've to survive till 1943 and then...

I've also been under heavy naval and air attacks, negating my advanced bases and I don't blame the game -well, to be honest, I do- but I know is my role as comand-in-chief to find out the way to emerge of that situation: defensive measures or launch an attack on a different place. Or maybe there's no solution and you must retreat. Well, in fact, the same kind of decisiosn that were made historically, but not necessaryly induced by the same historic situations and/or material availabilities. And I (want to) think this is the designer intention, not just to make an interactive CD.


Well, sorry for the speech and thanks for the attention.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 26
- 1/17/2003 8:26:58 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
well said Buchon.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 27
- 1/17/2003 9:00:18 AM   
Grumbling Grogn


Posts: 207
Joined: 10/20/2002
From: Texas!
Status: offline
What does "winning" mean?

I mean does anyone really think that if the Japanese had won the campaign depicted in UV they would have won the war? Please. :rolleyes:

Does making a balanced game where either side can win mean that in WitP the Japanese will get the "bomb" in 1945 too? Or rather just that the Japanese have a real chance of invading California and conquering the US? Australia? :rolleyes: None of these things happened, nor could have happend and thus have no place in a historical wargame.

You do not balance historical wargames by altering historical parameters As soon as you do this the game is no longer a historical wargame. What-ifs are great, but they should be limited to options, scenarios and the like and not built into the very heart of the game itself.

Balance is achieved by scenarios and victory conditions.

_____________________________

The Grumbling Grognard

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 28
- 1/17/2003 11:10:59 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I want a game with combat units that are historically accurate but with parameters flexible enough so that the outcomes are not predictable. this way the game can be played over and over. I believe UV is this type of game and if it doesn't meet "historical" definitions I could care less. Historical scenarios and campaigns can be provided to satisfy those who want to re-create history ( this has limited gameplay I think). The rest of us can play the What-if scenarios and campaigns.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 29
a bit off topic but ... - 1/17/2003 11:30:34 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline
Xpav's suggestion of limiting the fuel and supplies available to the Japanese at Truk is excellent and will solve the problem of the shuttle bombardment groups (a few others as well) as they will not be able to sortie at will. It will make the game play more "historically" which I think we all want.

mjk428's suggestion that play balance should be achieved through victory points is absolutely right on the mark too, if the game is historical/realistic the benchmark for one's success or failure has already been measured by the actual combatants. The game should not be tweaked to make it more playable.

Supply needs to be reined in for the Allies as well not because there were shortages but that it is possible in UV to create humongous supply and fuel dumps everywhere you have a base and that is just not reasonable. There really needs to be a limit on the amount of supply/fuel that can be dumped in a given base dependent on its port and air base size. This was one of the gating factors throughout the entire campaign for both sides and should be routinely managed by the UV engine, i.e if you dump 90K supplies at a level one air base/port you should lose all but 10-20K or whatever is deemed reasonable after testing.

Level bombers, especially allied bombers needs to be re-examined as well. It should be a herculean task in UV to organize and execute a large air raid especially in 1942 but all of us routinely launch large raids of this size in UV on a pretty regular basis. Air raids should not only take a toll on the planes and pilots but on their ground crews (base forces) in terms of disruption/fatigue/attrition and on the bases themselves in terms of damage, i.e. damaged planes crashing on landing, ordinance explosions, ground crew accidents etc. This should all be a function of the size of the raid and the size of the airbase. This should go a long way in reducing the effectiveness of Allied level bombers and may also encourage distribution of the bombers as occured IRL.

IMO all of this will reduce the need for play balancing that is in UV today. There will be fewer Japanese bombardment groups simply because they do not have enough fuel to do so. There will also be less of a need for these missions as the allies will not have 24/7 level bomber coverage of the avenues of approach as they will be limited to 1 or 2 signifcant raids per week as the Allies will have to husband their air resources if they want to launch large scale raids etc.

-g

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Ok, lets talk about surface ships. Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.703