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  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 2/13/2003 9:05:20 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Welcome!
[B]I remember someone saying a long time ago that Carriers would have never enter the Slot because of the lack of room to maneuver. [/B][/QUOTE]That's becuase they felt it would be suicide, based on chance of detection, the need for a great deal of room for air ops, and the threat of enemy LBA.

The doctrine of the time was that Fast Carriers needed room to operate. Even nominal air ops required steaming into the wind for 30 minutes. There just isn't that much room in The Slot.

The US CV's based from Noumea or Espiritu Santo, and operated ESE of Guadalcanal (between San Cristobal and Santa Cruz), or in the Solomon Sea, keeping The Slot between them and Truk.

The IJN operated mostly NNW of Guadalcanal (near Santa Isabel), as they most often sortied from Truk.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 31
PBEM games in progress...? - 2/13/2003 11:20:49 PM   
Attack Condor

 

Posts: 425
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chicago
Status: offline 		Not much to add to the accolades, but a humble thanks for the support. (I would have paid $75 for the game, but don't tell the marketing department at Matrix ;) ).

A question.... With a projected (?) release sometime before the next 570 turns of my PBEM are completed, will the patch be able to be used with games in progress? The question was probably asked somewhere for 2.2, but my first game was with v2.2.

Once again...thanks for the support.

_____________________________

"Shouldn't we be leading the shark into shore...instead him leading us out to sea?"

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 32
- 2/13/2003 11:45:54 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy
[B]I dont understand why a few people are constantly complaining and griping about the continuing support of Matrix and their patches. I have never understood the philosophy of people who dont like patches. If you dont like it dont download it. Just pretend the game is finished and go away. You dont have to download the patch!!! Most of us are grateful for the constant support and improvement of the game and continue to hope for future patches and the continued response to our suggestions. I have never been involved in or owned a computer game that had such great support from its company. Thanks Matrix and keep up the great work. I look forword to future patches that can only make this game better and better!!!

PS- Each patch they make is for WITP and UV!!!!! So if they stop testing UV and improving it then that hinders the testing and improving for WITP!!!!!!!!! Please understand this people please... [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, so much for lighthearted humor...

_____________________________

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 Joel Billings)
Post #: 33
- 2/14/2003 12:21:41 AM   
Full Moon

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 1/25/2003
From: Texas
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]A UV 2.30 patch is now being tested by the Matrix UV beta testers. Our goal is to release the patch to the public by the end of the month.[/QUOTE]
I can hardly wait.:)

_____________________________

"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
Georges Clemenceau

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 34
- 2/14/2003 12:24:00 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]Well, so much for lighthearted humor... [/B][/QUOTE] pasternakski shhhhhh, this too will pass:D

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 35
Sweet - 2/14/2003 12:58:46 AM   
Poindexter

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Smelly Possum, Miss.
Status: offline 		Throwing in my praise as well.

Wow.

Just thought the next patch would be some smaller fixes. Once again, 2x3 and Matrix defy all logic and hammer out some really nice and significant fixes along with the small stuff.

Best $50 I ever spent.

_____________________________

"Nothing is over until we say it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 36
- 2/14/2003 1:09:19 AM   
iceboy

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 8/27/2002
From: USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]Well, so much for lighthearted humor... [/B][/QUOTE]

hehe...sorry i had to get that off my chest :rolleyes:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 37
Re: UV 2.30 patch is now in test - 2/14/2003 1:29:00 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]
12) Enemy ships at anchor in a port can now be detected by recon missions. The roll-over text on an enemy anchor symbol on the map will now give an estimate of the number of ships in port and estimated reports on up to 10 specific types. The accuracy of the estimate is effected by the detection level of the base.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you! (personal peeve of mine to)

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 38
Re: PBEM games in progress...? - 2/14/2003 2:14:27 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Attack Condor
[B]Not much to add to the accolades, but a humble thanks for the support. (I would have paid $75 for the game, but don't tell the marketing department at Matrix ;) ).

A question.... With a projected (?) release sometime before the next 570 turns of my PBEM are completed, will the patch be able to be used with games in progress? The question was probably asked somewhere for 2.2, but my first game was with v2.2.

Once again...thanks for the support. [/B][/QUOTE]

At this time the patch does not invalidate saves and we hope and will try hard to keep it that way. There are no guarantees however as we go through the testing process.

By the way, we appreciate the praise, but we'd appreciate it even more if you tell your friends that don't yet have UV. Thanks for all your support.

Joel

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 39
- 2/14/2003 2:18:58 AM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]17) Carrier air unit operations are now halved when in a base hex. This simulates their inability to operate near land. The impact should be that for carriers in a base hex only half as many planes will fly as would otherwise have flown had the carrier been in a non base hex.


All looks great (Better than I'd dreamed), but can you give us a reason for #17? It will make covering invasions much harder. Normally we just had the CV follow the transports. Now that won't be such a good idea.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

Personally, I tend to keep my carriers separated by several hexes and use long range escort. I think this represents the limits placed on carrier manuevering near large bodies of land.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 40
- 2/14/2003 2:26:52 AM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]Well, there better not BE another one.....I agree that it's time to move on to WITP after this patch is released. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think as features are developed for WITP they are retro-fitted into UV. Rest assurred WITP playtesting goes on. The game is sweet even in the alpha version.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 41
- 2/14/2003 2:29:59 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]At this time the patch does not invalidate saves and we hope and will try hard to keep it that way. There are no guarantees however as we go through the testing process.[/QUOTE]

If ya break it, ya break it, these changes instead of being a little patch are in the catagory of a major overhaul and a fair number of folks will probably want to restart under these rules as they are staggering in their implications.

Personally, I'd rather conceed a game vs delay out a patch and waste your resources trying to make the upgrade seemless. Perhaps you should pop up a poll on the issue. While being extremists by nature, we understand reality. Thats why we play wargames instead of silly RTS stuff :D

People who want both can probably just dub a copy of UV into a different directory and maintain a separate unpatched 2.20 for purposes of finishing off current games.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 42
- 2/14/2003 2:44:34 AM   
brisd


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

Thanks for a great patch listing and contiued support for UV. I smelled smoke drifting down from Encinitas from all those key strokes but I guess the rain yesterday put out the fire :)

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 43
Re: Re: PBEM games in progress...? - 2/14/2003 3:05:57 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]At this time the patch does not invalidate saves and we hope and will try hard to keep it that way. There are no guarantees however as we go through the testing process.

By the way, we appreciate the praise, but we'd appreciate it even more if you tell your friends that don't yet have UV. Thanks for all your support.

Joel [/B][/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, because of the time I spend on UV I have no friends.:eek: :cool:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 44
- 2/14/2003 3:12:12 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy
[B]hehe...sorry i had to get that off my chest :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, and I agree with what you say. The support for this game (and the interesting way that support has now evolved into design refinement for WITP) is gratifying. The only thing about patches is that they tend to derail the trolley of games already underway, but what the hey - when the game improves, we all benefit. I think back on some of the "dark times" when it was obvious that there was something drastically wrong with the current version of the game and compare that to recent times, where it has been more a matter of fine-tuning an already smoothly running machine and count my fifty bucks (and hundreds of hours) as well spent.

Besides, I get the chance to post on these forums and trot out my particular brand of chauvinistic idiocy (while hiding my true identity behind a pseudonym). Not to mention meeting friendly, intelligent people with no prejudices and always a positive, insightful, well-considered comment to make on nearly every subject imaginable ... where else would you get the remarkable value presented by the "Bismarck" thread?

But that's another story.

_____________________________

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 Joel Billings)
Post #: 45
- 2/14/2003 4:26:32 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Hey, some of us play both wargames AND RTS games. :D

I just went out and bought C&C Generals, as a matter of fact...... :)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 46
- 2/14/2003 5:00:19 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Thanks for your efforts.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 47
- 2/14/2003 5:21:56 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]Hey, some of us play ... RTS games. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Good luck with that. Just keep 'em on your side of the fence, okay?

_____________________________

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 Joel Billings)
Post #: 48
- 2/14/2003 5:27:43 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Are you kidding? C&C are some of my favorite games, I enjoy romping my roomie in a game of Counter Strike now and then, System Shock 2 and Elite Force are games I still play a few times a year, and nothing beats a hard day at work like playing a Contra game. :)

Besides, they have the advantage of being able to play them when you only have 15. Really can't do that with a wargame. :D

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 49
- 2/14/2003 6:57:17 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		Joel/Matrix

Something I would like to see in a future patch, definitely in WITP would be how the AI handles damaged ships. As it stands now if a ship is badly damaged it immediately sends it to a home base(Truk/Noemea). If the ship has alot of flooding it ends up sinking before it gets to port even when there is a large port closer. It would be better if you could have the AI send it to the nearest port to have the flooding brought under control then have it sent to home base. In all the battles I've done vs the AI IJN most of the ships sunk have been done this way & if it's AP, then there ends up being little in the way of offensive measures the AI could do so the game becomes one sided & boring as I can take any base at anytime with my assets.
Also an upgrade in the AI where it won't send AP TF into the frying pan to be sunk by me without some kind of escort be it air or ships. This is what leads to the first problem of ships sinking on the way home.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 50
- 2/14/2003 8:27:50 AM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by jcjordan
[B]Joel/Matrix

Something I would like to see in a future patch, definitely in WITP would be how the AI handles damaged ships. As it stands now if a ship is badly damaged it immediately sends it to a home base(Truk/Noemea). If the ship has alot of flooding it ends up sinking before it gets to port even when there is a large port closer. It would be better if you could have the AI send it to the nearest port to have the flooding brought under control then have it sent to home base. In all the battles I've done vs the AI IJN most of the ships sunk have been done this way & if it's AP, then there ends up being little in the way of offensive measures the AI could do so the game becomes one sided & boring as I can take any base at anytime with my assets.
Also an upgrade in the AI where it won't send AP TF into the frying pan to be sunk by me without some kind of escort be it air or ships. This is what leads to the first problem of ships sinking on the way home. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good point I've observed the same thing!

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 51
- 2/14/2003 9:04:30 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Strange, in my games, the AI sends most of it's damage ships to Shortland (thinking to stop the flooding ?) and then later sends them back to Truk

of course, since I hammer the Port most of them never really get any repairs done, but have seen a number of them slip away and sail back to Truk

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 52
CS: BaseName Convoys - 2/14/2003 10:02:05 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		Shuttle convoys still divert to bases in need instead of keeping their shuttle runs.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 53
- 2/14/2003 11:06:47 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline 		Speaking of AI. i can't help thinking that it wont be able to keep up with the changes being made:

will carriers go into base hexes, will AI use info of ships in harbour, do I really care I'm playing PBEM... the list goes on.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 54
- 2/14/2003 11:09:52 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by jcjordan
[B]Joel/Matrix

Something I would like to see in a future patch, definitely in WITP would be how the AI handles damaged ships. As it stands now if a ship is badly damaged it immediately sends it to a home base(Truk/Noemea). If the ship has alot of flooding it ends up sinking before it gets to port even when there is a large port closer. It would be better if you could have the AI send it to the nearest port to have the flooding brought under control then have it sent to home base. In all the battles I've done vs the AI IJN most of the ships sunk have been done this way & if it's AP, then there ends up being little in the way of offensive measures the AI could do so the game becomes one sided & boring as I can take any base at anytime with my assets.
Also an upgrade in the AI where it won't send AP TF into the frying pan to be sunk by me without some kind of escort be it air or ships. This is what leads to the first problem of ships sinking on the way home. [/B][/QUOTE]

Easy solution: play PBEM:D

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 55
- 2/14/2003 12:26:22 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by wobbly
[B]Speaking of AI. i can't help thinking that it wont be able to keep up with the changes being made:

will carriers go into base hexes, will AI use info of ships in harbour, do I really care I'm playing PBEM... the list goes on. [/B][/QUOTE]

In many cases Gary had the AI playing more realistically than the rules. He had AI carriers trying to avoid coastal hexes of all kinds. No guarantees given all the changes, but Gary thinks they will only help the AI vs a human, not hurt it.

Joel

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 56
- 2/14/2003 2:48:54 PM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline 		ah yes, the old carrier hugging the coast trick, never really thought much of it . of course give a human an inch and he'll take a mile. my problem is i tend to hope my opponent will also try to play a realistic game, but we all know the jap player will run that carrier force down the slot first chance he gets . carriers leading the way hugging every island they find then parking that CV TF right into the habor hex at GC. if my shore batteries ever would fire on the sucker and sink those carriers maybe they would stay away from the coast like in real life. oh well i think we are going in the right direction. matrix you guys are awesome!! keep up the good work.:D

_____________________________

"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 Joel Billings)
Post #: 57
- 2/14/2003 9:40:30 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Well, there is one existing downside to running IJN CVs through coastal hexes: Coastwatchers. For the IJN, there's much less chance of being spotted if you take to the high seas instead.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 58
- 2/14/2003 9:56:56 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grotius
[B]For the IJN, there's much less chance of being spotted if you take to the high seas instead. [/B][/QUOTE]And that's what they did historically

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 59
IJN CV - 2/14/2003 11:08:36 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I avoid coastal hexes as much as possible as IJN. (For every TF) Sometimes I have to drive the TF's by selecting hex and do not retire one day and then setting a new hex the next day.
(My CV use the creep up method to avoid coastal hexes and then when ready made one long move (hopefully in bad weather)
To arrive in their op area. I don't think I've ever ran a CV TF (IJN or USN) down the slot. (I'm too afraid of detection/mines/subs)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.985