[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]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. ...................... [/B][/QUOTE]
That is the way I do it too. Unfortunately I forget to set them to retirement allowed about 1/3 ot the time and they end up getting clobbered because they don't clear the area.:( And with transports you have to set the DH farther than they can reach in one day or else they will unload troops right in the sea hexes.
[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]
I am only speculating but one possible reason was the tactic that players were using. They would put a large carrier force in a friendly base with as much land base cap as they could muster. This basically made the carriers untouchable. Add several hundred land based cap to 100+ carrier cap and you get a wall no one can get through.
Rick
_____________________________
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid [B]Where do I send the bill?:D [/B][/QUOTE]
Send it to Drongo's address. Having just single-handedly saved Austrailia from the Yellow Peril, he owes me for saving him from a future of weak Japanese beer and hang-over creat'in Saki.
Posts: 29
Joined: 2/2/2002 From: Toronto Status: offline
With the new sub changes will the IJN ASW cope? In 2.2 a TF of 4 PCs can loose 2 (one being hit by two torps) to an S-boat on a bad day. I agree with those who state that even if IJN ASW wasn't all that effective at killing subs, then at least it should be made a bit more effective at driving them off.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid [B]I am only speculating but one possible reason was the tactic that players were using. They would put a large carrier force in a friendly base with as much land base cap as they could muster. This basically made the carriers untouchable. Add several hundred land based cap to 100+ carrier cap and you get a wall no one can get through.
Rick [/B][/QUOTE]
The change in the patch will certainly change that tactic, as it should, but I'm more concerned with sitting in the OTHER GUY'S base. I do that when I'm invading it and also when I want to shoot down his supply planes. I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping your CV within 30 miles of the invasion.
Post-patch I will have two choices: stay with the troopships and risk my CV's with 1/2 air cover or sit back a few hexes divide my fighters between cap and LRCAP and watch the fatigue mount from the longer flights. Neighter is very desirable. I suppose I will just bomb the enemy airfields as best I can and expect to lose some transports.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ADavidB [B]Beta testers - in what ways are your tactics now changing in light of the changes in 2.3?
Thanks -
Dave Baranyi [/B][/QUOTE] Bigest chang I'm seeing is with subs. You no longer have to put a sub in a base (risking higher levels of detection and attack. You can now place a line of subs across heavily traveled routes. I think this will allow for a more historical use of subs. Also you probably won't be able to sneak 1 or 2 squads into an enemy base with no combat units and wipe out 200 aircraft. Looks like it will change the way some people use carriers.
Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002 From: Far West Status: offline
Excellent modifications. Thanks very much. Two minor complaints I'd still like to bring up are: a) I've seen messages telling me that a previously-unidentified enemy TF was incapable of launching a/c due to weather. A dead give-away that it was in fact a CV TF (or at least a surface combat TF with float planes). b) Too many other messages that give me info about enemy that I shouldn't have. But, again, you're making mods in the new patch that really improve this already excellent game. Thanks again for listening to your "Omega testers."
Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002 From: Far West Status: offline
An additional question: While the US AI-controlled sub model seems accurate in most respects, I wonder about the absence of losses of US subs that I'm experiencing. I don't know the history of losses by year and theatre, but I know we lost a relatively high percentage of our submarines in the course of the war, and I'm not seeing any losses in the South Pacific in '42. Is that correct?
Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000 From: NSW, Australia Status: offline
Congratulations on a continuing fine job. It looks like you are really on top of the game mechanics issues and the game is going from strength to strength because of it.
Just are question though. Are you going to use the opportunity to do some final fine tuning of the OOBs since this likely to be one of the last patches? I ask this because there are still a few small loose ends that may not break the game but could still be addressed to improve historical accuracy and enhance player immersion.
I have brought this up before but one of these is the designation of the Australian Spitfires. The RAAF flew Spitfire Vc and the Spitfire VIII and not the Vb and IX version aircraft. This may have slipped in for WITP database compatibility but Vb and IX versions have no relevance to the UV theatre and could simply fixed with a designation change with absolutely no effect on game play as no other unit characteristics need to be amended.
Another small issue is the No. 79 Squadron RAAF (or any other RAAF squadron) didn't upgrade from the Spitfire Vc to the Spitfire VIII until April 1944 which is beyond the scope of UV. As this could lead to a play balance issue, I'll leave this one up to you guys.
11) We have lowered level bomber accuracy against TFs, especially for pilots with less than 70 experience against ships travelling at high speed. The impact of pilot quality and ship speed on level bomber accuracy against TFs has been enhanced. Even strong level bomber pilots against very slow targets will have less chance to hit than before. This level bomber adjustment does not impact level bombers using torpedoes.
Thank God! This one almost killed my enjoyment of the game.
WTG gents, this patch should leave only minuiate left to whine about....although you know we'll manage to find *something* that isn't perfect. ;)
As far as item #11 goes, does this change of accuracy on level bombers against TFs affect both sides, or only the Allied level bombers?
Come to think of it, I can't remember seeing Japanese level bombers use bombs on Allied TFs in UV. Is there a range at which the Japanese level bombers switch from torpedos to bombs?
Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002 From: Far West Status: offline
To my knowledge, the Betty was a level bomber, and yes I've seen it attack my ships. Checking the range for torpedo attack by the Betty, I'm not sure it was bombs, after all.
Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002 From: The Imperial Palace. Status: offline
I'm delighted to see the changes in subs. Do the new sub-contact rules tone down the effectiveness of subs (which generally seem too effective to me)? If not, are there also plans to improve IJN ASW, or at least to make the presence of escorts more of a deterrent to enemy subs? Or, alternatively, to tone down the effectiveness of Allied S-boats?
G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective :D
Since subs will be able to take shots at ships in transit, is there any chance the same thing could be done for surface combat task forces when an enemy moves through their hex?
I'd also like to see surface combat TF have a chance to move to intercept enemy task forces at sea it the detection level on the target is high enough and the TF commander passes some sort of check. This would only happen if the TF was set to "react", naturally.
[QUOTE]I'd also like to see surface combat TF have a chance to move to intercept enemy task forces at sea it the detection level on the target is high enough and the TF commander passes some sort of check. This would only happen if the TF was set to "react", naturally.[/QUOTE]
Keep it up and we'll be real time instead of turn based :D
Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000 From: Santa Rosa, CA Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reg [B]Congratulations on a continuing fine job. It looks like you are really on top of the game mechanics issues and the game is going from strength to strength because of it.
Just are question though. Are you going to use the opportunity to do some final fine tuning of the OOBs since this likely to be one of the last patches? I ask this because there are still a few small loose ends that may not break the game but could still be addressed to improve historical accuracy and enhance player immersion.
I have brought this up before but one of these is the designation of the Australian Spitfires. The RAAF flew Spitfire Vc and the Spitfire VIII and not the Vb and IX version aircraft. This may have slipped in for WITP database compatibility but Vb and IX versions have no relevance to the UV theatre and could simply fixed with a designation change with absolutely no effect on game play as no other unit characteristics need to be amended.
Another small issue is the No. 79 Squadron RAAF (or any other RAAF squadron) didn't upgrade from the Spitfire Vc to the Spitfire VIII until April 1944 which is beyond the scope of UV. As this could lead to a play balance issue, I'll leave this one up to you guys.
Cheers, Reg. [/B][/QUOTE]
Rich Dionne is at this very moment working on a few database issues. If you have some, you should get them to Rich. I don't know which issues he is going to correct. But you have to act fast. I'm not sure what issues Rich has been aware of.
Since we're talking (futile?) 11th hour requests.....
Any chance of having a look at making a last minute change to fighter sweeps to stop them sweeping twice per day (make it once only). The fatigue levels that squadrons carry into the second sweep don't quite make it worthwhile any more, given fatigue's influence on combat (as well as non-operational losses).
Drongo: I agree with you that sweeps, and for that matter, most other missions should only be flown once/day by the AI, although in extreme circumstances, human controlled forces may want to launch multiple strikes in one day for specific units. I believe this situation took place at Guadalcanal, when a Japanese convoy was caught in the open and multiple strikes were flown. On a personal note, if I may, my father, who flew as a B-17 bombardier with the 92BG(8th AF), related a story to me that after D-Day, he flew two(2) missions in one day to Belgium. I good time he said, was not had by all.
I think fighters flying twice a day was the reason given for not ID'ing most fighters as fighter/bombers, even though most fighters had bomb racks. Can you imagine the carnage if low durability fighters like Zero's were flying 2 bombing missions a day on a largish/high AA value USN TF, or a base like PM? You'd very quickly not have any fighters left at all.
< G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective >
But extra effective if it hit the runway under the water line, nothing worse then a flooding runway
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge [B]< G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective >
But extra effective if it hit the runway under the water line, nothing worse then a flooding runway
HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]
Flooding runway = sinking carrier
_____________________________
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
When it is working, you can send me a private message using the forum. You can also reach me at my e-mail address: [email]tmflood@earthlink.net[/email].
Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000 From: Santa Rosa, CA Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Dionne [B]Guys,
When it is working, you can send me a private message using the forum. You can also reach me at my e-mail address: [email]tmflood@earthlink.net[/email].
Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: IJN CV 
Re: IJN CV - 
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