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: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 10/10/2003 2:14:47 AM

gus

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline

Hey Mogami,

I agree with you that for strictly offensive air missions the player's orders should be adhered to, however in the relatively non-offensive air missions such as patrolling, training etc. the local commander in charge should be given license to defend against emerging threats and counter attack or flee as would happen in real life. This is already in the game for other types of TF's so it should not be an issue to retro fit it for aircombat TF's. Think of it as self preservation.

But I believe that the problem goes beyond just air combat TF's but is relevant to any TF that is required to go into harm's way. How many time have you seen a surface combat/bombardment TF sit in its the target hex because the player forgot to switch it over to retirement allowed on the ingress/egress leg of its sortie? It would be nice if UV was a bit more user friendly in this regard. For example, if you have an aircombat TF at sea and any of its fighter units are standing down or training a little pop up warning indicating this would be a nice little feature to add. Or as a surface/bombardment TF set to patrol approaches to within its sprint range to its target hex a little pop up reminder to switch it to retiremnet allowed would be quite useful. All of this is quite easy to do and does not require any adjustment to the AI.

IMO the challenging part of the game should be the strategy and tactics that one employs, it should not be how proficient one is wrestling with the interface.

-g

(in reply to mogami)