Hello...
Although you seem displeased, I appreciate your measured response. Not all forum posters are capable of such.
a) I am glad you understand. At this point, game design changes for Uncommon Valor are not possible. Resources are not available for that purpose. However, as I am currently working on a related game, I do consider design concerns.
b) Well, I am a control freak, even if no one else here is. Not sure that Uncommon Valor is so much a simulation as it is a game. The distinction is one of granularity (our flight model, for instance is much more of a game model than a flight simulator). In a one day turn, it is not easy to know where in the hex each ship is. Three carriers might be in the open, while a fourth might be hiding in a squall, when the enemy bombers show up. The carriers might be ready for the attack or might be launching the first flights and have bombs and torpedoes all over the deck. A superior naval force might be spread out all over the hex in a night attack and be defeated piecemeal. Reading of military history has shown me that wild, ridiculous, unbelievable occurrences are more the rule than the exception. If the battle of Leyte Gulf occurred in a game as it did in history, the Japanese player would immediately be online complaining that the game was not realistic!
c) There were several problems with the modeling of search aircraft in Uncommon Valor and War in the Pacific. Due to scale and need of speed of execution, they were very difficult to address. More than a small amount of time and effort went into producing the existing model. But, limitations of the model are known to the developers and there are a number of changes which could not be made in previous games, which will apply in Carrier Force:
- Fewer planes will be searching a given arc.
- The player will be able to launch more CAP and stagger the altitudes more appropriately to attack search aircraft, although that may reduce ability to intercept incoming strike missions.
- CAP will likely be able to attack the search plane more than once during interception process. Although if the search plane pilot can find a cloud or two to duck in and out of, he can be very difficult to eliminate. If he can duck out over the task force he might just plant one from Angels 10 or even Angels 20, depending on naval bombing skill and luck. A low morning fog near the task force might even let him approach unseen at 100 feet, with really good piloting skill.
- Improved weather modeling may reduce attack capacity. Of course, it may also reduce interception abilities.
- Improved pop-out information may allow players a better understanding of exactly what is happening.
- Importantly, air crews will have a different experience factor for searching than for bombing stationary targets or naval targets, so flying a lot of search missions will make crews keen eyed, not crack bombardiers. In fact, unarmed cargo planes can be used for search missions and could eventually get very good at finding enemy shipping, but not so good at bombing them with SPAM.
- Flights in CF will not select a target until a later phase, during execution. But, the message "cannot locate target", really means the ship is sinking and is a way of telling the players the ship sank. If Battle of Midway happened in the game, a number of flights would get that message, even though the ships took a couple hours to sink. In real life, they just dropped the bombs on them, anyway, because they weren't getting the pop-up. I may work on that for CF and let them drop the bombs.
Thanks for Your input...
Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: Christof
Hi Mike.
First of all - thank you for taking the time to look into this and then type an answer on this forum. I appreciate that.
Let me post a few thoughts regarding what you explained.
a) I understand you are telling me that none of the highlighted "problems" have been bugs, but are "design features" instead.
b) You have labelled us gamers "control freaks" a few times on this forum.
Personnally I don't want to control everything on the board. What I really want is that the results of the programming to be more or less in line with what has or might have happened in reality. That's why we play "historical simulations" in the first place, right?
c) Both issues I posted seem hilarious to me.
Ever read the book "Shattered Sword"?
- A lone B-17 hitting a - non docked - fast carrier with a bomb from 10.000 feet altitute?
- A full deckload of planes approaching a sinking target, with plenty of other more valuable targets around, turning tail and flying home?
Technically you might be correct: "Design Feature", therefore no reason to act.
All I can say is that now I do have some big question marks concerning any future developments - Carrier Force or other - to contain the same sort of comparable "Features" that will severly limit my ability to enjoy the product.
Thank you once again.
Cheers,
Chris
