Uncommon Valor and Bug Reporting

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Don't know circumstances. Send me a save and bug report.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: borner

as a regular issue I will select TF's in truk to load units, and even though they have more than enough room, only partial units are loaded. Is this a bug or game feature?

[borner]

the next time i see this I will send it to you... usually starts in 43, but fighters for Japan switching from LRCAP to Sweep by the AI.

[RGIJN]

IMHO it is only a minor "error", but I just ran into it and I could offer files (before/after)!

If you look at the screen about the CDR of this Transport TF (O. KAWAMURA), the description on the right side is about RADM M. UGAKI... When opened up once more later on, the correct CDR was at the screen.

Do you want files? If yes, which one in particular?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Sure. Send files and a bug report.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

IMHO it is only a minor "error", but I just ran into it and I could offer files (before/after)!

If you look at the screen about the CDR of this Transport TF (O. KAWAMURA), the description on the right side is about RADM M. UGAKI... When opened up once more later on, the correct CDR was at the screen.

Do you want files? If yes, which one in particular?

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Sure. Send files and a bug report.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

OK. Nice. But once again: which files do you need? Combatsave? Combatreport? the turn?

[Mike Wood]

The turn.

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Sure. Send files and a bug report.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

OK. Nice. But once again: which files do you need? Combatsave? Combatreport? the turn?

[borner]

mike
 
where do you want files sent? I just had to disband a fast transport TF for Japan that was carrying a US eng unit.  thanks

[Mike Wood]

mikew@matrixgames.com

[tocaff]

WOW!  This is really something.  Support for a 7 year old computer game.  The prospect of patching the very bugs that finally drove me away from UV have renewed my interest in the game.  Even a certain member of our forum must retract some of his previous remarks and be happy at the prospects of Mike fixing some things.  I don't know where Mike will find the time for all of this in a schedule filled with a prior job workload.  He must be doing this because he loves the games.

[borner]

Yes, it is very hopeful. The editor would be great to allow us to adjust some things as well!
 
 
Mike, was my file received?

[Mike Wood]

Nope. No email or file from you.

[DEB]

Ok, call me a cynic if you wish; but it has occurred to me that this may just be a subtle way to fix those bugs in CF that have been carried forward from UV, with significantly less effort than would otherwise be the case. I'll apologise now if that proves to be wrong.

Either way, lets hope we will get a UV patch in due course.

[borner]

Hey DEB, I will admit the thought has crossed my mind and other I have exchanged emails with. I do honestly hope the talk of a patch is genunie

[Denniss]

What I would consider a bug: TBD Devastator receive replacement aircraft although they were out of production since 1939. By 1941 the Navy had just about 100 operational TBD out of 130 produced, Midway reduced this to ~40 TBD available.
The P400 should not receive replacements as well, the USAAF got hands on about 200 aircraft in Dec 1941 and all were assigned to the pacific or used in training squadrons in 1941/1942. If you consider them as being replaced in the training squadrons and sent to the pacific then assign them an end date in autumn/late 1942.

I remember sometimes having problems with cargo/transport TF if a disbanded TF was recreated. If recreated in the same port they may still have loading orders or target orders from the previous TF with the same number. If recreated in other ports these TF may go somewhere but not to their target. Or they do funny things like travelling to their target empty or only half-loaded, especially a problem if this TF is on a Constant supply mission. Maybe the status/orders are sometimes not fully cleared if a TF is disbanded.

It looks like there's still a black hole sometimes eating parts of a land unit loaded onto transport ships or aircraft. If a partial unit is lost underway (aircraft shot down, ship damaged or lost) they sometimes fail to come back. They are then neither listed as partial replacement unit nor are they coming back as via standard replacements. I remember seeing units having their standard strength reduced by the amount of troops eaten by the black hole (Unit shows up as full strength, no equipment missing/lost/disabled, although not at full strength. This may or may not appear to air units, too. I have to check my savegames if there are still some saves around with this bug present.

Playing 2.50, human vs computer.

[Ike99]

Can you clarify yourself Nomad because I´m confused with your method of bug reporting.

2/22/2009

Nomad-As far as other 'bugs' I haven't really seen any...Note, that I did not play UV for 2 or 3 years and then last year I played 5 or 6 games with no problems that spoiled my game.

8/18/2008

Nomad-Sorry to say this game has come to an end. Two turns later I had a turn where most of my TFs didn't move, some took off to Truk and some proceded on to Rockhampton. We tried it again and 5 TFs headed for Truk, 4 TFs didn;t move and the rest were strung out from Rockhampton. Needless to say, Todd bombed most of them. I have seen this bug before, but never to this degree.

Tocaff-There is no winner of this game only 2 losers.

My recon showed what Nomad claimed and we went back and tried it again to no avail. A bug that won't let go killed this game, not people.

@Miller, I´ve never rerun turns to change results. Not possible, as far as I know.

Bug reporting, no save needed. Try it. Works everytime.

[bushman777]

I have tried in the last couple of months to get back into this game playing against the ai to get my head around how the game works, but there are so many bugs that I come across it is hard to remember them all. I do a lot of saving and replaying a turn to work around the bugs, but I am giving up. The 2 bugs that annoy me the most are the following:

1- The Jap carrier tf cap fly at 155 or more planes during the 7 or more strikes I make in a turn with my carrier tf, where my cap starts out decently and then drops off to zero or only a couple of planes.

2- My land based bombers and fighter/bombers will not attack any Jap carrier tf's no matter how many times I try, where the Jap land based aircraft have no problem attacking my carrier tf's.

[Ike99]

1- The Jap carrier tf cap fly at 155 or more planes during the 7 or more strikes I make in a turn with my carrier tf, where my cap starts out decently and then drops off to zero or only a couple of planes.

2- My land based bombers and fighter/bombers will not attack any Jap carrier tf's no matter how many times I try, where the Jap land based aircraft have
no problem attacking my carrier tf's.

1-Morale, Fatigue, or both.

2-If the target is not the Target set for the air unit, then the expected enemy CAP must not be too great for the expected escorts to handle.

(roughly 1 escort is needed for every 2 CAP, but the ratio is greater for escorts for longer range missions).

[Christof]

Hi Mike
Thank you for your commitment.
UV has been a long time favorite of mine since I purchased it in 2003. It's certainly a great product that has come a long way.
There are some issues though, that have finally almost put me off.

Here's two that I remember:

Both are:

1) Game version 2.50
2) PBEM

a) Betties from Lunga attack small TF's (AK, AP, TK) docked in Noumea repeatedly, disregarding heavy CAP - WITHOUT any escorts, beyond standard range. They get slaughtered and attack again and again and again... [X(]
I think you explained that TF's with CAP will not be attacked by unprotected bombers. But hey, this should work for docked TF's and land based CAP as well...

b) A "Bombardment" TF (best commander, set to "Patrol/Do not retire", good fuel and ammo level) attacks its target at night. Somehow the AI automatically changes the settings afterwards to "Surface Combat" and "Retirement allowed" and the TF charges out of the hex, a carefully set-up CAP and into total destruction by a (known) enemy Air Combat TF six hexes away. [&:]

Save files? No way! This happened about 18 months ago in a PBEM. Definitly frustrating.

Thanks for reading.
Chris

[Kingfisher]

A) I can agree with, as I have seen plenty of examples myself, but B) I'm not sure I understand your problem. The TF has performed its mission, so it would seem logical to have it return to its default setting and sail back to base.

BTW, why set a bombardment TF to patrol/do not retire when you know an air combat TF is only 6 hexes away? Why send them in at all?

[Christof]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

B) I'm not sure I understand your problem. The TF has performed its mission, so it would seem logical to have it return to its default setting and sail back to base.

BTW, why set a bombardment TF to patrol/do not retire when you know an air combat TF is only 6 hexes away? Why send them in at all?

Hi.

Well, two reasons why it should not revert to any other setting:
- You want another bombardment attack during daylight (there's always enough ammo to attack twice)
- You want to stay in that hex, because you have a strong Air Combat TF with plenty of CAP there.

In my case I bombarded PM at the beginning of an invasion. KB was present with 100+ crack fighter pilots overhead. PM airfield was dead. Enemy AC TF was stationed about 6 hexes away from GG, trying to snatch some transports.
My BB's retired - directly into the mouth of the US CV's. Some great fireworks....[8|]

Well, I don't have a problem that a TF changes mission type - after concluding a mission. But an order "Do not retire" should not automatically overwritten.

My 2 cents.
Chris