Updated Patch v1.20 Items

[Erik Rutins]

The release of the patch is imminent, either tonight or tomorrow. The list of fixes has been frozen and final testing has been completed. I'm pleased to see UV maturing before my eyes with new features, bug fixes and interface enhancements. Lots of work continues to go into UV every day from both 2 by 3 and Matrix. With that in mind, I want to post here the list from the upcoming patch readme and also discuss the plans for the next patch.

We originally planned for this to be focused on the rare but extant crash bugs that still plague a few players. Unfortunately, as we were working on isolating and fixing those bugs, several issues arose relating to PBEM cheating. This, to us, is a major priority because it potentially affects all players and can ruin the best part of UV, playing it against another wargamer.

Diverting to address the PBEM problems created somewhat of a "parallel" patch to the originally planned one. As you'll see in the list below, it is as hefty as any of the previous patches. However, many more things were addressed that affected play balance than we originally expected. With that said, I want to assure the folks who may still have issues they feel are more important than what was addressed here that we remain on the job.

The high priority list for the next patch consists almost exclusively of the rare lockup / CTDs that have been reported by a few players. In fact, as this patch is released, work continues to bring the next patch out as quickly as is feasible.

And so, without further ado...

Matrix Games - 07/23/2002
Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved

= Patch Items for Uncommon Valor version 1.20 =

1) Air groups attacking at 100 feet should now say so in the combat reports.

2) Air flights attacking at 100 feet are being allowed to climb away from target to 1000 feet before receiving post attack anti-aircraft fire. Fixed. They should now receive anti-aircraft fire at 100 feet, after attack.

3) Skip bombing does not work as the manual describes. Fixed. Skip bombing by Allied level bombers with altitude set to 100 feet should now occur with experienced pilots.

4) Combat air patrol aircraft should now take less disruption, when attacking bombers, which will allow for greater effect.

5) The bombing formulas have been rewritten. Level bombers attacking at very low altitude should no longer bomb quite so accurately.

6) Low flying level bombers using torpedoes should now take less disruption from anti-aircraft attacks than level bombers using bombs, as the release point is more distant.

7) Level bombers flying at low level with low morale now bomb with less accuracy.

8) If after a low level bombing mission by level bombers, more than one half the planes of the group have been damaged, the group now suffers reduced morale until altitude is set above low level for future missions or ready planes exceed damaged planes.

9) Level bombers flying low-level missions now have reduced accuracy, if anti-aircraft is very heavy or there is a lot of CAP.

10) Less experienced level bomber crews, who are severely disrupted and receiving anti-aircraft fire, will now sometimes release bomb load early.

11) Allied level bombers, such as the B-17, B-25 and B-26 are gaining full benefit from the Norden bombsite at low altitudes. Fixed. At altitudes less than 6000 feet, the targeting bonus from the Norden is now sharply attenuated.

12) Level bombers may no longer achieve multiple bomb hits against naval vessels. The number of bombs in the string does still increase the chance of hitting.

13) Very large bombers now take longer to repair, after being damaged.

14) Non-combat troop formations now appear on the land combat resolution screen.

15) Land combat calculations have been adjusted to allow non-combat troops greater ability to engage combat troops.

16) Non-combat troops should no longer automatically surrender or commit suicide, when the base in which they are located is captured.

17) The percentage progress in building airfields, ports and fortifications are now displayed on the base screen.

18) Spotting chance at medium range for naval search missions has been increased. This may help level bombers find and attack Tokyo Express task forces more often.

19) A security breach which allowed player two to see turn resolution early has been corrected.

20) A player may select to load a land based unit into a transport take force, cancel loading or choose to unload the unit repeatedly within one turn and load the entire unit, which might normally take two or three turns because the loading routine leaves 100 operation points for loading supplies. This is undesirable. Fixed. It is no longer possible to do this.

21) Left clicking on a friendly land based unit within a hex that contains more than one friendly unit, but no base, causes a pop out to appear in which the player should select the desired unit and sometimes contains units not in that hex. Fixed. Clicking in this fashion now selects the first unit in the hex.

22) Allied anti-submarine warfare capabilities need enhancement. Fixed. Allied anti-submarine vessels should now perform better. Other Allied ships, such as transports, should now have a better chance of forcing Japanese submarines to attack while submerged by use of the deck gun.

23) The computer opponent does not garrison important bases, such as Truk and Cairns adequately. Fixed. New routines now insure that important bases have adequate combat troops.

24) The units load cost needs to be added to the unit data screen. Done.

25) Pilots are not being properly transferred to the new base, when there are two or more of the same aircraft at the source base and some planes are damage. Fixed. Should work, now.

26) Submarines are sometimes firing torpedoes at barges and PT boats. Fixed. They should no longer so do.

27) The list all ships list-box should now reload more quickly after the player selects a ships from within, to view.

28) Some players feel that lopsided battles between large and small task forces allow the smaller force to fire too many times. Fixed. The routines that determine order and quantity of fire have been rewritten.

29) In the naval combat screen, ships that have not been spotted well enough to target no longer have the name of the ship printed. Once they have been identified well enough to be targeted, the name appears. Ships which have no name printed may be hidden in fog or rain, too far away to be seen, behind another ship, behind smoke generated by destroyers or burning ships or for some other reason not engaged in combat. Note that a ship may sometimes fire and still not be spotted.

30) Increased maximum daytime naval combat range from 17,000 yards to 25000 yards.

31) Ships arriving in theater at a captured base are doing so under enemy command. Fixed. Ships due to arrive in Truk should no longer arrive, if Truk is captured. Ships arriving in Brisbane or Noumea should arrive in the other location if the assigned location is captured. If both are captured, the ships should not arrive.

32) The player is now notified by a text message on the lower left of the screen, when ships arrive in theatre, if playing against the computer or when the computer plays against itself

33) Ships mixed in with PT boats are starting combat at closer range than they should. Fixed. Large ships can no longer sneak up on an enemy fleet by hiding amongst the PT boats.

34) Japanese Auto-Victory conditions are as follows (clarification for v1.10 and later):

a. On or after the January 1, 1943 turn, the game ends and Japan wins if it holds either Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville, Noumea or Luganville with double the supplies needed for that base.
b. In addition, in scenarios 1-14 only, on or after the January 1, 1943 turn, if the Japanese player holds Gili Gili and Lunga and the Allied player does not own an airfield of size 4 or greater north of row 46 (Y-coordinate) except Port Moresby, the game ends and the Japanese player wins.

= OOB Changes for Uncommon Valor version 1.20 =

1) Added missing leadership values for Leaders F. Chapman (991) and W. Hearth (998).

2) On P-61A Black Widow, corrected location of four 20mm cannon to front facing (00), location of four 0.50 Browning MG to top turret facing (03).

3) Corrected spelling of “Matsukaze”.

4) Added 431st FS (690), 432nd FS (691), and 433rd FS (692) of 475th FG along with historical leaders.

5) Added 342nd FS (689) of 348th FG and adjusted arrival dates of 340th FS (741) and 341st FS (742) to 24 Jun 43. Added historical ace pilots to 342nd FS.

6) Corrected air unit 750 from No. 9 Sqn RAAF to No. 9 Sqn RNZAF.

7) Renamed Boomerang II to Boomerang. Aircraft in game covers both Mk.I and Mk.II versions of the Boomerang.

8) Added FLT W. Newton (1572) to No. 22 Sqn RAAF.

9) Corrected typos and text layout errors in the scenario descriptions.

10) Relocated submarine TFs 212 and 214 in scenarios 7 and 14 to prevent erroneous “Seaview” submarine flights over the Owen Stanleys.

11) Increased daytime and nighttime experience of all subchaser class ships (1551 – 1598) by 5%.

12) Added 9 USMC squads to each Marine Defense Battalion (1038 – 1042) and 9 ANZAC squads to the 1st NZ Def Bn (1036).

13) Adjusted weapon allotment of USN DD’s (Thanks Ron!).

14) Adjusted penetration of 5.5in/50 3YT Gun and 5.5in/40 QF Gun from 50 to 60.

Regards,

- Erik

[von Murrin]

17) The percentage progress in building airfields, ports and fortifications are now displayed on the base screen.

I particularly like that one.

Lessee... I just got a new job and don't have much time to play anymore, are ya'll trying to get me fired?

[U2]

Originally posted by von Murrin

I particularly like that one.

Yeah I know what you mean. Playing with this function while testing the patch was great!:) Its really gonna help, trust me. It instantly became my little favourite.

As Erik mentioned it has been great seeing UV taking a new and improved direction. Its feels strange to say that since I've been enjoying this game so much from the start. A great game is even greater if I may say so myself.

Thanks to Joel Billings for your thanks in the B-17 thread

Thanks to Erik for you support during my horrible first day when I bugged you with bug reports;) For sure after the first day as well.

Thanks to the testing crew for your hard work. Proud to be a member of the testing team.

Dan The Thank You Man

[rhohltjr]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
...

We originally planned for this to be focused on the rare but extant crash bugs that still plague a few players. Unfortunately, as we were working on isolating and fixing those bugs,

....
- Erik

As one of the few players with still plagued by consistant CTDs I thank everyone involved for your efforts and will do anything to assist you. Just ask. The patch sounds like another brilliant gem. Thanks.

[worr]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
4) Added 431st FS (690), 432nd FS (691), and 433rd FS (692) of 475th FG along with historical leaders.

Three squadrons of P-38s. and some of the most skilled pilots of the PTO...McGuire topping the list.

Looking forward to this patch!

Worr, out

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
22) Allied anti-submarine warfare capabilities need enhancement. Fixed. Allied anti-submarine vessels should now perform better. Other Allied ships, such as transports, should now have a better chance of forcing Japanese submarines to attack while submerged by use of the deck gun.

- Erik

Could you elaberate on that one a little, please? Was it a change to a formula or was it an increase in the weapons the ships carry or something else? If it was a formula change, does it involve ALL anti-sub actions or only those done by the US against the Japanese? I would assume that the Japanese would have just as much problems with US subs late in the war as the US is having with Japanese subs at the start of the war.

Everything else looks great.

Yamamoto

[FirstPappy]

I would also like to have #22 explained a little better. I posted an episode where a US sub actually surfaced against a TF of transports, 4DDs and a CL in order to finish off a previously crippled transport with its deck gun. BTW, it accomplished the mission with no return fire from any ships in the TF. If this was the intent of the 2nd part of #22 then it should be for both US and Jap subs.

[msaario]

How about the bug which auto-creates a task force in Luganville if the Japan controls the base with ships in port and sends the TF to Noumea?

--Mikko

[Learmont]

I was having real problems with crashes on my Dell unit with nvidia card and Windows ME. Upgraded to Windows XP Home and have not crashed since. Had to load all new drivers for XP. Rumor is that MS has abandoned ME and may even be willing to issue free XP updates. Good luck. I remember haw many crashes were in ME. That seems to be the main problem.

[Wilhammer]

Will Marine Squadrons be prohibited from conducting Carrier Combat OPs in the future patch?

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
Will Marine Squadrons be prohibited from conducting Carrier Combat OPs in the future patch?

Why ? I assume their airplanes were "carrier-compliant" so it is only a question of carrier operation training for pilots ... and it what the Long Island is for

Spooky

[Wilhammer]

They were equipped for it, but the Navy did not operate them from Carriers for combat missions until well into 1944.

Specifically, F4Us did not operate from Carriers until Nov 1944 in the USN.

Now, I might buy Marine Wildcats operating from carriers, for at Henderson, it might be Marine pilots operating a Navy Wildcat, or vis versa, from mission to mission.

But to be historically accurate, Marine Squadrons should not be permitted anymore carrier time than transfer missions.

I am sure some of the Zero squadrons never operated from carriers, but the data on that is hard to come by. Also, one reasonsome of them did operate from bases exclusively was because they had no Carriers to operate from. But many of them had specific land based roles to support the Bettys and Nells at forward bases.

So perhaps it is a balance issue, since we cannot readily determine which IJN fighter squadrons did not operate from carriers, so they have to leave Marines available to operate from carriers.

When I play the USN, I find it tempting to remove the F4F squadrons from the Carriers and put Marine Corsairs on board. It is a devestating fighter.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
They were equipped for it, but the Navy did not operate them from Carriers for combat missions until well into 1944.

Specifically, F4Us did not operate from Carriers until Nov 1944 in the USN.

Now, I might buy Marine Wildcats operating from carriers, for at Henderson, it might be Marine pilots operating a Navy Wildcat, or vis versa, from mission to mission.

But to be historically accurate, Marine Squadrons should not be permitted anymore carrier time than transfer missions.

I am sure some of the Zero squadrons never operated from carriers, but the data on that is hard to come by. Also, one reasonsome of them did operate from bases exclusively was because they had no Carriers to operate from. But many of them had specific land based roles to support the Bettys and Nells at forward bases.

So perhaps it is a balance issue, since we cannot readily determine which IJN fighter squadrons did not operate from carriers, so they have to leave Marines available to operate from carriers.

When I play the USN, I find it tempting to remove the F4F squadrons from the Carriers and put Marine Corsairs on board. It is a devestating fighter.

Yep, it is a good strategy I think it should rather be a "house rule" in PBEM game not to put Corsairs in CV ... but it should not be prevented in the game since there is nothing in Real Life that prevented it ...

[Wilhammer]

...nothing in Real Life that prevented it

Nothing physically or training wise, no, but operationally and command wise, yes.

The Corsair was doctrinally NOT ALLOWED to operate from carriers until the Navy cleared it late in 1944.

The Marine Squadrons were land based, and also did not operate from carriers until Navy doctrine aloowed it late in 44.

It is perhaps something to be ocnsidered like optional Jap Sub Doctrine.

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Learmont
I was having real problems with crashes on my Dell unit with nvidia card and Windows ME.

For what it's worth, I'm running UV on Windows ME with a Matrox G400 MAX video card. The game has not crashed once for me.

- David

[Spooky]

Yep - good idea : "an historical USMC planes doctine" that we can toggle on or off ...

I really like that idea

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
...nothing in Real Life that prevented it

Nothing physically or training wise, no, but operationally and command wise, yes.

The Corsair was doctrinally NOT ALLOWED to operate from carriers until the Navy cleared it late in 1944.

The Marine Squadrons were land based, and also did not operate from carriers until Navy doctrine aloowed it late in 44.

It is perhaps something to be ocnsidered like optional Jap Sub Doctrine.

OK, but in this war, I AM the Theatre Commander, and I have directed my MAG VMF units to fly from carriers when necessary.

[1089]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
OK, but in this war, I AM the Theatre Commander, and I have directed my MAG VMF units to fly from carriers when necessary.

I'm sorry to inform you Admiral, but the CNO has relieved you of duty for disregarding his specific instructions not to fly Corsairs from carriers until proper testing has been completed. You have been dropped a few pay grades and are instructed to report to your new position at the Pentagon as assistant to Lt. Cdr. Simmons, CO of the facilities maintenance crew there. I believe he has some light bulbs for you to change...


kp

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Gang

the CNO has relieved you of duty for disregarding his specific instructions not to fly Corsairs from carriers until proper testing has been completed

it had nothing to do with testing, it was changed once a need was seen for the plane to be a Carrier plane, as Great as the Hellcat was, it was not fast or a very rapid climber, and when the Kamizes started to show up , the need for a faster plane was seen and addressed

HARD_Sarge

[Speedysteve]

If I update when the latest patch comes out will all of the new features work in my current PBEM game or will I have to restart?

Regards,

Steven