Upgrades and miniatures

[pacwar]

Well I went ahead the bought the game...now my first question, do I need to get the patches and upgrade the version I just bought or does this version include all the upgrades? The opening screen does say version 2.0, so the 2.1 and 2.2 patches seem to be updated versions.

Second, while some of the previous threads talk about using miniatures to resolve the battles I can't find anyone who has actually done it...my main interest in these rules is to use them as a campaign engine to generate miniatures battles....I use the Carnage and Glory computer moderated tactical rules and I think they might be a good match for this campaign system. Anyone used the miniatures?

Thanks in advance.

David

[Owen 1815]

Can't help with the miniatures thing i'm afraid but....
you will need to install 2.1 and 2.2 in the defaulted folders stated by installation. In my own experience, there are lots of bugs involved withupgrades but they are neccesary. Previous threads will help you if you get a problem.

PLEA TO ALL CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE gamers. This game seems unique in that it can get riddled with bugs but has a submissive charm that really grows on its owners. The support from Matrix on this particular title is lethargic to say the least so would anyone who has a passing interest in the game keep the forum alive with what ever "head scratch" they might have and contribute as loyally as possible. [&o][&o][&o]

[DEB]

you will need to install 2.1 and 2.2 in the defaulted folders stated by installation. In my own experience, there are lots of bugs involved withupgrades but they are neccesary. Previous threads will help you if you get a problem.

Note it is essential that the original game & the patches go to the default folder, other-wise the game will crash/freeze and is unusable. I have not come across any problems with these patches/upgrades. Do read previous threads for assistance re most noted problems / queries re game as a whole. Somewhere in there is a comment or two re miniatures, but it may not help much. [;)] Try asking Frank Hunter ( sorry Frank ).[:D]

PLEA TO ALL CAMPAIGNS ON THE DANUBE gamers. This game seems unique in that it can get riddled with bugs but has a submissive charm that really grows on its owners. The support from Matrix on this particular title is lethargic to say the least so would anyone who has a passing interest in the game keep the forum alive with what ever "head scratch" they might have and contribute as loyally as possible. [&o][&o][&o]

Not so sure it is unique - you should read the Uncommon Valour threads.[:(]
It's a lot worse there [:@], but at least more people visit it.

See also the New CLGA thread re an unofficial "upgrade" to units in Scenario's, ( particularly Sc. 3 "Crisis on the Danube" where the French Imperial Gd were missing.) Although not a patch, this has been done by Frank Hunter, the games designer/developer, after my query.[8D].
I'll be reviewing this soon and will post some notes/ comments for anyone interested.

[pacwar]

Owen,

Thanks for the information...I will download the patches and apply as necessary. I noted in posts from 2004 quite a bit of discussion of the potential for the miniatures interface...obviously those discussions didn't go very far...

David

[Owen 1815]

Very frightened!!! Received my copy of uncommon valor yesterday morning. Thought I was free of problems!! The thing about these troublesome games is that it deters me from playing the games I want to and I end up playing the most reliable games instead.

[DEB]

Very frightened!!!

By anything in particular ? I'll help if I can.[:)]

Received my copy of uncommon valor yesterday morning. Thought I was free of problems!!

[>:] Sorry, long ( [:(] [:@]) standing problem re waiting for the next patch ![:D]

What version do you have ? This game is best played ( at present ) with 2.30 due to bugs with subsequent patches. Unsure if you can get it back to 2.30 if you have a more recent version .
( See previous posts on UV forum re both points. )

The thing about these troublesome games is that it deters me from playing the games I want to and I end up playing the most reliable games instead.

You are sooo right [:(] Its over a year now since I have played UV, but it is a great game so I am " hanging on".[8|]. Come on Matrix [&o][&o][&o] ( I am a touch lazy - I could unpatch my game back to the 2.30 that was on disk, and play that - but I have been working on other games since - currently CotD.[;)]
NB Update on the CotD map to follow soon too.[8D] ( Several bridges are not in the "hexes" they are supposed to be in.) [X(][:@]
Matrix/Frank Any chance of a official patch re this & the recent Units "update" ?[&o][&o][&o]

[Owen 1815]

Just frightened of repair/remedial time spent playing aroud with redownloading and folders instead of game time. That said I upgraded to UV 2.42 before I read your mail about the original 2.3 being the most trouble free!
So far I don't know the game well enough to see if it has caused me a problem. For ladder play I presume the newest patch is usually needed though? Going to pursue COTD and highway to the reich first alongside trusty Korsun Pocket before I get bogged down with UV issues. Cotd is like choosing a book over tv. It takes a lot of will power to choose it over its more accessible rivals but when you open it you often have a more rewarding and subtle experience.
What part of Bristol are you from. I lived in Yatton for 5 years and Henleaze for a further 5 years - very happy days (Park st/White ladies rd....)

[DEB]

Re UV, as you have upgraded it you are in the same situation as me & could downgrade it. If you still have the patches/zip files seperate then save them to a different folder first for safety. I think the best way is to then uninstall all UV and reinstall 2.30 from the disk.

I have no idea re ladder play although I would be suprised if anyone in a ladder used the most upgraded version from what I have read. Might be wrong though.

The main problem with UV 2.42 is disappearing aircraft, mostly C-47 transports I gather. ( Sometimes lots go missing when they have not been flying anywhere to pick up combat or "ware & tear" damage.) 2.41 has a major bug which was fixed by 2.42; do not go there at all. There are a few other minor glitches which are no real problem , apart from my grounded Submarine - see UV forum for more details.

I guess it's more accurate to say I'm from near Bristol ( although I'm nearer to Bath really ). I live at Wick, approx. 8 miles due east of Bristol & 5 north of Bath.
In my younger days I tended to "club" around central Bristol. Used Park St. for shopping sometimes ( music & book shops & Forever People ) Didn't use Whiteladies Rd. much, but did vist the Glen night club some for Rock / Heavy Metal nights. What part of Wales are you from ? It's a large place !

[FrankHunter]

Any chance of a official patch re this & the recent Units "update"

If there's a problem with a bridge, or bridges let me know. My map sources were F.L. Petre, Ospreys and Zucker's 1809 and I do consider them reliable [:)] As for fixing a possible issue, I admit I can't draw.


As for miniatures, the problem here is I can't do much beyond provide an exit and entry point. Obviously one doesn't even need miniatures, its just a way of the player controlling combat resolution.

I had considered outputting to particular rulesets such as Volley and Bayonet or Grande Armee.

[DEB]

If there's a problem with a bridge, or bridges let me know. My map sources were F.L. Petre, Ospreys and Zucker's 1809 and I do consider them reliable [:)]

No problem with your sources or even drawing that is worth making adjustments for, as far as I am aware.

The problem I have noted is that a bridge shown as ( for example ) between "hex" 61,9 & 61,10 is in fact between 61,10 & 61,11 ( South of Znaim ) - per the " background" info.
I picked this up when I tried to destroy the bridge and found it could not be done ( Unavailable ) but could be done for the hex/s below. [X(]

I have also found two other such instances to date, and am investigating the map further.

1) No Bridge at 57,16 / 58,16 ( below KREMS ), therefore only 1 Bridge into the town from below it / across the river.

2) No Bridge at 45,5 / 46,5 , but Bridges at 45,5 / 45,6 & 45,6 / 47,7. ( On road north of BUDWEIS ).

Any other finds to follow shortly. [:)]

[FrankHunter]

You mean the bridge is on the wrong hexside from what is shown?

[DEB]

Yes. ( Always presuming the "map" is correct. )

So far I have checked the game map up to ( & inc. ) column 51. ( 70% approx. )

I have found a further 2 instances ( as before ); plus 3 instances of what appears to be Fords ( no bridge - but road crosses a river hexside ) ? , and 2 instances of bridges which can be destroyed - but are NOT on the map ( 1 Bridge over land ravine ( ? ) & 1 over a river ).

In order, these are :

No bridge @ 3,17 / 3,18 - but bridge @ 3,18 / 2,17 ( ULM )
No bridge @ 49,6 / 48,6 - but bridge at 48,6 / 48,7.

No bridge @ 23,9 / 23,8 ; 24,8 / 23,9 ; 29,17 / 30,17 .

No bridge "on map" @ 22,8 / 23,9 ; 16,10 / 17,11 .

[DEB]

Further to the previous reply.

Review of the map now finished.

Further errors are:

No bridge @52,14 / 52,15 ( Ford ? )

No bridge @ 55,13 / 56,13 ( bridge @ 55,13 / 55,14 )
No bridge @ 65,14 / 65,15 ( bridge @65,15 / 65,16 ) - Wolkersdorf
No bridge @ 66,5 / 67,5 ( bridge @ 66,5 / 67,6 ) - Brunn
No bridge @ 69,11 / 70,10 ( bridge @ 69,12 / 70,11 )

Also noted in my current game that there is no road @34,12 ( road @ 33,13 )
This is on the Deggendorf to Passau road.

[FrankHunter]

I will check each of those issues over the weekend DEB and update the scenario data as required, thanks

[DEB]

Thanks.

NB : Re my first list of bridge / map queries:

1) No Bridge at 57,16 / 58,16 ( below KREMS ), therefore only 1 Bridge into the town from below it / across the river.

Could the second road into the town across the river be via a ford ?

[DEB]

I will check each of those issues over the weekend DEB and update the scenario data as required, thanks

I guess this is taking longer than expected and/or you have other priorities. Any likelyhood of advices / completion soon ?[&o]

If "scenarios" change again can you incorporate the previous "patch" re extra/missing units ?[&o][&o]

Thanks.

[FrankHunter]

I guess this is taking longer than expected and/or you have other priorities

It certainly is. Unfortunately it turns out its not as simple as a fixing the data. The couple of new bridges changes the size of the data footprint and therefore the whole game needs to be recompiled. I don't use the same tools anymore so its been a case of setting up a new partition and trying to recompile without breaking something new.

[DEB]

Thanks for the reply Frank, sorry to be the cause of such a large problem.
If it helps, I believe everyone would be happy just to have  background info. which matches the map " as is ", especially as no one else has posted re bridge/map problems.
 
NB   Can you please forward message below - thanks.

To Matrix, Re the new posts toolbars - are we supposed to download the new spell checker ?! If so to where ?! 
                                                                      

[FrankHunter]

Its occurred to me that since I'm now 2 bridges over the limit I could fudge it and choose two current bridges to be un-blowable (fords?) and let it go at that.

[DEB]

Its occurred to me that since I'm now 2 bridges over the limit I could fudge it and choose two current bridges to be un-blowable (fords?) and let it go at that.

My first preference would be to remove the 2 "background" bridges , 22,8 / 23,9 + 16,10 / 17,11 , that are not on the map.
If that still leaves 2 too many then 2 of the 5 that I have noted as currently no background bridge ( fords? ), 23,9 / 23,8 ; 24,8 / 23,9 ; 29,17 / 30,17 ; 52,14 / 52,15 ; 57,16 / 58,16 , would be OK.

However, it occurs to me that the most likely site for a ford would be nearer a rivers source. Therefore I would suggust fords at :-
52,14 / 52,15 & 65,14 / 65,15 ( & remove background bridge @ 65,15 / 65,16 ) ; also, due to the width of the Danube, I don't think we can have fords on it ( unless you know otherwise ).[8D]

Only suggustions - anyone else out there have any views ??
Your final choice anyway Frank.[;)]