Patch 2.50

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

Just wish they had made the more stable earlier version (2.3) of this game available those of us who bought later - at 2.41.

Yes , I thought you deservered better too. I was lucky , in that I bought
the 2.3 version and then "patched up" so I could have reset it to 2.3 again if I had wanted to. As it was, I waited....

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Why does it seem that patches that fix one thing seem to cause another to go wrong?  Why is this acceptable?

It has always been my experience that these things happen re patches
( & system upgrades on my work PC ). It should not be acceptable though. I think the problem is that the program files are not fully read through & understood before people make adjustments to them. The more complex the program, the more the ENTIRE program must be read.
[Sometimes the program info. is not stored in a manner that makes this possible ( if it is stored at all ) though. In my experience it is better to get the original programer/s to do any rework if possible, although this can add to complacency by the programmer.]

Maybe if I was a programmer I'd have a different view though!

[btaft]

DEB,

Although I have only been a member for a relatively short period of time...I have been a lurker for at least a couple of years and have had the opportunity to see the support on other Matrix games. I agree completely that these bugs can be very irksome and often frustrating, and in extreme cases can make a game unplayable.

As far as the details in your post, I would consider this in the realm of irksome as opposed to unplayable. Not trying to put down the frustration factor, but afterall there are 18 other scenaios that are available not to mention those available in th efan community.

I agree that in an ideal world that all bugs would be squashed but with the amount of data both in the code and in reference files, finding the source of the errors can often be extremely time consuming and costly. I also agree that sometimes complaining will get results we should also understand where this level of support lies amongst similar companies. In my opinion Matrix are going above and beyond what any other company would do on such a dated product in the simple fact that they are still working on improving it over 4 years after its release. Under these circumstances, we should give accolades instead of complaining (i.e. you get more bees with honey as opposed to the squeaky wheel gets the grease) because Matrix is doing this for no other reason than support to their fan base. They certainly can't be expecting this fix to lead to additional sales on this product which I imagine are a mere trickle in comparison to its initial release.

I do agree with the part with regards to a cordial response or at least a general post on the forum saying something along the lines of "although reporting of bugs is appreciated, no additional funding is available at this time to address these issues"

May all of the enemies torpedoes bounce off your CV's without detonating [:)]

[DEB]

btaft

Although I have only been a member for a relatively short period of time...I have been a lurker for at least a couple of years and have had the opportunity to see the support on other Matrix games. I agree completely that these bugs can be very irksome and often frustrating, and in extreme cases can make a game unplayable.

As I did the same for several months prior to becoming a member, I guess that means we have been around for approx. the same length of time. I have, though, only kept an eye on UV & CotD, so I guess my view is limited.

As far as the details in your post, I would consider this in the realm of irksome as opposed to unplayable. Not trying to put down the frustration factor, but afterall there are 18 other scenaios that are available not to mention those available in th efan community.

I did continue on after I found the bug and posted the problem some weeks later. I stopped playing UV after the "Coastwatchers" went mad and after this was fixed the disappearing Aircraft bug was spotted by someone and I have not played since ( as have many others so I gather).
I was dis-interested in commencing a new scenario without knowing if the latest bug was Sc. specific or game-wide.

I agree that in an ideal world that all bugs would be squashed but with the amount of data both in the code and in reference files, finding the source of the errors can often be extremely time consuming and costly.

There is a school of thought that says more care first time round leads to
less likelyhood of rework, reduces costs and makes for a happier customer.

I also agree that sometimes complaining will get results we should also understand where this level of support lies amongst similar companies. In my opinion Matrix are going above and beyond what any other company would do on such a dated product in the simple fact that they are still working on improving it over 4 years after its release.

But they are not working on it any longer. The last "major" problem has only been fixed because Mr Wood traced it whilst working on another similar game using the same engine & program and was kind enough to "send in" a Patch.

I do agree with the part with regards to a cordial response or at least a general post on the forum saying something along the lines of "although reporting of bugs is appreciated, no additional funding is available at this time to address these issues"

It's what anyone should do in order to provide good customer service

My MAIN problem was that Mr Wood did not provide a useful response
to my re-raising of my submarine query ( and still hasn't ).

May all of the enemies torpedoes bounce off your CV's without detonating

What a nice ( if unlikely ) thought. I wonder if there's a % built in for dud's? Do you think the Jap's would be higher or the Yanks and/or Brits.?

[Ursa MAior]

What a nice ( if unlikely ) thought. I wonder if there's a % built in for dud's? Do you think the Jap's would be higher or the Yanks and/or Brits.?

yes there is a built in dud rate. At least it is so in WitP (bigger sister of UV). Early war USN Mk13 has a dud rate of 80% IIRC.

[btaft]

I imagine the Allies duds would be significantly higher than the IJN. The longlance torpedos were considered to be very reliable and very deadly. I know I cringe every time in a surface combat when I see "torpedos in the water" [:)]

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior


yes there is a built in dud rate. At least it is so in WitP (bigger sister of UV). Early war USN Mk13 has a dud rate of 80% IIRC.

Ouch !!

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: btaft

I imagine the Allies duds would be significantly higher than the IJN. The longlance torpedos were considered to be very reliable and very deadly. I know I cringe every time in a surface combat when I see "torpedos in the water" [:)]

I do know that the Japanese Torpedoes were much better than the Allied ones, but not what the differences were ( ? range, speed, accurracy, damage caused, dud rate etc. ).
Any comments anyone?

[tocaff]

The Japanese "Long Lance" torpedo was a 24" versus the USN 21" and it was a reliable weapon that packed a much bigger wallop, traveled faster and further too.  All it all for the time period it was a tremendous weapon for the night surface action battles that the Japanese favored.  

[undercovergeek]

sorry - wrong forum

[Denniss]

Wasn't it the early Mk.14 torpedo with the high dud rate, AFAIK a problem with the magnetic detonator ?

[Lopo]

DEB,
 
Have a look on this web page (http://www.combinedfleet.com/torps.htm) and you will have all informations required...
 
[font=arial]Ship and Submarine Torpedoes [/font]
[font=arial][/font]


[font=arial][/font]



[font=arial]Model[/font]
[font=arial]Diameter[/font]
[font=arial]Length OA[/font]
[font=arial]Total Weight[/font]
[font=arial]Explosive Charge[/font]
[font=arial]Range[/font]
[font=arial]Wander (max)[/font]
[font=arial]Comments[/font]

[font=arial]6th Year Type[/font]
[font=arial]21"[/font]
[font=arial]22' 5"[/font]
[font=arial]3157 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]441 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]7,000m @ 36 kts
10,000m @ 32 kts
15,000m @ 26 kts [/font]
[font=arial]?[/font]
[font=arial]An older torpedo still used in some of the older RO-class submarines.[/font]

[font=arial]8th Year Type[/font]
[font=arial]24"[/font]
[font=arial]27' 7"[/font]
[font=arial]5207 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]761 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]10,000m @ 38 kts
15,000m @ 32 kts
20,000m @ 28 kts [/font]
[font=arial]?[/font]
[font=arial]A large conventional wet-heater torpedo still used aboard some older cruisers and destroyers, notably Nagara.[/font]

[font=arial]Type 92[/font]
[font=arial]21"[/font]
[font=arial]23' 5"[/font]
[font=arial]3792 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]661 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]7000m @ 30 kts[/font]
[font=arial]120m / 7,000m[/font]
[font=arial]An electric torpedo for submarines, used extensively throughout the war.[/font]

[font=arial]Type 93[/font]
[font=arial]24"[/font]
[font=arial]29' 6"[/font]
[font=arial]5952 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]1080 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]20,000m @ 48 kts
32,000m @ 40 kts
40,000m @ 36 kts[/font]
[font=arial]500m / 20,000m
1000m / 32,000m
1500m / 40,000m[/font]
[font=arial]The Long Lance. 'Nuff said.[/font]

[font=arial]Type 95[/font]
[font=arial]21"[/font]
[font=arial]23' 5"[/font]
[font=arial]3671 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]893 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]9,000m @ 49 kts
12,000m @ 45 kts[/font]
[font=arial]170m / 9,000m
250m / 12,000m[/font]
[font=arial]A smaller version of the Type 93 intended for submarines.[/font]

[font=arial]Type 97[/font]
[font=arial]17.7"[/font]
[font=arial]18' 5"[/font]
[font=arial]2161 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]772 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]5,500m @ 44 kts[/font]
[font=arial]80m /5,500m[/font]
[font=arial]A miniaturized Type 93 intended for midget submarines. Very unsuccesful (its oxygen flasks leaked a lot), it was used operationally only once - at Pearl Harbor.[/font]
[font=arial][/font]
[font=arial]Let's take a look at the statistics on the standard US Navy destroyer torpedo of the war, the Mark 15. [/font]
[font=arial][/font]


[font=arial][/font]



[font=arial]Model[/font]
[font=arial]Diameter[/font]
[font=arial]Length OA[/font]
[font=arial]Total Weight[/font]
[font=arial]Explosive Charge[/font]
[font=arial]Range[/font]
[font=arial]Max Launch Speed[/font]
[font=arial]Comments[/font]

[font=arial]Mark 15[/font]
[font=arial]21"[/font]
[font=arial]24' 0"[/font]
[font=arial]3841 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]825 lbs.[/font]
[font=arial]5,500m @ 45 kts
9,150m @ 33 kts
13,700m @ 26 kts[/font]
[font=arial]?[/font]

[DEB]

Lopo

Thanks for the link & info.

I am begininng to think I should surrender now & save the lives of all my sailors !! [:(] Or maybe I should always play the IJN in the future! [:D]

[Lopo]

DEB,
 
Perhaps or perhaps not... You can also hold out until early '43.
About torpedos, USN will receive betters in the mid of '43...
 
 

[Skyfire7631]

So, about that patch ... ? [;)]
 
Regards.
 

[DEB]

Lopo,

I was just being facetious !

Re better torpedoes - good, but per Sc. info. still not as good as the Longlance.

(Per in game info. best are:

British/Commonwealth = range: 11k yds, damage: 810, *2;
American = range: 10k yds, damage: 825;
Japanese = range: 10k yds, damage: 893;
Japanese = range: 22k yds, damage: 1,080.

So out of the 12 types listed the best 2 are Japanese, the Allies come in at
3rd, 4th & 5th. Guess who's 6th? Correct, the Japanese.)

Never mind, if Nimitz can do it, so can I !!!

[DEB]

Well it is almost 4 weeks now since Mr Wood posted ( 27 days ).
This is longer than usual ( for UV anyway ). But then UV is very low priority I guess. Maybe it will be a Christmas pressie!! ( This year ?? )

I notice no moderator for this forum ( yet some have 2 ); having said that CotD has 2 moderators but I cannot remember the last time one of them posted on that forum !!
Question: does anyone even monitor the UV forum ?

[tocaff]

I hope there's no mods around so we can look under the torpedo blisters added to the Big "E" in Bremerton while she underwent some repairs and modifications.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Don't know who, if any one monitors this forum. I do come by about every 27 days or so. Will email production and ask them to hurry with release.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: DEB

Well it is almost 4 weeks now since Mr Wood posted ( 27 days ).
This is longer than usual ( for UV anyway ). But then UV is very low priority I guess. Maybe it will be a Christmas pressie!! ( This year ?? )

I notice no moderator for this forum ( yet some have 2 ); having said that CotD has 2 moderators but I cannot remember the last time one of them posted on that forum !!
Question: does anyone even monitor the UV forum ?

[tocaff]

OK so now we know that the cat's away for the next 3 1/2 weeks!  Maybe by the time MW returns he'll be able to tell us more than production was told and they're on it.