Things that MUST be fixed, or the Game gets Shelved (grognard version)

[mogami]

Hi carrier air groups will attack together.

Air attack on Lae , at 9,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 55
A6M3 Zero x 8
D3A Val x 108
B5N Kate x 82

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 28
P-40E Warhawk x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
D3A Val x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 2 damaged
B5N Kate x 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 10 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 4 damaged
P-40E Warhawk x 2 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk x 1 damaged
Beaufort x 1 destroyed

LTJG U.Kanno of AII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LCDR S. Murata of AI-3 Daitai is KILLED


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 150
Vehicles lost 3

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 70

Attacking Level Bombers:
17 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet
12 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet
18 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet
16 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet
15 x B5N Kate at 5000 feet

[dgaad]

Two problems with your example Mog. 1) its a Japanese group, not American. 2) Looks like an airfield attack mission, which I should have stated earlier was not as problematic -- though it does still happen with this type of mission its much less common.

Try it with an American carrier group, Mogami. I have DOZENS of examples of stationary American carrier groups with all Dauntlesses set with a Ground Attack mission and a designated target, and only one group out of six available attacks. Yes, plenty of ops points available, and escort. This carrier group bug I described was primarily noticed with Ground Attack missions. I am not the only allied player to notice it. See above comments by other players.

Did you have Lae as specifically targetted? If so, what was the range indicator reading on the turn after the strike? What is the date of this combat report?

The next time I get into a situation in which this happens (which should be the next time I send carrier groups up to Rabaul) I will save the turn and send you the file and you can see the results for yourself.

[mogami]

Hi, 9-25-42 Lae was selected as target. example from PBEM game with Erik R (whose CV have no problem launching massive ground attacks on my bases. Above example is 2 CV TF sharing hex.
Send me the files after you have plotted turn but before you resolve it.

[FM_Freyland]

Originally posted by dgaad


There is some sympathy here for small market Canadian teams. I understand your dilemma. One thing though : Canada as a whole is responsible for their lack of competitive teams. They have engaged in socialistic economic policies which have devalued the Canadian dollar, making it even MORE difficult for Canadian teams to compete in the NHL. I do believe there are solutions for Canada, if the nation as a whole is willing to address them.

Exactly what he said.


Jonathan


(added on edit) BTW, I have been rooting for Ottawa and celebrating it's near successes for about 4 years now. Was really pissed that Yashin(?) bailed on such a promising team.

[Von_Frag]

Originally posted by dgaad
I think its also safe to say that I started this thread to discuss really critical problems in the mechanics of the game, such as an obvious bug. Most of the problems (if not all) I originally described I believe to be of this nature. I believe that all of the original problems I described are due to the game system NOT working as intended with respect to carrier air group operations, ground attack missions, the strafing setting, the barge issues, the air transport issue (probably not a bug there), and the transport poverty issue (I think this might be a bug or implementation issue, not sure here yet).

I did NOT start this thread to discuss "results of combat" whines, which is what some of the above comments have been about. No offense, but please take these elsewhere. While you may have a valid issue to you, I disagree and would like to focus on things in the game that are OBVIOUSLY not working as intended or bugged. The fact that a few bombers slip through a CAP screen is not one of these types of issues.

Ok Dgaad, tell me that the problem I posted about is not caused by some of your precious game mechanics. Flawed though it may be, I'm not ready to shelve the game. Why don't you just ask for your money back? My point is just as valid as the many you listed in your initial post, it just didn't happen in real life. Just like barges going under when strafed, or AG's attacking one at a time. Talk about whine................

Von Frag

[Von_Frag]

I'm gonna form up a US CV TF and attack Rabaul or Shortland. Will be back with results.

Von Frag

[juliet7bravo]

Since we're all here...I've just got to ask. Is it programmed into the game that the channel east of GG and the hexes to the north/north east is a "dead zone" where IJN TF's can stage/gather with impunity? I've went so far as to build up the islands in the reef to level 2 AF's, and STILL have never been able to get a strike off. AC set on "naval attack" will fly OVER IJN TF's to attack troops in GG. That area should be within range of PM attack bombers, but I've yet to see them launch...they'll strike shipping north of Rabaul, even Dauntlesses past Lae, but never there. What's up with that?

[Von_Frag]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/01/43

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 5

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 12
P-38G Lightning x 42
B-24D Liberator x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 1 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally x 1 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally x 1 damaged


1LT L.Gray of 80th FS is credited with kill number 5

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 122

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 44

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet
9 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet
6 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator at 10000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on 45th Regiment, at 29,34


Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 21
SBD Dauntless x 72
TBF Avenger x 36


Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 3 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 13 damaged
TBF Avenger x 5 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 478
Guns lost 2

Attacking Level Bombers:
9 x TBF Avenger at 5000 feet
9 x TBF Avenger at 5000 feet
18 x TBF Avenger at 5000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on 237th Regiment, at 8,35


Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 30
A-20G Havoc x 23
B-25J Mitchell x 9
A-20G Boston x 9


no losses

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 139
Guns lost 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
12 x A-20G Havoc at 1000 feet
5 x A-20G Havoc at 1000 feet
9 x A-20G Boston at 1000 feet
9 x B-25J Mitchell at 1000 feet
6 x A-20G Havoc at 1000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Kavieng at 18,24

Japanese Ships
AG 351, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Albacore


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will note the carrier strike included AC from 2 CV's and 2 CVL's. I had no problem getting off a coordinated full deck airstrike. I have noticed that the AI commanders sometimes only send out what they deem neccessary to get the job done. I have noted that LBA strikes against ground units have been sending off about 70% of their AC.

An interesting aside. The barge attack by Albacore, I saw something I hadn't seen yet.... "severe electrical Damage" on a barge.

Von Frag

[siRkid]

Originally posted by Mogami
I have several allied PBEM games and I usally can not justify any offensive action before Mid August/ early Sept. I think many people are trying to go too fast. Scen 17 is 610 turns. What is a long wait in a game with 610 turns?

Ahh, you must have read Crocky's and my AAR. You are 100% correct on my account. I charged in there feeling the power and the might of all those allied ships and bam got my butt kicked. I will say this, I did not give up. In fact I've enjoyed the game even more because every turn counted. Every transport had to be saved and it is a long long game.

I know this is off the original subject but I had to jump in.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Von_Frag


Ok Dgaad, tell me that the problem I posted about is not caused by some of your precious game mechanics. Flawed though it may be, I'm not ready to shelve the game. Why don't you just ask for your money back? My point is just as valid as the many you listed in your initial post, it just didn't happen in real life. Just like barges going under when strafed, or AG's attacking one at a time. Talk about whine................

Von Frag

1. They are not "my" precious game mechanics. They belong to all of us.

2. I'm not ready to shelve the game either. In essence, I'm saying I *will be* shelving the game in the future if these problems aren't addressed. I have faith, but we need to keep focussed on critical problems.

3. Your point was talking about how some Bettys slipped through your CAP. This did happen historically, and does not appear to be an obvious bug. I too get frustrated with the occasional Kate or Nell or Betty busting through my 100+ CAP, but I know that this is possible and historical. Just as often, if not more, a small scale attack against my CAG CAP gets totally destroyed. If you are coming in here saying you think a few planes slipping through your CAP is a critical error in the nature of the game not working as intended, you are just wrong. A result like that is the game WORKING as intended IMHO, since things like that actually did happen IRL.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Von_Frag

An interesting aside. The barge attack by Albacore, I saw something I hadn't seen yet.... "severe electrical Damage" on a barge.

Von Frag

That musta been the spark plug.

[dgaad]

I am very glad to see a number of people testing out the CAG problem.

I recommend you do the following :

Have a large, well supplied airbase with medium bombers set to ground attack with a specific target. Try 100 feet, and 1000 feet. Keep at it for a number of turns.

Do the same with CAGs against ground targets. In particular, take a US CV group with 3 CVs.

Unfortunately at this moment I do not have a combat replay save, combat report, or save game file which illustrates the problem, though I have seen it dozens of times. When I get one, I will post a link to the zipped file here.

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Dgaad

3. Your point was talking about how some Bettys slipped through your CAP. This did happen historically, and does not appear to be an obvious bug. I too get frustrated with the occasional Kate or Nell or Betty busting through my 100+ CAP, but I know that this is possible and historical. Just as often, if not more, a small scale attack against my CAG CAP gets totally destroyed. If you are coming in here saying you think a few planes slipping through your CAP is a critical error in the nature of the game not working as intended, you are just wrong. A result like that is the game WORKING as intended IMHO, since things like that actually did happen IRL.

I think your wrong here, I see it all the time, small raids are just not attacked, and damage done to them (planes attack, just don't hit)

3 Val's and 4 Zero's are going to get in and out with out any damage (outside of Flak) but 20 Vals and 20 Zero's are going to get into a major fight

in my game, I see it almost every day, so don't try and say it happened all the time in real life, Coast Watchers and radar (and time to fly, the JP attacked land bases like it was a RR time table)

sure not every plane is going to be shot down or attacked, and that would be fine, but small groups do not take damage

Which, it could be just my game or his game, as I have never seen any of your complaints in my game, I have never seen your Stafen Bug (but am sure it must be there, but I have not seen it)

I see large raids and small raids, attacking Port/Fields and troops

will agree with you about the lack of Transports, but my air transports seem to work fine

oh well, I think his post is about a hassle as are yours

Hi Mogami

in my game, it is 9-15-42, I have taken Buin, Buka, Munda, Vella Lavalle, Russell, in NG just took Lea and the 3 JP bases south of it, plus have a size 3 base on Goodenough (Buna still in JP hands, but have 2 Reg's on the way to the base on the side of it (Dobona ?){this is my biggest gamble, 5 Squadrons locked into LRCap}

have 59000 supply on PM and 109000 on Lunga

maybe my game started later then yours, aug 42 to dec 43 campaign

HARD_Sarge

[Von_Frag]

Originally posted by dgaad


1. They are not "my" precious game mechanics. They belong to all of us.

2. I'm not ready to shelve the game either. In essence, I'm saying I *will be* shelving the game in the future if these problems aren't addressed. I have faith, but we need to keep focussed on critical problems.

3. Your point was talking about how some Bettys slipped through your CAP. This did happen historically, and does not appear to be an obvious bug. I too get frustrated with the occasional Kate or Nell or Betty busting through my 100+ CAP, but I know that this is possible and historical. Just as often, if not more, a small scale attack against my CAG CAP gets totally destroyed. If you are coming in here saying you think a few planes slipping through your CAP is a critical error in the nature of the game not working as intended, you are just wrong. A result like that is the game WORKING as intended IMHO, since things like that actually did happen IRL.

In point 3, that is not what I am saying at all. I know some planes slip through, that I can except as historical. look what happened when Essex and Co. attacked Rabaul for the first time in 43. What I can't except is that it happens EVERY time. If it were a major raid, I would understand. During one of the small unescorted raids, CAP may bag one and damage one, but eventually odds would be in favor of he who has the numbers. I read on another thread that when numbers of opposing AC are large or more even, the fighting is more realistic. I agree with this. It just amazes me that pilots on either side are not competent enough to roughly handle a 10 plane strike when their numbers are overwhelming. I have seen the "Akagi" bug. Had to double check the sunk ship screen to make sure she was still there.

Von Frag

[Spooky]

Originally posted by FM_Freyland
Aye.

Once I finished my post and tried to go back to the original forum, I realized this thread had already been moved to "Bugs and such". Just to point out further to Spooky my original point, Matrix themselves have created a consumer deterrence by creating a "bugs" forum. Think about it..... now consumers on the edge can find all the game problems in one easy place! Some of the problems are current, some are old, but they are all right in front of you, and unless you read every thread, you are not going to know what was fixed. You were concerned that customer's would be turned off by Dgaad's thread and not read it through? What on Earth makes you think they are going to read all of the threads in the Bugs Report forum? Matrix, being organized is the best method when it hides your flaws, not makes them shine.

Jonathan

Yep, but this thread was not in the bug forum at the beginning. It is not the same thing to post some bugs in a bugs forum and to post in the general forum a "this game sucks" thread ...

I am probably not a real gnognard since I don't grumble all the time ... but I only want Matrix to release many more great games. And it implies for Matrix to sell a lot of UV copies ... even to people who are not right now die-hard grogs but who played GG's games in the 80's or are interested by WWII history.

These people would maybe see an Internet UV review with a link to the Matrix site - take a glance at the forum and see the title of this thread. According to you, will they buy UV ... or rather looking for other games ?

BTW, the best Internet Community I know is the Paradox one (Europa Universalis I/II, ...) ... and they have a bug reporting forum !

Spooky

[RevRick]

I have seen all that you have mentioned in this thread - and I have also seen 8-18 or so raids from A6M3's and Val's get chewed by CAP large and small. I have had four B-26 groups in Port Moresby pound Buna ground forces into the dust - so much so that three exhausted Aussie Brigades - all of them with fatigue factors in excess of 65 - take the town on the first round of combat. And I have had that only B5N surviving the air raid slip a torp into the last fully operational CV in the South Pacific - sending it to the body and fender shop. Dgaad made some good points - and I'm not sure when his game is being played.

I'm still playing in Nov. 42 - and have all four CV's afloat - though not at full ops - all have system damage, and 200+ planes on the Canal and at Moresby, Buna is taken and Gili Gili has a transplanted Marine AG - two fighter and two DB squads making life miserable for IJN fleet traffic - and the AF on Cactus is bombing Shortland to reduce the Port and Airfield. Shokaku and Zuikaku are training their second Air Groups and probably getting ready for a return engagement probably with Junyo and the CVL's in company - BTW what ever happened to intelligence reports regarding intentions - didn't SOPAC get the mail from CINCPAC.

So, for me, its early in the war - I don't have enough shipping for everything - and barely enough for anything - which was the basic problem in all of WWII for the Allies - and so far my only major damage has been the North Carolina - who will be in the yards until sometime in late 44- bloody miracle I got her back to Noumea, let alone to the yards in the U.S.

[Point Luck]

I’ve been reading this thread for awhile now and I agree I would like to see some of the A/C controls revisited by Matrix. I enjoy the game very much, but have become very frustrated with the lack of control over my air groups. I understand that the game is based on a theater operations level. However being able to choose a little more direct control over air groups would not detract from this game. As a scenario progresses through time I envision a player would task more and more air ops to the AI because of management constraints. But I would prefer to decide when and what controls I would turn over to the AI. Leaving the FOG of War and the weather conditions alone, a player selecting what task force to attack or at the least what direction the flights should fly and/or search would at least give a player a feeling that not everything is totally out of his control. Factoring in the overwhelming missions a player must decide as well as supply and TF formation during a course of a turn, adding more aircraft control would only add to the risk of making bad operational decisions. I can even live with the mine constraints as dictated 1.11. Although I would like to see more minelaying vessels included.

One more point I haven’t seen too many comments from the Matrix team as to the possible fixes due in the next patch or when and if another patch is due.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Point Luck
I’ve been reading this thread for awhile now and I agree I would like to see some of the A/C controls revisited by Matrix. I enjoy the game very much, but have become very frustrated with the lack of control over my air groups. I understand that the game is based on a theater operations level. However being able to choose a little more direct control over air groups would not detract from this game. As a scenario progresses through time I envision a player would task more and more air ops to the AI because of management constraints. But I would prefer to decide when and what controls I would turn over to the AI. Leaving the FOG of War and the weather conditions alone, a player selecting what task force to attack or at the least what direction the flights should fly and/or search would at least give a player a feeling that not everything is totally out of his control. Factoring in the overwhelming missions a player must decide as well as supply and TF formation during a course of a turn, adding more aircraft control would only add to the risk of making bad operational decisions. I can even live with the mine constraints as dictated 1.11. Although I would like to see more minelaying vessels included.

One more point I haven’t seen too many comments from the Matrix team as to the possible fixes due in the next patch or when and if another patch is due.

An 1.2 patch is due but should mainly be bug-fixing (especially crash bugs) so no big changes. There are rumours of an 1.3 patch with some gameplay tweaks ... but AFAIK no confirmation from Matrix.

Spooky

[Point Luck]

Thank You for the info. Now I have a real concern I've read alot about system crashes and I'm not sure how much of the problem is the game> I have been runing this game now on three different machine with a very very extensive amount of play time on each machine. I'm runing Windows XP on a Pent IV, one machine is runing Windows 98 and one is runing Windows ME, both of those rmachines are Pent III. I'm not braging but have had not ONE single crash EVER, honest NEVER. In fact what I was most impressed about the game, was how stable the operating platform is. I'm now concerned what happens to machines that are not crashing aftera new patch is installed to fix a problem that is more than likely a machine set-up problem rather than an game problem.

[mdiehl]

>So please don't act like spoiled children ... because otherwise the result is already known : no more toys for us wargamers

I can't agree with your philosophy. As a Grognard who has probably blown $400 on busted WW2 Strategic board games, I can honestly asy I'd rather hear lots of honest "this game sucks" griping, even about minor details like 6 betties walking through a 20 plane CAP unscathed, than spend money on a game that has not been propeerly tested. As a former coder (whose job in a former incarnation was debugging) it pissed me off eight ways to sunday to have an application (not wargames btw) shipped in a state that I would generously call "mid-Beta testing." As an end-user, I'd rather not spend game hours working up a campaign (these things take some time), only to discover that my 2-CV strike against an IJN TF gets completely bollocked because there are 100 planes on CAP, or because Sakai once said that IJN pilots shot down 50 Allied P40s and Hurricanes without loss or some other bull___, or because some dood read Morison and decided that IJN torpedoes were like atomic bombs only faster and more accurate.

If griping means potential buyers are turned off or, like me, wait a flipping long time before committing to purchase, and the designer goes OOB because of it, IMO it's *no loss.* The demand is there. Someone else will pick up the ball, probably, and eventually do the job right. If not, I'd rather there be *no* product than get suckered into purchasing (again) something that works half-way. Cut me once, shame on you. Cut me twice, shame on me.