1.3 Wishlist ??

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Spooky
2. And how do you move these damaged planes since they cannot fly ? The actual rules seem quite good for me

I agree. When I first started with UV I came to the very cusp of reporting a bug where whenever I transferred the last planes of a given type away from a base, there was nearly always an "empty" unit (0 planes) left behind. It took several scenarios before I thought to take a closer look at just what was in that leftover unit ... DOH! Damaged planes!

David

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Sonny
And when you do form a TF now don't make us click the done screen once we have selected the type of TF - just go to the ship selection screen when we click the icon.

I totally agree with this. That particular UI bugaboo is the single most annoying one in the game for me. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on something like "Sub Patrol", sat there waiting for the screen to change for several seconds, and then remembered that I have to click another button.

David

[Sonny]

Originally posted by DSandberg


I totally agree with this. That particular UI bugaboo is the single most annoying one in the game for me. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on something like "Sub Patrol", sat there waiting for the screen to change for several seconds, and then remembered that I have to click another button.

David

Do you feel as stupid as I do when you realize that the screen is not gonna change by itself?:o

[IndyShark]

Originally posted by Spooky


1° I Agree

2. And how do you move these damaged planes since they cannot fly ? The actual rules seem quite good for me

3. I Agree - but the Editor is not really supported right now (maybe after the 1.3 patch ?)

4° What do you mean exactly ? Do you want the computer to move the base units ... or do you want to eliminate the need for Aviation support ? IMO, logistics was an headache for both sides so it needs to be present in the game

Spooky

I have no problem with logistics, but the air support, support and supplies rules are not clear to me. Some units seem to have air support capability when they do not show any. Perhaps I am just reading the unit screens poorly, but I don't like moving base units all around.

I would also suggest that bombers attack more than one target when the first target has been sunk. I have seen too many targets hit with 8+ bomb hits with other targets available. With a large airstrike, the planes should attack several targets.

[denisonh]

Given that you know the outcome of the engagement, it is easier to decide on what the targeting scheme should have been.

I think it is very realistic, given certain visibility conditions and an empahasis on hitting "High Value Targets", that a ship may get "overkilled".

The bomb or torpedo that causes the damage that will result in the ship sinking may not be obvious at the the time of the attack. Especially for larger ships(CVS, BBs, etc..). Larger ships more than likely will not just "dissapear under the waves" immediately when the fatal hit is struck. And although they are now on the way to the bottom, the attacking pilots only see a high value target still floating.

Distribution of aircraft to targets with limited information and visibility will induce situations like that. Such is the chaotic state of warfare.

Combat leadership is management of chaos at the highest levels. Perfection is not the normal outcome.

If attacks went off to perfectly, it would definitely be "ahistorical" and unrealistic.

[brisd]

Let Matrix release the promised fixes. Basically we are not going to see a redesign of the interface or major changes, this game is done. Time to move on to WITP! And if you like UV's look and feel you will like WITP, if not you are probably not going to be happy with that one. This game is very much at its heart a Gary Grigsby offspring, with all the good and bad that entails to each wargamer's desires.

edit: WITP will be renamed Life In The Pacific and labled a menace after it causes the break-up of marriages, love affairs and careers.

[Mad Daddy]

I'd like to see the editor supported so that plane types can be added and weapons added.

Also ship classes to be added such as the V & W class destroyers of the Australian Navy that were available at the time.

I agree that the bomb penitration routines are not realistic although near misses that detonate close by the ship's hull can certainly cause flotation damage.

[Wasp]

For 1.3, would it be possible to tell the submarines to attempt to follow certain task forces, giving an order not to attack on surface, (after the 1.2 patch it's impossible to attack on the surface and I thought it would be nice if you could tell your sub commanders not to attack on surface, because you know it's not going to work) and perhaps, to give the commanders attack priorities, so that subs will attempt to attack a certain target (Ex. 1. AP 2. TK/AO 3.CV etc)

2. The effect of Depth Charges/Depth Charges hitting sub might be too strong. I find it hard to believe that one SC with 3 - 5 depth charges can hit a sub 2-4 times consistently. Depth charges were more like mortars, not sniper rifles. Even though US hunter killer forces were able to destroy huge amount of subs, I just don't see where you could drop only a few depth charges and get a hit rate of 60-70%. If a escort drops a significant # of depth charges as it did in real life, I can understand the results, but I cannot see how a depth charge can get a high hit rate against subs.

3. I have said this before, but a stronger Editor please, please, please. A strong editor can make this game so much better.

Well, just my few ideas

[Long Lance]

When having lot's of different units on a certain base and you want your Dakotas to transport them elsewhere, there can be quite a lot of clicking to do to select the desired LCU.
It would be easier to have a list to choose from which unit to airlift.

[seeker124]

I wish that there was some way of getting the type of ships you need from HQ back in the mainland. I'm playing a game where every single AV, AO and TK has been sent to me, along with endless MSWs, but I have only 5 CA's in the theater and no BBs.

I'm tempted to start escorting my transports with AO's and TK's to see what will happen:)

[denisonh]

When you are trying to operate a lot of ships in the forward areas, they suck down lots of fuel, especially those BBs. Since you get a decent amount of AOs up front, can stockpile fuel in forward bases and start shuttling fuel forward using multiple replenishment TFs.

You may not need them immediately, but when you push your ops forward, you'll need them!

And per a discussion on another thread, surface attacks may not happen because of low leader/crew experience. I have had them take place in version 1.2, but only for a couple of subs.

[Frankie]

Well, I hope that they would fix crash problem in scenario 17, since it chashes always in same spot (US side, date 15.1.43)

[worr]

I would love to see the % finished such as we have for land bases also for ships that are rebuilding in port.

Worr, out

[afenelon]

Originally posted by Long Lance


It's not that difficult to create such a campaign by using the Scenario Editor. You'll need not more than 10 minutes to do the job.

-The big trouble here is that the historical campaign would
-become a-historical, because results in CS could have
-changed those from Midway and you don´t have control
-over CS results. If USN had lost both carriers at CS, for
-instance, it would be possible that the USN wouldn´t
-risk to fight 4CV´s in Midway with only two. So the
-Japanese would have occupied Midway and then gone
-after Hawaii? And what would happened if the Zuikaku
-and Shokaku were able to fight at Midway? All those
-outcomes are possible depending on the first scenario
-shots...

[afenelon]

Originally posted by tanjman
Dear Santa, eerr um Matrix

This is what I would like to see in the next patch (not the big bug patch your working on).

Game:

1) Load troops only for transports. Needed to be able to rotate troops without striping much needed supplies from forward bases.

2) Ability to have C-47/Topsy pickup troops. Would be nice to be able to rotate inland troops, i.e. Kanga force at Wau without having to move a base force and transports there.

3) Submarine Patrol zones. A group of hexs that a sub will patrol.


Editor:

1) Ability to create Pilot Leaders.

2) Ability to edit aircraft replacement rates.

I know, I know, but like my granny says, if wishes were horses we would be up to our noses in horse sh!t.

-Agree 100%

[Long Lance]

Originally posted by afenelon



-The big trouble here is that the historical campaign would
-become a-historical, because results in CS could have
-changed those from Midway and you don´t have control
-over CS results. ...

Hi Afenelon, this was an proposal made to tangent to tell him how easy the May 42- Dec 43 campaign including historical Midway losses could be created and that he wouldn't have to wait for someone at MG to do this. I agree to you, that this wouldn't be historic. But in the end, every scenario stops being historic in the moment when the player gives his first order...

[afenelon]

Originally posted by Long Lance


Hi Afenelon, this was an proposal made to tangent to tell him how easy the May 42- Dec 43 campaign including historical Midway losses could be created and that he wouldn't have to wait for someone at MG to do this. I agree to you, that this wouldn't be historic. But in the end, every scenario stops being historic in the moment when the player gives his first order...

-But I´m not disagreeing from you, just pointing to the fact it
-wouldn´t be logical to build a shistorical scenario staring in May
-1942 (by historical I would call including Midway results).
-Btw: I´ve downloaded your scenario but still didn´t have time
-to paly it
-Btw2: Do you think the Akagi could have saved in Midway?

[Yamamoto]

I would like the ability to disband a task force in harbor when ships in that task force contain supplies. Currently a ship with supplies can't be disbanded until it finishes unloading. Since ships in harbor repair better than ships in a task force it could have made a difference with a couple of very badly damaged ships I had one game. Naturally, the ships in harbor would continue unloading at their normal rate -- behind the scenes as it were.

Another thing that I think needs to be modified is pilot training. Currently if you take more losses than pilot training rates ( which we can't see anywhere in the game ) your replacement pilots start out hideously low in experience ( teens to 20's for the Japanese ). The problem comes in trynig to train them. They are so bad that most of them will die in training.
I would propose that pilots in training be immune from taking operational losses until their training level reached the default level that a pilot would have entering the game if you weren't taking heavy pilot losses. For example, I think the 'default' experience level for a new Japanese pilot is something like 55-- assuming that the Japanese pilot loss rate is below replacement rate. So, my suggestion would be for all new pilots whose experience was below this number to be immune to operational losses until they reached 55.

Yamamoto

[Luskan]

The most obvious (and yet unrealistic probably) thing I need to be able to do is name and task force I create individually and KEEP THAT NAME TO MYSELF (ie. I don't see TF 3 reacting to carriers when I'm the US) becaues if I see a message that says "SUPER KILLER JAP CARRIER TASK FORCE 1 REACTING TO US CV's" and I'm the US, I'd be very fast to either find that group, or run like a girl. But it would be heaps easier to keep track of unit movement by seeing the "Gili gili supply task force" returning to Brisbane message, instead of a bunch of TF 20 somethings etc.

As for routine convoys . . . Yes, a good idea, but just like routine bombers, you would always end up having it turned off because your direct intervention would doa better job (like auto sub ops for example. There to make things faster - but who actually relies on it to sink any ships??)

As for mid point interception - yes, we need that, but whoever said sending subs to patrol harbours was unrealistic is wrong. Most subs went straight to the enemy harbour (just outside, sneaking inside for the more daring captains) to sink enemy ships.

just my 2c

[Long Lance]

Originally posted by afenelon



-But I´m not disagreeing from you, just pointing to the fact it
-wouldn´t be logical to build a shistorical scenario staring in May
-1942 (by historical I would call including Midway results).
-Btw: I´ve downloaded your scenario but still didn´t have time
-to paly it
-Btw2: Do you think the Akagi could have saved in Midway?

To be honest: Towing a burning Carrier thousands of miles back to homeland?? No. I just wanted to build up well balanced Carrier Forces on both sides, so I chose Akagi to be saved, because she was scuttled by Long Lance:) Torpedoes.
Akagi was doomed, the LL just accelerated her starving.
I called this scenario semihistoric, because the difference between what really was to that what I assumed to be in my scenario is not too big. So I told this story to build the well balanced Carrier Forces. Btw, in this scenario the Mogami-Class CA (Mikuma?) isn't sunk, too. I didn't care about smaller ships.

You didn't have time? Me too.

Who has the time UV deserves to spend????