Suggestions For Next Patch

[Yamamoto]

I hope we get the option to decide which ships are produced (i.e. build another Akagi class), but I don’t want to see the ability to make up our own classes of ships (i.e. add some more 8” guns on that cruiser there). I think this would be a good compromise between the people who want no modification and those who want lots of modifications.

Yamamoto

[LargeSlowTarget]

I think the time frame of most scenarios in UV is too short for production options to have much effect, but in WITP I would like to see some production options, e.g. being able to decide whether to finish certain ships as CV or BB / CVL or CL, or to convert liners into CVL or DDs into DMS/APD/AVP etc. (perhaps linked to the course of events - if you lose many CVs you'll get the option to convert other hulls into CVs).

My suggestions for the next patch - probably asking too much for a patch, sounds more like an add-on:

One thing I would like to see in UV is PTs using supplies instead of fuel (if I'm not mistaken PTs used (av)gas, not fuel oil). This would make forward-deployment at undevelopped bases (where you don't want to risk sending a TK) much easier. Somehow I never manage to forward enough fuel to the front via barges or AKs to sustain PT operations, presumably because the very barges and AKs use up most of the fuel they carried to refuel themselves for the return trip.

Furthermore, I would recommend that 'refueling from port' of ships larger than barges and PT/PC types should be allowed only at bases with proper fuel storage facilities, say a size 5 or 6 port. Or more precisely, TKs and AOs shouldn't be allowed to discharge fuel at small bases, for lack of proper storage facilities. It is hard to imagine that a size 1 port is equipped with storage tanks and handling facilities for fuel oil, and it is even less likely that capital ships are refueled via oil drums. Therefore refueling of larger ships at small ports should only be possible if TKs or AOs are around as replenishment TFs.
Same goes for ammunition, I don't think there were 16-inch shells readily available at small bases like Lunga to replenish a bombardment or surface TF. A (moveable) 'heavy ordnance' depot like the mine depots at Truk and Noumea might be a solution for larger ammo types (above 5-inch?).

There should also be some kind of upper limit on the amount of supplies and fuel that can be stockpiled at bases (due to limited storage facilities - where do you put 250k tons of fuel on Tulagi??). Although it takes a long time to unload, it is too easy to stockpile fuel and supplies at crude advance ports. At least there should be a 'decay rate' for stockpiled supplies - it's a nasty climate out there.

In regard to land combat, the Japanese land units retreat/succumb way to easy for my taste. Even if capturing a base migght be achieved rather fast, hunting down stragglers should take more than just a couple of days.

Don't forget other dream features like mid-course interception and target priorities for airstrikes and subs.

So much for today's episode of 'LST and the quest for the perfect game'

[Von Rom]

How does the game engine decide what friendly surface task force will be sent to intercept an enemy bombardment task force?

I ask this because I had a 23-ship surface combat task force set on "do not retire" and "react to enemy" within 11 hexes of Lunga.

At the same time I was in the process of transferring a single destroyer TF to join up with that 23-ship task force. This destroyer was also set on "do not retire" and "react to enemy".

The single destroyer was closer to Lunga than the 23-ship TF, when the Japanese launched a bombardment mission against Lunga.

Now guess which friendly "TF" intercepted that enemy bombardment TF?

Yup - that single destroyer - and it got creamed by 2 BB and 3 CA. . .

So it would seem that if two friendly TF are nearby, the TF that is the closest is the one that intercepts the enemy.

Does this seem right?

In the next patch it might be useful for the game engine to send an intercepting TF based on its size, providing it is within the 11 hex interception range.

So the game should do two checks for interception:

1) The size of the task force (the largest one goes)

2) The distance from the target (the largest task force must be within the 11 hex interception range)

[herbieh]

I agree with everything you have said. I window shopgames every day, but rarely buy. Give me History, and a chance to show that i can do better:D
on the topic, I too really wish I could some how order a surface task group to intercept a well sighted, Im spotting you with my float planes , enemy task group, and get a mid ocean battle, Ive had several where I guessed the enemies location for next turn, but lets face it - Your commander has had a battle group reported 100 miles to the North. You sight it with your own air. You have plenty of air. The baddie wants a battle too (why else do we have BATTLEships and BATTLELINES). what is going to happen? a battle of course! Unfortunately in UV a lot of times in mid ocean it doesnt.
At the moment too many BBs "pass in the night", in the middle of the day.
Hope Matrix can give this, Im a computer brick, so maybe the code is mission impossible.
Still , I LOVE THIS GAME, and my wife HATES it, Matrix, keep up the great work, compared to the games Luskan talks about this game is a HOLDEN, and the others Fords (Aussie joke):p


PS Beer is good

[juliet7bravo]

As a "strategic level game", LST is exactly correct. A port/AF's abilities should be based on its size. The "refueling thingee" alone would have a ripple effect throughout game tactics. There should be realistic fuel and supply limits based on both terrain and port/AF size. This alone would serve to slow down the current unhistorical and unrealistic tempo of operations.

Possibly, you could add a feature where each side could designate a single base as a "Forward Staging Area", where the supply/fuel storage levels could be exceeded based on the port/AF size...BUT, this ID should be able to be seen by the enemy with careful recon.

There should also be a limit to "over the beach" supply levels. Ideally, past a certain level of supply, you'd have to leave the transports at anchor to keep the supplies rolling in as they were used up.

Why call it a "strategic level game" when it's currently mostly all about tactics? Forcing the realistic use of "prime real estate" will put an accurate and historical premium on those bits which were "high rent" in reality, and for exactly the same strategic reasons.

PT's...Jap barges should also use supplies instead of fuel as well.

[Admiral_Arctic]

I would hate to see production in the hands of the player. You would only see all the best equipment- poor old Oscar I and friends would be gone. P39 wouldn't be made. In PACWAR and RUSSIAN FRONT the production was soooo screwed up.


The patch improvement I would like to see is a CAP only button. When you are launching attacks against undefended targets while defending your own base from air attack- your fighters are burnt out in only one day. No pilots stay behind to rest for the next day. You have to set the CAP to 80-90% and hope you do enough damage so you can go on training next day (to rest) without getting attacked again. A CAP only button would allow you to defend for longer or your bombers have to go night ops.


There should also be a switch to set the maximum fatigue level. So a pilot with say 50 fatigue would not fly while his buddies would if they were lower. You could change the switch simuliar to the CAP switch. This way you can set your CAP (or any mission) to sat 80-90% but only the pilots with the fatigue less than your switch setting. I think this would be a BIG help and reduce time checking every base and CV every turn for pilot fatigue. Because you will know that any really tired pilots wouldn't be flying.

[marc420]

Hi,

I've just gotten UV in the last week, so the following is the impressions of someone who is still learning the game. But the following are some things that I'd like to see based on this limited experience. It would be nice to see these in a UV patch, but I also write this in the hope these might be seen in WITP.

1) Currently a message screen appears during the turn. This shows messages about what's occuring, including contact info. It would be nice to have access to this screen during the orders phase. For example, it would be nice to a summary of the contact/search info from the previous turn.

Currently I find myself sitting with a piece of paper trying to take notes on what contact/search/coastwatcher info flashes on the screen during the turn. During the turn, there is this message scroll at the bottom, but it doesn't seem possible to return to this.
That would help. Also, adding the hex info to these reports would help (currently it says something like Mavis spots SS, but not the hex).

On a more general note, an ability to put icons on the map that show contact or search results graphically on the map. Then the player could click on an icon and see the search or battle results for that location. Try to picture what HQ would have as a tracking/status board and give the player something similar.

2) Some sort of summary screen where a summary of search results over several turns would help. Something that ties together the fact that you've spotted a carrier tf in three locations over the last three turns.

I realize that with fog of war, it might be difficult to connect a sighting of a CA on day with the sighting of a CA and a CV the next. So a player interaction where its the player that connects the dots across the sigthings might be a part of this.

The previous request that some indication of course and speed at time of sighting would help.

3) Is there any ability to shadow an enemy TF? Particularly with the PBY's and the Mavis' I thought this was common when a sighting was made. Its a different war in a different region, but CA's did the same with the Bismark during its attempted breakout. Again, this could be added to a screen showing contact information over several days. If a TF is being shadowed, then a player should get good, continuous speed and course info for the time when the TF is being shadowed.

In general, the game currently plays as if at the commanding HQ, the boards showing the enemy location are erased every morning before the commander arrives at HQ, and the messages showing contacts/search results are destroyed immediately and not available for review.

4) On the same sort of search display, could there also be information on which areas were searched and nothing was found? This could be detailed showing swaths of where search planes and ships were located in the last turn, or it could be a more general indication of shading which shows the level of search on the map. Sometimes the information that nothing was found in a location is as important as the information that something was found.

5)Could there be something showing the current estimate of what the DL and the MDL are for a player's forces. This could be a specific number, or a more general listing of recent events that effect this. This of course would be effected by Fog of War. However, there should be some way of looking at a sub for instance and getting information that this sub has been spotted by a Mavis in the last day, as well as it launched an attack in its currently location, therefore it is very likely the enemy knows its location.

6) It was previously mentioned that there needs to be someway to order a TF to follow, close and engage with an enemy TF. This got sidetracked into a discussion of who had seen TF's react to enemy surface forces, but I think the original point was important. Already, in the games I've played, I've had cases where I wanted to give exactly this order. I've had a contact with an enemy TF. I've had some sort of surface units in the area. What I want is for my TF to attempt to close and engage the enemy. But there seems to be no way to order this. This is added to the previous discussion that the reaction of a surface group seems to only occur when a friendly base is threaten.

In my case, I had just fought the battle of Coral Sea in its own fashion. Both the Lex and the Yorktown were sunk. However one IJN CV was severely damaged and the other heavy CV had sustained at least some bomb hits. The threat of naval air was greatly reduced, and I wanted my CA's to try to close and engage the enemey CV TF. There was no way to do this in the game that I could find.

6) The request for some sort of indication of which units have been given orders in this turn, or have orders from a previous turn would be useful. Particularly as the game expands into the full Pacific Theater.

7) On endurance and fuel usage for a ship or TF, some sort of indication of a ships available radius on this endurance level, or the time when the ship must return to base would be very useful. Perhaps a button on the ship display screen where a player could go to a screen that shows both available endurance for the ship as well as the required endurance to get to friendly bases would be helpful. Currently I find it rather difficult to know exactly what cruising distance a ship or TF has left and when they need to either refuel at sea or return to base.

8) Being able to print or save to a txt file the data on various reports and screens would be useful. I always find it amusing when I'm playing a computer game and I find myself writing information by hand on pieces of paper on my desk.

9) Particularly in WITP, some sort of system of Intelligence information would be useful. For instance, the UV game begins with the Allied player knowing the IJN is staging an operation that leads to the Coral Sea battles. But after the beginning of the game, this information is not available. General reports from Intelligence indicating what major forces might be in the area and general enemy intentions might be interesting.

As an addition to this, a "planning phase" in the game might be interesting. In the game, the player decides to launch an operation at the time they order the TF formed and give it sailing orders. In the real world, there is considerable planning that precedes this. Perhaps an operation might get some benefits if a HQ has been ordered to "plan" an operation in advance of an operation. For example, prior to an invasion of Lunga, the appropriate HQ could be given the order to plan an invasion of Lunga. The results of this in the game could be ....

1) more effective coordination of the units (air, CV, surface ships, transports, marines)
2) more efficient use of supply and logistics for the operation.
3) perhaps a staff report to the player as for suggested needs for logistics (staff recommends x number of APs loaded with y amount of supplies)
4) The chance that enemy intelligence would gain word of this operation and warn the opposing commander, usually in some general terms that something is coming.

This would seem to have several advantages in the game.
1) It might serve to help slow the pace of operations down to a more realistic pace.
2) Give the player some advantages in the game for well planned operations
3) Allow a mechanism that intelligence could work in the game.


10) For WITP, I think the player should have some sort of say in the production process. For UV this is not realistic, but a Theater commander should have some input in this. It should NOT be a direct control, because at higher levels beyond the scope of the game there would be allocations of resources between theaters. So there should be some way where Nimitz can request more escort vessels, but then he might not get them because some higher level might decide they are more needed in the Battle of the Atlantic. But at some point, I can easily see someone in Washington telling Nimitz that he can get more escorts, but that Transport production would have to be cut to accomodate this.

So there should be some way for the player to influence production, but not control it. And there should be substantial penalties for both interfering with the natural production and for a player that continuously changes these requests.

[Admiral_Arctic]

Maybe when ships are going to be sent by the Pearl or Jappa a message letting us know how long before the ship will be available again. If a ship has only Sys damage you can judge reasonably well. But if your missing a target or need a refit/ weapon addition, you don't know if its best yo keep in theatre or to return anyway.

All you can do now is save the game, send back the ship, check intelligent screen, if OK play on. If too long, reload to point before send back. Or is this cheeting? I don't like to save/reload turns at any time, but sometimes you need to know.

[Von Rom]

Great game. I think the support Matrix/2by3 have shown is top notch.

All that needs to be done now is to tweak various aspects of the game


Bombardment Missions

Suggestion:

When TFs are given the bombardment mission, they should remain on station and continue bombarding their target each turn, unless one of the following is true:

1) They are engaged by enemy surface TFs

2) They are engaged by enemy air forces

3) They run low on fuel, ammo

4) They have "retirement allowed"

5) The player re-assigns them to another mission

As it stands now, all bombardment missions end after each turn, which means the player must re-assign the bombardment mission to the TFs and re-direct them back to the target. These actions can become tedious, especially if you have a number of bombardment TFs. They are also a waste of fuel and energy, since these TFs automatically return to their home base after each bombardment mission.

Bombardment TFs should remain Bombardment TFs, and should remain on station, continuuing their mission, until one of the above conditions occurs.

Cheers!

[jshaniii]

I really object tothe concept of having one screen provide both players their intelligence. The game loses alot compared to the one player game. Please.

[Von Rom]

Anti-Submarine Warfare

There are a few points I'd like to make about Japanese anti-submarine warfare in UV:

1) I think Japanese ASW is too good in UV, especially during the time period of May, 1942 - June, 1943. Most early ASW efforts were not that good. Japan did not put submarine detection devices on its ships or greatly improve its ASW ability until late 1943. Japanese attacks were usually broken off too soon and the DC settings were too shallow.

2) I think both the ASW destroyers and the ASW spotter planes need to be toned down a bit. They are too perfect in what they do. They are spotting and destroying American subs far too easily, especially in 1942.

3) US submarines should be able to take damage and survive. As it stands now, it is usually either total destruction or 100% no damage.

4) The number of US submarine torpedo misses is about right, since many of the early subs had dud torpedoes.

[Von Rom]

Weather and Bombing Missions


1) Many times all Allied flights out of Port Morseby have been cancelled due to poor weather. Yet, the Japanese can fly from Rabaul and bomb Port Morsby with the same weather present.

I think if the weather is too poor for flights to take off at a location, it should be too poor to allow bombing missions at the same location. This only seems fair and logical. . .

2) Also, for two weeks not a single B-17 (of 12 available) at Luganville has taken off to bomb Lugan on Guadalcanal, even though they all have the support, experience, and morale needed. In addition, the weather has been good. I have tried different altitudes, targets, etc, etc, but nothing works. Is this a bug? Or are these guys enjoying the beaches and rum too much?

[Nikademus]

I am personally wary of giving too much control over production to the players, though i am not adverse to having it as a player "option" on the same scale as IJN sub doctrine in UV.

My reasoning is two fold.

1) first and most importantly, i believe this is arguably the most abused player option in strategic/operational games that cover historical periods. The reason is simple hindsight.

The players know which weapons work, which dont, and if they do work, what weapons soon wont (due to enemy advances in tech)

I've already seen examples of this in this very thread.....complaints about being forced to use yuky P-39's, or advance knowlege that A6M's will soon become a liability etc etc. Personally i "like" being forced to, like the real life commanders, use what equipment is dolled out to me to the best of my ability. How boring would it quickly become to switch to all P-38's up to six months before they became available. Sure its fun the first couple of times....after a while it becomes boring. Playing with the tools i am given convays to me a sense of being in the real commander's shoes vs, mass converting all my squadrons to newer planes deployed early which makes me feel like i'm playing Code Red instead of a historical wargame.

I would also disagree that theater commanders had that much say in the economic choices of their respective countries that they could alter massive and/or large scale build plans, at least when it comes to warships.

Specific weapons i can see......theater commanders can and did voice the complaints of soldiers who would complain about needing better weapons systems such as better guns, better tanks, better planes etc etc.

Sometimes their voices were listened too, often they were not. Such is the realm of politics, personal realms and differing viewpoints.

2) The above said, another argument is due to the time factor when it comes to warships, depending on types.

Major warships cannot simply be ordered as the demand warrents, not if one is expecting them to be available at the time of need. Not even the US can do this. It requires advance planning and the necessary securing of funds, workers, dockyard space and resources, all in the hopes or expectations that the ships will be "available" at the time that the perceived need for them comes around. As things happened, war came sooner than hoped for to the US so the first half of the war at sea was a study in fighting a limited war with the tools onhand at the time, hoping to hold out until such time that the new construction becomes available

Some warships are also specialty/unique specimens that would not be repeated because they were the products of their times, built and/or converted due to unique circumstances.

Yamamotto's desire for more "Akagis" highlights this. Akagi was orginally designed as an Amagi class battlecruiser and was 2 years on the stocks when she was slated for conversion to a carrier. Like all carrier conversions, she was not in all respects ideal for carrier ops due to her not being originally designed for this task, thus for her size and the effort involved in building and then converting her, no sensible nation would ever attempt to repeat this procedure, instead they would build a new class, designed from the keel up to be a carrier. Same goes for Lex and Sara.....also converted from BC hulls.....better to build a purpose built carrier, complete with all the lessons learned from decades of carrier ops and designing.

Rev Rick's post also highlights my concern and match my thinking. Most major warship types were already planned for and laid down according to naval expansion programs set and defined before hostilities started. The simple reason being is that no nation can simply snap it's fingers and build enough warships and expect them to be readily available in a short period of time whence the need suddenly arises. Doesn't work that way.

There are exceptions of course......merchant ships, once the operation was laid out and organized (again before the US at least was legally at war) could and were mass produced, but there is a huge difference between a liberty ship and a battleship. Escorts and Destroyers can be mass produced but again, only after advance planning and organization, as attested by the destroyer/escort shortage experienced by the US after it's official entry into the battle of the Atlantic. It was also an example of prioritization....one key reason the escorts, the "tools" of the trade were not onhand at first was the priority given to other warship and support types given pre-war. This could not simply be altered at the snap of a finger unless one was willing to deal with delays and disruption.

Large warships are even more constrained. Big battleships in particular cannot be laid down on the fly. They take on average a minimum of two+ years to go from keel laying to commissioned warship in time of war, more like 3-5 years in peacetime. For example every single modern US battleship, and of course the two Yamato's (+Shinano) were all laid down before the war began, and even despite the gear-up to total war economy, none of these ships were completed in under a two year period. Many had to be slowed and cancelled due either to other wartime priorities or resource shortages (to which even the US was not immune too..........high grade steel is costly and doesn't grow on trees!)

Smaller or less steel intensive warships are a better case.....the US, being the banner-carrier of mass produced war machines, was able at it's peak to complete an Essex carrier in about 1.5 years time....but more often it was closer to two years.
and this with a mass produced carrier, designed before the war, and planned out in a large class that exceeded 25 specimens (yeek!) CVL's suprisingly, about the same at 1.5 years

Cruisers, again about the same, averaging 1.8-2 years (the fastest at around the 1.5 year mark)

The gist of all this is that even were the players to have complete control over production, and the player decides, after a disaster say in 4/42 that costs him a large chunk of his carriers and battleships, to lay down more of that type....he (or she) is still looking at around a 2 year or more waiting period to recieve these ship types, by which time the situation that called for them will have either evolved into something else or passed entirely. The original war of course was only a little more than 3.5 years in actual length. The slow nature of major warship contruction was such that the decisive battles fought in the first half of the war had to be fought with the tools that were on-hand. By the time the majority of new construction became available, the war was already resolved.

I am not adverse to player designed warships, but not in a production environment. More in an editor type situation, where with the appropriate tool, players can create either historical or hypothetical warship classes that did not find their way into the standard game either by choice or by necessity. (an example would be putting German warships into the OOB as part of a hypo scenerio involving more close cooperation between the Axis or putting ships cancelled by the Wash treaty into the OOB to see how they would fight. Such an editor also is of benefit for correcting stats on existing historical designs too!)

Putting that ability into the standard game would turn WiTP and UV into Command and Conquor.....yukko

If implemented (hopefully as an option, not as a standard feature) production altering would need to be balanced heavily in terms of consequences of one's action. By that i mean, if you wish to tamper with your production schedule, expect heavy penalties due to the disruption caused by the shifting and re-prioritizing of resources.

[Von Rom]

Naval Battles

Very addictive game. All comments are directed to helping make it a better game.

The naval battles in UV are terrific. I especially like to watch every battle right down to their nail-biting finality

There are just two things that seem to be a bit off in the battles though:

1) The Japanese don't seem to use their torpedos in salvos at the beginning of the battles, especially the destroyers.

2) The Japanese Patrol Gunboats are fearsome weapons! Even against my CAs. In one battle a Japanese PG took 13 hits from my DDs and CAs and didn't sink.

In another battle, a Japanese PG took 33 3-inch shell hits, PLUS 2 torpedoes and DIDN'T SINK!

Are the PGs the new Japanese wonder weapon? Were they this durable in the real war?

I think these Japanese PGs may need to be toned down a bit in durability.

Great game so far. . .

[Drongo]

Posted by Von Rom

Are the PGs the new Japanese wonder weapon? Were they this durable in the real war?

Now if we could just put a long lance on it without tipping it over.....

[Luskan]

I have several games going at once, and if I unzip them and play them all at once - I overwrite the 001 slot which is the replay file I either want to watch - or am about to sent to my allied opponent etc. Gets confusion for those PBEMers who like a bit on the side . . .

[Von Rom]

Aircraft Carriers

I hope in the next patch, or soon thereafter, that a change can be made to the orders given to aircraft carriers.

1) As it stands now, the "retirement allowed" command means that a carrier group may leave the battle scene. This is fine when I want to play conservatively, and may not wish to risk my carriers. Nothing needs to be changed with this command.

2) However, the "patrol/do not retire" command means that the carrier may charge straight into harms way (this happened last night). I think this command should allow for smaller movement towards the enemy, and that a MINIMUM distance should be kept between the carrier and ALL other spotted enemy forces at all times. It is after all, a carrier, and has the capability of striking targets from a distance.

Carriers can be aggressive but should keep a minimum distance (the distance their strike aircraft can travel) between them and all spotted enemy forces and land bases.

As it stands now, when placed on the "patrol/do not retire" command, the carrier will charge right up beside other enemy forces, including enemy carriers, surface forces, and land bases. This can be very frustrating, and I have lost more than one carrier as a result. I hope this can be changed.

I usually play pretty aggressively, so I don't want my carriers always to withdraw, but neither do I want them charging ahead on their own, especially into other enemy task forces.

Great game.

Cheers!

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Luskan
I have several games going at once, and if I unzip them and play them all at once - I overwrite the 001 slot which is the replay file I either want to watch - or am about to sent to my allied opponent etc. Gets confusion for those PBEMers who like a bit on the side . . .

I thought of this too. There are 200 slots - why not use the odd number slots for game files with the following even numbered slot for combat replay file - or the other way around. This would still allow for 100 in-game save files.

Not gonna happen for UV but WitP can take a lesson from this.

BTW how many file slots does anyone have in use right now?

[XPav]

The entire file slot system should be junked and replaced with something user friendly.

See my post in the bug forums about this.

[angus]

Originally posted by XPav
The entire file slot system should be junked and replaced with something user friendly.

Maybe it's to remind you of the good old days of character interfaces ? Mind you, a lot of the UI is a bit kludgy. Too many tiny buttons, too much clicking back and forward, and hasn't anyone heard that mice have two buttons and pop-up menus are supported in Windows and MacOS ? Sorry, I'll stop now. At least I never mentioned memory leaks.

Angus