UV vs. SSI/QQP "Battles of the South Pacific"

[Luskan]

Ok, I know that it is dangerous to admit any kind of ignorance on these boards (too many aussie bastards!) but I really want to know what "bump" means when posted on its own . . .

*Takes cover in case of flaming for stupidity*

[Paul Vebber]

It "pushes" the topic back up to the top of the list. The poster is trying to bring attention to the thread before it "falls off the first page" and generally to obscurity.

[Luskan]

How disappointing. Judging from Slim's later post I thought that maybe it was something a bit more volatile.

[Drongo]

Luskan,

I think Slim was referring to HeadsUp's first post.

[Supervisor]

Yes he was. A classic rsponse from the man who has run out of ideas.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
The key to "why not" is information...players in games have information form "playing" at multiple levels that their counterparts at that level didn't have.

So playing the game at theater level and then "warping" to the CAG role, can;t "take away" the info you have based on being able to be in multiple battlegroups at the same time.

Why are there so man incidents in the the "real war" of lower level commanders being "stupid"?? Becasue of the lack of the ablity to move the necessary information around fast enough.

Just to add to this: if you put the average person (or even the average grog) in the situation that a lot of the 'stupid' commanders of various wars have been in, WITH THE INFORMATION THEY HAD, you will find that they (we!) are just as likely to make the same mistakes. The good commanders are exceptional people.

To give an example, many years ago, a wargaming magazine (this was when wargames had paper maps, and chits (remember them?)) published a version of Little Big Horn. Now, in order to avoid the instant recognition, it was set in South Africa, with British cavalry against Zulus. Now, an experienced wargaming friend of mine given the appropriate information, and motivation (points for winning, lose points for casualties, bonus for 'newpaper headlines') duly steamed in, separated his forces and was defeated in detail. Now you can argue this is a one off, but I have umpired many games, and you see silly moves all the time, THAT MAKE SENSE TO THE GUY ORDERING THEM.

If anyone wants a carrier tactical simulator, UV isn't it. The point of this game is to win taking account of the pitfalls and mishaps on the way!

Oh yes, and many pilots couldn't reliable identify a ship in peace time, let alone when it shot at them. In the Bismark battle, Swordfish crews looking for Bismark (German, Battleship, 41000tons+) found Sheffield (British, Cruiser, <10000tons - can't remember exactly), and tried to torpedo it, even though she signalled to them AND DIDN'T FIRE BACK!

[Supervisor]

Slim,
Sorry you have taken my post so personally. It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek response and not meant to offend (just to jostle a bit).

You had been so steadfast in maintaining your position that abstractions be removed from operational level war games (even in the face of 100% opposition from all responding) that I thought it was time for a little joke.

The last thing I want is to start a flame war with any gamer serious enough to participate in these discussions. I do not agree with any of your points, but I certainly don't want to keep you from making comment on any game in the Matrix lineup.

The "bump" post was simply to show agreement with the post immediately preceeding the bump. I forgot to include the contents of the previous post - sorry about the confusion.

We have just finished play testing the next patch for UV and spent a tremendous amount of effort dealing with just this type of "abstract" game concept. Operational games will always have less player control than tactical games. That is, after all, the primary trait that distinguishes between the two. A great deal of effort goes into keeping things realistic and a tremendous amount of discussion goes on related to every aspect.

For example, one of the most recent round of discussions concerned a closely related topic of allowing the player to direct the individual aircraft squadrons to attack particular task force sightings. Perhaps a window would pop-up listing all the sighted forces in range & the player could select from the list etc.

The end result was that this sort of decision making would simulate a sighting and intel capability far beyond anything that was available to flight commanders of the time. All of this lends a great deal of credibility to your comments. They may not all get included, but the development team wants to discuss every option to ensure the best game possible.

"... I did nothing but get caught with my britches down. Mr Savak you go right on quoting regulations."

[Admiral DadMan]

"... Let's see how badly we've been hurt..."

[pcpilot2]

I understand that this is an operational game and the AI simulates the underling idiots in your command who follow your orders. What I would like to see is a version of THIS game with more control for the human commander. Kind of a cross between tactical and operational. Sort of like Avalon Hills Flattops or Great Naval Battles of the North Atalntic. In the first game you could fight thru the whole southwest pacific campaign, battle by battle, same as this game. And it didnt take inordinate amounts of time. And yet YOU commanded not only the deployment of your forces but also the tactical employment of those forces. And it wasnt terribly time consuming. If all the little details like fuel, weather, etc. are handled by the PC then HEY! you've got what Im looking for in a CV battles game. There is the strategic element AND the tactical element. Kinda like Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic.
How about it Matrix? You've done a fine job with this game and I play it a LOT. But it is not quite what I want. I want it ALL...BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!...*CHOKE*...*GASP*...gotta...quit...doin that...*