Scenario 19 - Final Tally

[EricLarsen]

I finally completed a slightly edited version of scenario 19. I doubled the ship committment to 20,000 and tweaked a few of the AI objectives. I played as the Allies against the AI IJN forces. I basically laid back for the first 4 months before sending out my carriers to start cutting down the IJN carrier and surface tf's hitting Port Moresby. After that I laid low again building up infrastructure until I invaded Gili Gili in 1/43. I invaded Buna in 2/43 and then sent my whole fleet to Noumea to invade Guadalcanal in 4/43. After another lull building up supplies and fuel at the new forward bases I started invading with SWPAC at Salamua and SOPAC at Shortland. I had a busy final 2 months as I captured all the IJN bases except for Truk. On 12/19 I sent 7 big CV's, 9 CVL's and CVE's (6 with planes), 11 BB's, 36 CA's and 127 DD's in 10 air combat tf's and 9 surface tf's. I lost 450 planes and 3 DD's while sinking the Junyo, a CVE, several CA's and DD's and damaged the 5 remaining BB's in Truk, not to mention shooting down over 300 planes and damaging Truk's airfield and port. At the end the port of Truk still had 64 percent damage.

Even though I had edited the scenario for double ship committment and ran both sides at 200% ship committment in the options there were still a slew of DD's sitting in Japan. I also noticed with chagrin that the increased IJN plane replacement rate in scenario 19 got changed to the default rate for scenario 17. All in all I was rather disappointed in the dismal results of editing the scenario, it seems to be nothing but a waste of time to try to edit a scenario to play!

Final Tally
Total
US 30,929
IJN 4,110

Bases
US 38 - 12,537 points
IJN 1 - 1,350 points

Planes
US 2172
IJN 6848

Army
US 432
IJN 4196

Ships
US 30 - 156 points
IJN 368 - 7348 points

[mogami]

Hi, How many PBEM games are you playing?

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, How many PBEM games are you playing?

Mogami,
Zero! I've been waiting for the game system to stabilize, ie no more patches, before even considering PBEM play. Playing the AI has allowed me to get far more into a campaign than possible in PBEM play. Plus I learned a lot about invasions and other game system mechanics by being able to play so many turns. Really fun game system, but short on good scenarios to play and no way to make our own with the crippled, dysfunctional editor supplied with the game.
Eric Larsen

[Luskan]

With 99% of the computer games I've tried, the multiplayer part of the game is an added after thought that is unstable, poorly thought out, and just not as much fun - especially with having to be online at the same time as your opponent.

UV is the other 1%. PBEM is completely time flexible, and the game is incredibly stable. PBEM I've had 2 bugs, 1 tiny, one big, but niether are reproducable (the small one was I had 150 jap troops stow away on one of my usn transports, the big one was when my marauders took off and sunk my own invasion fleet by mistake).

Playing against the AI scenarios can be alike. Play against a human and no two games will be anything like alike - and they will be far more challenging and scarier than the AI (you have to shed your reload/start again training wheels).

You haven't played UV until you've had a PBEM, or ten!

[Caltone]

Originally posted by EricLarsen

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, How many PBEM games are you playing?

Mogami,
Zero! I've been waiting for the game system to stabilize, ie no more patches, before even considering PBEM play.

<snip>

Eric you are missing out on the heart and soul of the game. Playing against a human over the AI is a new experience, it changes the complexion of the game. Regarding the patches, they have enhanced gameplay and not required a restart in pbem except for OOB edits.


<snip>

Originally posted by EricLarsen

fun game system, but short on good scenarios to play and no way to make our own with the crippled, dysfunctional editor supplied with the game.

Eric Larsen

What scenaro are you looking for?

[mogami]

Hi, I am puzzled over the need for an editor. UV provides several scenarios for 1 May 42 (17 with normal reinforcement, 19 with Japan moving units from China) If the player does not want to have to achive Midway there are scenarios that begin after Midway (hint: look for start date after June 5th)
I realize there are those who want 4 Zuikaku's or some such.
But UV is supposed to be the War in the South Pacific 42-43.
You don't need an editorto play it (you might need one to win)
Please no more "UV would be great except for the crappy editor"
Just imagine instead "UV has the best ever editor...good thing cause the game stinks")

[gus]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I am puzzled over the need for an editor. UV provides several scenarios for 1 May 42 (17 with normal reinforcement, 19 with Japan moving units from China) If the player does not want to have to achive Midway there are scenarios that begin after Midway (hint: look for start date after June 5th)
I realize there are those who want 4 Zuikaku's or some such.
But UV is supposed to be the War in the South Pacific 42-43.
You don't need an editorto play it (you might need one to win)
Please no more "UV would be great except for the crappy editor"
Just imagine instead "UV has the best ever editor...good thing cause the game stinks")

Hi Mogami,

Yes it is better to have a great game with a crappy editor than the opposite but I believe UV would be even better if it had a more intuitive and useful editor. With most wargames that I buy the scenarios that are provided with the game are simply a starting point. I love creating scenarios and test beds for various weaponry and tactics but it is simply too much of a chore to do so with the UV editor.

One of the better editors IMO currently available would have to be the one included with Combat Mission I and II. In a matter of minutes I can create battles, test various weapon's effectiveness at a variety of ranges and terrains and work out tactics in this virtual sandbox that I apply to PBEM or online games. I would love to be able to do something similar in UV but to do so now with the available editor would take hours or days of editing to accomplish what I would like to do.

I also believe that the inclusion of a good editor with a wargame increases the lifespan of the game as the independent scenario designers and modders keep the game relevant for many years longer than it would have survived on its own, so there may be a financial benefit to be garnered from the production and inclusion of good editing tools with the product.

I can certainly understand that there will be gamers who are totally satisfied with a game as is but there are many of us out here who love UV but still want to "roll our own" if you will.

I hope this sheds some light on our criticism of the UV editor.

Cheers

Gus

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gus
I can certainly understand that there will be gamers who are totally satisfied with a game as is but there are many of us out here who love UV but still want to "roll our own" if you will.

Gus

Gus,
Couldn't have said it better myself. A good editor adds far more playability to a game than one without. The scenario selection in UV is rather limited with most scenarios being the same old song and dance over and over again from a slightly different starting position. I'd be happy to have something a little more ahistorical but fun to play, even just using what's in the game's database (sorry Mogami but I don't need 4 stinking Shokaku's). With the sad excuse of an editor there is just no way to create fun scenarios to play and expect them to work the way one might expect. I prefer to roll my own scenarios as they are more fun to play.
Eric Larsen

[Yamamoto]

What sort of scenario would you build if you had a better editor? You can already add ships, air groups, and land units. You can move their starting locations, create bases, edit the max value of a base, and edit experience ratings. Other than changing the plane replacement rate I can't think what is missing.

Yamamoto

[gus]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
What sort of scenario would you build if you had a better editor? You can already add ships, air groups, and land units. You can move their starting locations, create bases, edit the max value of a base, and edit experience ratings. Other than changing the plane replacement rate I can't think what is missing.

Yamamoto

Hi Yamamoto,

Most of the scenarios I create with other games are analogous to small chess puzzles, i.e white mates in 2, white avoids mate etc.. They are generally very small set battles to test out strategy & tactics.

The real issue for me with the editor is not what it allows or does not allow you to do but its ease of use. So the real question for me is not what type of scenarios I would build but how much work it would take to create them. I have been playing Combat Mission I and II since they were released and I routinely create my own scenarios and operations as well as download those made by other users so the game stays quite fresh for me. What makes this possible is the CM editor which is quite powerful and intuitive and allows you to create new meaningful scenarios and ops in a matter of minutes. I just wish I could do that with UV's editor in less time than it takes now.

As for Scenarios that I would like to see;

1) Rob Roberson's idea of the "Big Guns Only" scenario. Remove all CV's and LBA except patrol a/c

2) Role Reversal. Since you can't assign units from one side to the other switch sides and allow the Allies to be the aggressors striking south from Truk. Yes it require suspension of disbelief but it would be interesting to see B-17's raiding PM from Rabaul in May

3) Europe First. US involvement is postponed until 1943 requiring greater commitment of Commonwealth forces to safe guard OZ. Australian units are returned home ( or never sent ) to the North African desert (and points west) and British units earmarked for India instead are sent to the South Pacific.

4) US CV's are caught at Pearl. Some BB's survive but 2 USN CV's (Yorktown & Enterprise) are toast, Saratoga is spared as it is stll on West Coast of USA. More assets are needed to defend Pearl leaving the South Pacific more vulnerable. But over time more of the old BB's find themselves in the UV theater.

5) Deathmatch. Set up two identical force OOB's, divide up the bases equally and fight for domination of theater. How the bases could be divided should be totally up to the players. (NB This is almost impossible to do with the UV editor as I don't believe it's AI would be able to handle it.)

6) Reverse Midway. Decisive victory for the Japanese and so are given full sway in the South Pacific. Allied reinforcement to UV theater is curtailed and all offensive operations are postponed/cancelled until 1943 at the earliest.

7) UK defeated in Europe and Commonwealth sues for peace and agrees to remain neutral, cedes all territories outside Continental Australia to Japanese. US refuses to retire from the New Hebrides and continues on alone. Japanese Troop and naval commitment is increased as they no longer need to conduct offensive ops in SE Asia and Commonwelth troops will garrison the conquered territories by treaty.

8) War Plan Orange Variants. US is not surprised at Pearl and the US fleet sails to relieve the Philipines. What occurs during this transit is highly speculative obviously so there could be many scenarios bases on this theme. The two extreme results (Japanese or Allied decisive victory) imply that the campaign in the South Pacific never occurs as the loser would be suing for peace so they should be excluded. One possible outcome is that both battle lines and supporting carrier elements are savaged leading to the battle of the South Pacific being mostly a LCU and transport affair as the majority of their fleets are damaged or sunk. Capital ships allotments would be greatly reduced to reflect loss, damage and assignment of new assets to Central Pacific instead of SoPac, Allied lift capacity would be greatly reduced to reflect the losses incurred during passage to the Philipines and Japanese LBA would be reduced to reflect the attrition incurred as they attacked the USN battle fleet as it crossed the Central Pacific. End result is that the ability for either side ito project power is greatly diminished and the spearhead for all 1942 operations will be LCU's, DD's CA's and Transports.

Just a few of my crazy ideas, flame away

Gus

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by gus
Hi Yamamoto,

Most of the scenarios I create with other games are analogous to small chess puzzles, i.e white mates in 2, white avoids mate etc.. They are generally very small set battles to test out strategy & tactics.

The real issue for me with the editor is not what it allows or does not allow you to do but its ease of use. So the real question for me is not what type of scenarios I would build but how much work it would take to create them. I have been playing Combat Mission I and II since they were released and I routinely create my own scenarios and operations as well as download those made by other users so the game stays quite fresh for me. What makes this possible is the CM editor which is quite powerful and intuitive and allows you to create new meaningful scenarios and ops in a matter of minutes. I just wish I could do that with UV's editor in less time than it takes now.

As for Scenarios that I would like to see;

1) Rob Roberson's idea of the "Big Guns Only" scenario. Remove all CV's and LBA except patrol a/c

2) Role Reversal. Since you can't assign units from one side to the other switch sides and allow the Allies to be the aggressors striking south from Truk. Yes it require suspension of disbelief but it would be interesting to see B-17's raiding PM from Rabaul in May

3) Europe First. US involvement is postponed until 1943 requiring greater commitment of Commonwealth forces to safe guard OZ. Australian units are returned home ( or never sent ) to the North African desert (and points west) and British units earmarked for India instead are sent to the South Pacific.

4) US CV's are caught at Pearl. Some BB's survive but 2 USN CV's (Yorktown & Enterprise) are toast, Saratoga is spared as it is stll on West Coast of USA. More assets are needed to defend Pearl leaving the South Pacific more vulnerable. But over time more of the old BB's find themselves in the UV theater.

5) Deathmatch. Set up two identical force OOB's, divide up the bases equally and fight for domination of theater. How the bases could be divided should be totally up to the players. (NB This is almost impossible to do with the UV editor as I don't believe it's AI would be able to handle it.)

6) Reverse Midway. Decisive victory for the Japanese and so are given full sway in the South Pacific. Allied reinforcement to UV theater is curtailed and all offensive operations are postponed/cancelled until 1943 at the earliest.

7) UK defeated in Europe and Commonwealth sues for peace and agrees to remain neutral, cedes all territories outside Continental Australia to Japanese. US refuses to retire from the New Hebrides and continues on alone. Japanese Troop and naval commitment is increased as they no longer need to conduct offensive ops in SE Asia and Commonwelth troops will garrison the conquered territories by treaty.

8) War Plan Orange Variants. US is not surprised at Pearl and the US fleet sails to relieve the Philipines. What occurs during this transit is highly speculative obviously so there could be many scenarios bases on this theme. The two extreme results (Japanese or Allied decisive victory) imply that the campaign in the South Pacific never occurs as the loser would be suing for peace so they should be excluded. One possible outcome is that both battle lines and supporting carrier elements are savaged leading to the battle of the South Pacific being mostly a LCU and transport affair as the majority of their fleets are damaged or sunk. Capital ships allotments would be greatly reduced to reflect loss, damage and assignment of new assets to Central Pacific instead of SoPac, Allied lift capacity would be greatly reduced to reflect the losses incurred during passage to the Philipines and Japanese LBA would be reduced to reflect the attrition incurred as they attacked the USN battle fleet as it crossed the Central Pacific. End result is that the ability for either side ito project power is greatly diminished and the spearhead for all 1942 operations will be LCU's, DD's CA's and Transports.

Just a few of my crazy ideas, flame away

Gus

Yuk.......

From a grognard point of view, anyway. Get an X Box.

[gus]

Hi Ron,

The real question here is not whether or not you like my scenarios but whether or not a better UV editor would enhance this product. This is probably a more relevant discussion for WitP as I am sure it is too late in the game for UV but lets continue the discussion anyway with that in mind.

Scenario 19 was issued by Matrix after the initial release based on a desire by members of this forum for a more challenging scenario that the default campaign. If there is no need for a scenario editor why was it necessary to augment the original scenario mix? Better question is why couldn't the players do this themselves. The answers to these questions are that players do want to create their own scenarios but that the lack of a user friendly functional editor prevents them from doing so.

As for my scenario suggestions, I do not expect people to like them, they were simply posted as possibilities and I am sure there are many others that can be dreamed up that would be more to your liking. Simply disliking them is not a reason to say that there is no need for a better UV editor. Creating scenarios is very Darwinian in nature and those that are good at it rise above all others and generally create better ones than the game publishers/designers themselves IMO. So I am sure that given a better editor there are many on this forum, perhaps yourself, who could do infinitely better than my feeble suggestions.

Happy New Year

Gus

[XPav]

The UV editor is sub-optimal, and 2by3 had to hard code certain behaviors based on scenario number to get things to work right.

The scenario editor is really only useful for finding out the information that isn't presented in the game (like admiral ratings).

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by gus
Hi Ron,

The real question here is not whether or not you like my scenarios but whether or not a better UV editor would enhance this product. This is probably a more relevant discussion for WitP as I am sure it is too late in the game for UV but lets continue the discussion anyway with that in mind.

Scenario 19 was issued by Matrix after the initial release based on a desire by members of this forum for a more challenging scenario that the default campaign. If there is no need for a scenario editor why was it necessary to augment the original scenario mix? Better question is why couldn't the players do this themselves. The answers to these questions are that players do want to create their own scenarios but that the lack of a user friendly functional editor prevents them from doing so.

As for my scenario suggestions, I do not expect people to like them, they were simply posted as possibilities and I am sure there are many others that can be dreamed up that would be more to your liking. Simply disliking them is not a reason to say that there is no need for a better UV editor. Creating scenarios is very Darwinian in nature and those that are good at it rise above all others and generally create better ones than the game publishers/designers themselves IMO. So I am sure that given a better editor there are many on this forum, perhaps yourself, who could do infinitely better than my feeble suggestions.

Happy New Year

Gus

Hey, Gus. I was just being a knob.

[Sam-I-am]

Rob Roberson's idea of the "Big Guns Only" scenario. Remove all CV's and LBA except patrol a/c

Intriging;)


I for one enjoy playing the created scenarios.

I love the idea of "what if" in scenarios.

Thats why they call it history. You cant change what has allready happened but "what if";)

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by XPav
The UV editor is sub-optimal, and 2by3 had to hard code certain behaviors based on scenario number to get things to work right.

The scenario editor is really only useful for finding out the information that isn't presented in the game (like admiral ratings).

I think they said they hard coded data to avoid cheating by changing certain things like durability, manuverability and so on.

I think a data sum check might have alleviated such a problem, but then again I'm no programmer.

Reiryc

[crsutton]

I for one would love to see a 1940 scenario or 1939 with carriers being less dominating and carrying pre war planes. Some of them were pretty cool.

Why not?