UV 2.30 patch is now in test

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:28 am

Since we're talking (futile?) 11th hour requests.....

Any chance of having a look at making a last minute change to fighter sweeps to stop them sweeping twice per day (make it once only). The fatigue levels that squadrons carry into the second sweep don't quite make it worthwhile any more, given fatigue's influence on combat (as well as non-operational losses).

NAVMAN · Post by **NAVMAN** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:58 am

Drongo: I agree with you that sweeps, and for that matter, most other missions should only be flown once/day by the AI, although
in extreme circumstances, human controlled forces may want to launch multiple strikes in one day for specific units. I believe this situation took place at Guadalcanal, when a Japanese convoy was caught in the open and multiple strikes were flown. On a personal note, if I may, my father, who flew as a B-17 bombardier
with the 92BG(8th AF), related a story to me that after D-Day, he flew two(2) missions in one day to Belgium. I good time he said, was not had by all.

juliet7bravo · Post by **juliet7bravo** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:06 am

I think fighters flying twice a day was the reason given for not ID'ing most fighters as fighter/bombers, even though most fighters had bomb racks. Can you imagine the carnage if low durability fighters like Zero's were flying 2 bombing missions a day on a largish/high AA value USN TF, or a base like PM? You'd very quickly not have any fighters left at all.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:54 am

I guess we're talking about waypoints here. If only UV had them.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:55 am

Excuse me I was addressing a Mogami reply earlier on.

Hard Sarge · Post by **Hard Sarge** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:14 am

< G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective >

But extra effective if it hit the runway under the water line, nothing worse then a flooding runway

HARD_Sarge

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:33 am

Originally posted by Hard Sarge
< G4M Betty and G3M Nell use Type 91 Torpedoes normally. When given a land based target, they switch to bombs instead because dropping a torpedo on a runway would not really be very effective >

But extra effective if it hit the runway under the water line, nothing worse then a flooding runway

HARD_Sarge

Flooding runway = sinking carrier

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:54 am

Originally posted by NAVMAN
Joel: How does one contact Rich Dionne?

I've sent Rich a note asking him to check this forum and let you know how to reach him with OOB issues.

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:01 pm

Guys,

When it is working, you can send me a private message using the forum. You can also reach me at my e-mail address: tmflood@earthlink.net.

Regards,

Rich

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:22 am

Originally posted by Rich Dionne
Guys,

When it is working, you can send me a private message using the forum. You can also reach me at my e-mail address: tmflood@earthlink.net.

Regards,

Rich

Thanks Rich.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:23 am

Originally posted by Bax
Thank God! This one almost killed my enjoyment of the game.

WTG gents, this patch should leave only minuiate left to whine about....although you know we'll manage to find *something* that isn't perfect.

one possible snag that might reduce the impact of this change. Right now its fairly easy to boost up bomber EXP levels past 70 by continually bombing small ill defended land unts as a sort of target practice, then using it against harder moving targets )i.e. ships)

any thoughts to toning down exp gains via milk runs?

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:43 am

Originally posted by Nikademus
one possible snag that might reduce the impact of this change. Right now its fairly easy to boost up bomber EXP levels past 70 by continually bombing small ill defended land unts as a sort of target practice, then using it against harder moving targets )i.e. ships)

any thoughts to toning down exp gains via milk runs?

We think this will happen given the changes in the game. We won't know until more players play the game as to just how much harder it is to get the experience up, but we think it will be harder. Less hits by planes translates into less experience gain for pilots which translates into less hits, etc.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:12 am

Less hits by planes translates into less experience gain for pilots which translates into less hits, etc.

That could prove troublesome to new groups coming on line with experience levels in the 30's.

Need some kind of boost for them as even finding the airfield to land and landing the plane again is a major accomplishment at that skill level.

It's the old catch 22 in action, I can't live to bomb the target to gain experience so I can live to bomb the target

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:48 am

It should not be possible to gain experience by bombing unoccupied bases. The "training" air mission option is built into the UV system as the means whereby new pilots are brought to competent experience levels for commitment to combat.

All things considered, I think this may be wrong, anyway. Pilots on both sides committed to theater airgroups were not so incompetent as always being fated to making embarrassing, smoking black blemishes in the ground around the airfield. New IJN pilots in '42-'43 (probably the main subject of this discussion) were better than that when they arrived at their duty stations. Even they were not "Barney Fife." "Training" may enhance their experience to some minor degree, but not to the extent of making them into "seasoned" or "expert" pilots.

I think the worst pilots coming on board should be no worse than about 45 experience, with the possibility of "training" to, say, 55. After that, it's the crucible of fire, as far as I'm concerned.

Yamamoto · Post by **Yamamoto** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:30 am

Originally posted by pasternakski

I think the worst pilots coming on board should be no worse than about 45 experience,

While I hate my pilots in the teens as much as anyone, I must disagree with the worst pilots starting in the 45s. The scale is from 1-99 and I think it should stay that way. If not then you just have inflated the numbers.

What is the maximun that a pilot can train up to without flying? I thought it was somewhere around 50. After that I thought flying training missions would boost them up another 10 or so points. I don't think it's possible to gain anything from training after exp 60 or so. After that you have to start bombing/straffing empty bases.

Yamamoto

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:31 am

Originally posted by Yamamoto
While I hate my pilots in the teens as much as anyone, I must disagree with the worst pilots starting in the 45s. The scale is from 1-99 and I think it should stay that way. If not then you just have inflated the numbers.

What is the maximun that a pilot can train up to without flying? I thought it was somewhere around 50. After that I thought flying training missions would boost them up another 10 or so points. I don't think it's possible to gain anything from training after exp 60 or so. After that you have to start bombing/straffing empty bases.

Yamamoto

Yeah, I hate those teenage pilots, too (sorry, bad joke). The scale may be 1-99, but the real problem, as I see it, is that pilots under 40 or so are absolute imbeciles (daaah, let's see, dis here lever makes 'er go up - WHOOPS! - daaah, dat wasn't such a good idea).

Maybe I'm saying that pilots with experience in the teens and twenties shouldn't perform as badly as they do. In any event, I still think that the artifice of blasting the crap out of stray rocks sticking up out of the ocean to "train" yourself beyond what is possible in "training missions" (which, I would argue, are at least as advanced as blowing up coral formations) is nonsensical.

One way or the other, a change needs to be made. The pilots who arrived in the theater could at least fly, if not fight.

Yamamoto · Post by **Yamamoto** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:55 am

Yes, I think pilots with skill under 50 should perform as if they had a skill of fifty for purposes of operational losses. i.e. the chance of dying in training. Most of my low skill pilots died in training until I learned to set them at 0% training and found out that they still gained experience. Still, my operational losses are always about 2.5 to 3 times that of the AI.

Yamamoto

JohnK · Post by **JohnK** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:42 pm

Originally posted by Yamamoto
I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping your CV within 30 miles of the invasion.

Well, there's the little problem that NOBODY EVER DID SO In the Pacific War

(Fleet Carriers, that is, not Escort CVs on the US part).

Interestingly your proposed tactics you feel depressed that you will have to adapt because of this change are pretty much reality.

One interesting phenomenon I think we are beginning to see is that people have played SO much UV by now that it's become more real than the actual Pacific War

. I think it's happened with mines, with Argonaut, etc.

This is a sim and we constantly need to refer back to REALITY. If hardly any ships hit mines in the real Solomons campaign, we need to figure out why and implement it. If CVs stood off from invasions a great distance, we need to figure out why and implement it.

In some cases, it was a simple choice by the commanders at the time and players should be allowed to choose differently. But in MOST cases, there were physical limitations that forced the choice of the commanders of the time and really should force the choice of UV players.

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 7:27 pm

The UV 2.30 patch looks like it's taken into account as many of our criticisms as could possibly be expected, and they've gone beyond these to further improve the game. So I suggest we quit quibbling and game-on. We should save further criticisms for WITP patches.
I have a lot of irritations with UV, but we must realize that the progammers and designers are being very gracious in not only listening to us and responding to our posts, but they seem genuinely to be trying to implement our suggestions.
This comes from a guy who not only was scornful of many features of UV, but who also managed to insult some very talented progammers/designers a few months back. I had only to start playing the old Gary Grigsby "War in the Pacific" to realize how much work is being put into modernizing these wonderful old strategic games.
I'm not criticizing criticisms of UV 1.03, but aren't we getting a bit carried away (pun not intended) when we object that the reduction in CV air extends 30 miles from shore, when the computer model uses 30-mile hexes. Carriers do not operate well close to shore, for many reasons.
Again, on to WITP. And UV is still a great game to play -- even though I could go on and on about my personal gripes.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 7:58 pm

Originally posted by Nikademus
one possible snag that might reduce the impact of this change. Right now its fairly easy to boost up bomber EXP levels past 70 by continually bombing small ill defended land unts as a sort of target practice, then using it against harder moving targets )i.e. ships)

any thoughts to toning down exp gains via milk runs?

I don't agree with you on this point. I spent 10 years flying in P-3s and we had various training missions. Some of them were just taking off circling the airfield landing and taking off again (touch-n-go). Any time you spend in the air gains you some kind of experience. Take those milk runs for example. The crews gain coordination experience, navigation experience, bomb practice (against a real target), communications experience, flying in formation, etc. Also, during some of these flight things break and create emergency situations that the crew has to handle giving them emergency procedure experience. The list goes on.

Rick

UV 2.30 patch is now in test

Interesting....