How is UV v2.30 coming along?

derwho · Post by **derwho** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 12:59 pm

In practice this happens rarely for US, and NEVER (IME) for Japs. Why?

I generally only play the underdog (IJN) and I haven't had any problems with my TF's not reacting and crushing the enemy.

http://fun.from.hell.pl/2003-02-24/wrongbutton.jpg

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:15 pm

Hi all,

Oleg, not Just Joel, but Mike Wood (programmer) 100% confirmed that submarines
in all current UV versions didn't attack unless TF ended it's moving phase in
their HEX.

showthread.php?s=&threadid=30994

Only with upcoming UV v2.30 patch this is changed.

IMHO, this is _GREAT_ !!!

BTW, I also think that surface TF interception would be fabulous thing to be
added to UV (and WitP) but I guess they (Matrix/2By3) still have some problems
with that new feature regarding all current TF conditions and rules...

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S.
The house rule should be used in PBEM where players would _NOT_ use
carriers based aircraft when carriers (CV's and CVE's) are docked. This would
be addition to new UV v2.30 rule that halves carrier operations in land
HEXes (because of land proximity and carrier inability to steam into wind to
launch in all cases). IMHO, thsi is 100% accurate house rule that shoule be used
to avoid "cheating".

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 2:43 pm

Mr. Billings: You suggest using v2.30 "as a completely separate install." Are you saying it would be best to reinstall the original game and then upgrade with the patch right to v2.30? In other words, that we should not install 2.30 on top of (2.10, 2.20 and then) 2.22 patches that are currently applied to the cd-rom version?

Admiral DadMan · Post by **Admiral DadMan** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:26 pm

Originally posted by Leahi
Mr. Billings: You suggest using v2.30 "as a completely separate install." Are you saying it would be best to reinstall the original game and then upgrade with the patch right to v2.30? In other words, that we should not install 2.30 on top of (2.10, 2.20 and then) 2.22 patches that are currently applied to the cd-rom version?

WOW if that's the case, couldn't this be v 3.0 and the patch be cumulative?

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:46 pm

Leahi,

It sounded like Joel was sugesting that you maintain your old game structure to finish off any games you happen to be playing still and install a separate 2.30 version as the changes are rather massive in nature and will seriously mess up games already running in all likelihood.

I don't think he meant that the physical patch files would be any different then any other versions to apply. More a keep your old version around in case you need to go back to it for whatever reasons...

I would be not surprised if everyone is going to conceed or agree to a draw and end their current games just to get into the fun of all these changes

I know I'm just goofing around with "what if's?" until the patch releases, trying to pin down some of the exotic rules...

Yamamoto · Post by **Yamamoto** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:31 pm

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Leahi,

I would be not surprised if everyone is going to conceed or agree to a draw and end their current games just to get into the fun of all these changes

Since there aer no database changes the new version should work with existing games. It's always been that way in the past.

Yamamoto

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 10:41 pm

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Leahi,

It sounded like Joel was sugesting that you maintain your old game structure to finish off any games you happen to be playing still and install a separate 2.30 version as the changes are rather massive in nature and will seriously mess up games already running in all likelihood.

I don't think he meant that the physical patch files would be any different then any other versions to apply. More a keep your old version around in case you need to go back to it for whatever reasons...

I would be not surprised if everyone is going to conceed or agree to a draw and end their current games just to get into the fun of all these changes

I know I'm just goofing around with "what if's?" until the patch releases, trying to pin down some of the exotic rules...

Correct Mr. Frag. I was suggesting keeping to entirely separate versions of UV on your harddrive. Yes, the new 2.30 will be compatible with prior games (as far as I know), however, oddities are likely to result. Certain bug fixes will not take effect until you use the new scenario files, and other bugs may happen due to the unforeseen interactions between the new code fixes and old "bad data". More importantly, I assumed that some people will not want to change the "balance" of games they are already involved in. This is a personal preference of course, and I can understand the desire to be playing with the new version (I obviously think it is better than the old version).

I forgot to mention that there are some scenario file modifications, although I don't think any of them are major. I will list them here.

Uncommon Valor OOB Changes:

1) Corrected aircraft 94 designation from “Spitfire Vb” to “Spitfire Vc”, and aircraft 95 designation from “Spitfire IX” to “Spitfire VIII”.
2) In scenario 10 and 11, corrected the 8th BS aircraft from A-24 to A-20G.
3) In August 42 scenarios, corrected Saratoga fighter aircraft complement from 21 x F4F-3 to 36 x F4F-4. Changed TBD’s to TBF’s.
4) Increased Yorktown class max speed from 32 to 33 knots.
5) Changed commander of 7th Fleet from Kinkaid to Carpender.
6) Corrected ship 1379 name from “Tappahanock” to “Tappahannock”.
7) Modified delay / location of VMF-212 (783). In May 42 scenarios this airgroup should be flying F4F-3’s and have a delay value of 11 days. In scenarios starting after May 42 and before November 42 this airgroup is located at Noumea flying F4F-3’s. After November 42 this airgroup is not available.
8) Modified delay / location of VMF-121 (784). In scenarios starting before August 42, this group should be set to arrive on about 1 August 42. In scenarios starting August 42 to October 42 this group is located at Noumea flying F4F-4’s.
9) Changed delay / arrival date of ship Warramunga (1292). In scenarios ending before 20 Nov 42 it should be unavailable. In scenarios starting before 20 Nov 42, it should have a delay value giving an availability date around 20 Nov 42.
10) Modified Brooklyn (118) and St. Louis (119) ship classes radar type from SC to SG.
11) Modified Benham ship class (156) torpedo allotment from 16 to 8, added Mk 6 depth charge, and SC radar.
12) Modified ships of class Brooklyn (118) and St. Louis (119) radar type (St. Louis, Helena, Phoenix, Nashville, Boise, Honolulu) from SC to SG.
13) Modified ships (Benham, Ellet, Lang, Stack, Sterett, Wilson, McCall, Maury) of Benham ship class (156) torpedo allotment from 16 to 8, added Mk 6 depth charge, and SC radar.
14) Modified I 121 class and submarines (I 121, 122, 123). Added 42 x Type 88 mines.
15) Modified delay (relative to 1 May 42) of DD Hutchins (1175) from 30 to 210.
16) Corrected spelling of DD Hatsushima (168) to Hatsushimo.
17) General update of USN submarines in database. Removed from database submarines that didn’t serve in South Pacific theatre, and added to database submarines that did. Added additional historical submarine commanders and submarine patrol TF’s.
18) Removed erroneous data from # of devices 1 in base locations.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 11:13 pm

Modified I 121 class and submarines (I 121, 122, 123). Added 42 x Type 88 mines.

Oh oh

I know where they will by parked ...

Interesting question that just came to mind:

I generally use a Sub mine TF with multiple subs located in it due to the low number of mines...will these subs (ie: a Transport or Mine Warfare sub TF) be subject to the new sub rules about stacking since they are NOT on patrol missions or will subs be permanent loaners no matter what the mission type is set to?

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:15 am

Thanks Mr. Billings and Mr. Frag for your responses. If I understand correctly, I will simply apply the 2.30 patch on top of my existing patched program, though it will be best not to continue old games with the new patched version of the program. (Did I get that right?)

BTW, I too am holding off starting a new campaign until the new patch is out. Looks **great**. Thanks to the Martix/2by3 gang for your hard work and responsiveness.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:35 am

Leahi,

dead on right ... too many unpredictable things can happen, coupled with things that required database changes not registering ... The database is only read once, to start the scenario so you'll miss out on any of the database type changes, which could lead to other strange results, and personally, I'd hate to play Japan with their best AA gun disabled and miss out on those tasty new sub minelayers.

I would suggest you play with the very short Coral Sea scenario while you wait, as it really is the first 15 turns of any of the longer scenarios and is a great training ground for how things work right now...Hopefully you can learn how to keep your CV's afloat while we wait for the patch

Point Luck · Post by **Point Luck** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:42 am

Question

Will the new patch work with already established custom scenarios? Included upgrades etc.

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 9:44 am

Thanks again for the advice, Mr. Frag. But I must say that I'm more concerned about the enemy keeping **his** CV's afloat. I just ended a campaign (US vs. AI Japan, standard settings) in early '43 after sinking 5 IJN CV's, 3 IJN CVL's, and 3 IJN BB's, while losing just 1 USN CV and 1 USN BB.

The other BB I returned to Pearl Harbor for repairs, but never got back. So I was left with 5 CV's and 3 CVE's, plus Guadalcanal, Gili-Gili and Buna, but no BB's to support further invasions. The info screen indicated no likelihood of imment release of major ships, despite many BB's at Pearl Harbor, so I knocked off, about 3000 points up. (I did read the post that suggest sending some AK's and AP's back to PH might help release some of those BB's; but knowing the new patch is coming I just decided to wait.)

My previous campaign had a similar outcome, so I'm hoping the new patch will make the AI a better competitor. I hope, too, that the ship-release logic will have changed somewhat, as another player also recently expressed some frustration in this regard. But it may be that reducing allied medium bomber effectiveness against Japanese ships -- at least early on -- will help play balance. If not, I'll just try the campaign variant that has Russia in trouble, releasing more Japanese forces for the Pacific.

At any rate, I'm very grateful for the changes already being made, and looking forward to WiTP, so I'm not asking for any further changes in UV beyond the immenent 2.30 patch. I'm betting WiTP is going to be very, very good and keep me quite challenged.

Thanks again. Good gaming....

CapAndGown · Post by **CapAndGown** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:04 am

If you want play balance, then try PBEM. Even with the new patch, the USN will still be able to kick Jap butt, but at least against a human there is always the possibility that they will out play you. That will never be the case, NEVER, with the AI.

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:09 am

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
If you want play balance, then try PBEM. Even with the new patch, the USN will still be able to kick Jap butt, but at least against a human there is always the possibility that they will out play you. That will never be the case, NEVER, with the AI.

Thanks, Cap and Gown. But isn't PBEM awfully slow? Plus I'm in a time-zone 5 hours away from EDT, 6 from EST. Wouldn't that create additional delays?

Anyway, sorry to hear the AI will not be able to provide a good opponent. Especially since that suggests I'm not a military genius after all....

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:31 am

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Oh oh I know where they will by parked ...

Interesting question that just came to mind:

I generally use a Sub mine TF with multiple subs located in it due to the low number of mines...will these subs (ie: a Transport or Mine Warfare sub TF) be subject to the new sub rules about stacking since they are NOT on patrol missions or will subs be permanent loaners no matter what the mission type is set to?

Gary says all sub missions are counted for the stacking penalty.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:36 am

Originally posted by Leahi
Thanks, Cap and Gown. But isn't PBEM awfully slow? Plus I'm in a time-zone 5 hours away from EDT, 6 from EST. Wouldn't that create additional delays?

Anyway, sorry to hear the AI will not be able to provide a good opponent. Especially since that suggests I'm not a military genius after all....

AI can challenge you early, but gets overwhemled as the game progresses.

And Cap & Gown is right.

And the excitement and challenge of PBEM MORE than make up for the pace. I have a game that goes 1-2 turns a day, and it is a good, tight game through DEC 42. It has provided months of enjoyment and challenge. And my opponent is in France with me in California. Works out well. I return a turn in the morning and at night.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:49 am

Anyway, sorry to hear the AI will not be able to provide a good opponent. Especially since that suggests I'm not a military genius after all....

Since the bomber changes only apply against the level bombers (not the torpedo boys), this should give Japan a slightly better advantage at staying afloat and keeping the Allied navy in it's proper place

The AI is not all that bad, it just has a limited set of objectives in mind, and gets stuck in a rut a bit. If you find yourself smacking it around something fierce, try and remember that the Allied player has a huge advantage in ships and troops and planes as the game progresses which is difficult even for a human player to be able to counter (hence the Jan 1st auto victory rules). Have a go at playing Japan, you'll find it much more fun playing the underdog and trying to do better then history with the odds stacked against you. I always play the underdog for that very reason as it is always more rewarding to turn history on it's ear

Playing the Allies you pretty much know that all you have to do is sit back and wait until you automatically win the game against the AI ...

You can also kick up the skill level a notch and find out just how rough the AI treats you then. I was quite shocked to find 3-4 Zeros eat through a squadron of F4F-4's like they were made of rice paper. On Very Hard, you'll find the AI will wipe you off the map in no time at all so there is certainly enough challenge built into the various skill levels. You can also adjust the commitment levels to help out the AI by cranking the computer up to 200% while cutting yourself back to 70% ... Lots of options and as you said, UV while being a great game in it's own right is just a set of training wheels for WitP

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:49 am

Thanks, Denisohn. By the way, was that marathon Civil War debate ever concluded? I'm afraid to go back and look. You made some good points, IMHO.

Leahi · Post by **Leahi** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:54 am

Good suggestion, Mr. Frag. Thanks. I remember playing the Japanese side back in Gary Grigsby's old War in the South Pacific game, and it was fun. May try that while waiting for WiTP.

I was reluctant to change the AI difficulty because Joel Billings once seemed to confess that the computer does cheat at higher levels. I just wanted it play smarter -- not cheat me. Swapping sides may be the best solution. Thanks.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:00 am

Gary says all sub missions are counted for the stacking penalty.

Thanks Joel, as always with the blazing quick replies.

Well, they didn't call them the silent service for nothing, poor lonely subs it will be ... gonna be lined up for parade duty now.

Now you need to convince Gary that he needs to adjust the follow command with the follow but one hex behind command, so we can string them together in a chain and only have to give orders to the first link