Why do YOU like UV?

[msaario]

I let the other guys worry about the flak and stuff... It's great that we have these dudes working out the details...

I just love to play this game. It is simply absorbing. Once I have finished (i.e. doing mop-up) a game, I will restart on the other side. The setting is great. The map is beautiful. There is a lot of stuff to do.

The game plays smoothly, like all GG games. The UI is mostly intuitive and works very well (except for that annoying "double-click" bug that's been plaguing the game since the start - does no-one else really have the same problem????).

There are some stupid bugs and features (Micro$oft speak) still. I have never understood why ships arrive with 0 sys damage after the long voyage from Pearl or Japan... why do reinforcements arrive at Noumea / Brisbane even though I have jap CVs and planes nearby... and so on.

"Simply the Best".

--Mikko

[demonterico]

I've been a wargamer for over 25 years now and have played in all different types of games, ie: computers, miniatures, boardgames, ect, and in just about every time period there is, and I have yet to see one that is a perfect model of reality. After all a rules writer or a code writer is faced with the dilemma of interperting reality, and no two people see it quite the same. These types of arguments are as old as the hobby itself.

I know for a fact that there are well know and much played wargames out there where the writer has made arbitary decisions that go against the historical model because the writer felt it improved the playability of the game. For example I could name a very well known set of Napolionic miniatures rules where the writer cut the historical effect of the artillery in half simply because he felt that the artillery at its historical effect was too dominant in the game. Was the decision right or wrong? Who knows, but I did like playing those rules.

So whats my point befor I babble off into never-never land. There are four factors I consider when evaluating a game;
1) Is it interesting. 2) Is it challenging. 3) Does it provide a reasonably decent model of history. ( No future or fantasy stuff for me. Not that I have anything against it, its just not my cup of tea.) Last and foremost, 4) Is it fun. From me UV gets high marks in all 4 catagories. In fact I like UV so much I like to know when I can perorder my copy of WITP. I'm ready to plunk down my $$$ right now.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I didnt say it was disputed. I said it was ARBITRARY.

What's wrong with arbitrary?
Is it about right? Does it produce the correct effect?

I do not think that it would necessarily stand up to a full operational analysis of TF layout, ballistics, or real time simulator assessment, because the answer might be 16 ships...or 12 ships, or 15.3, unless the attack is from up sun, in which case it should be 8, except ships of the Impossible class, which count double because the AA control positions had Raybans! Also, before you quote ideal TF layouts, are all the ships in correct position? Are all ships fully worked up, where are the clouds, and the sun...
The point is: it is about right (IMHO), and prevents a known silly from PACWAR where you could make TF invulnerable to air attack with massive AAA

What is your solution?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
What's wrong with arbitrary?
Is it about right? Does it produce the correct effect?

I do not think that it would necessarily stand up to a full operational analysis of TF layout, ballistics, or real time simulator assessment, because the answer might be 16 ships...or 12 ships, or 15.3, unless the attack is from up sun, in which case it should be 8, except ships of the Impossible class, which count double because the AA control positions had Raybans! Also, before you quote ideal TF layouts, are all the ships in correct position? Are all ships fully worked up, where are the clouds, and the sun...
The point is: it is about right (IMHO), and prevents a known silly from PACWAR where you could make TF invulnerable to air attack with massive AAA

What is your solution?

First the layout of a TF for Surface Combat is different than
one for CV. When you repeatedly get ahistoric results
you have to suspect something is wrong.

[Snigbert]

That is why there are multiple types of task forces. You dont put a surface combat task force together and expect them to be in an air combat formation, for example.